[Senate Report 105-216]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 414
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

  2d Session                                                    105-216
_______________________________________________________________________


 
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1999

                                _______
                                

                 June 12, 1998.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2168]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2168) 
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, 1999, 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.................... $93,331,942,030
Amount of appropriations to date, 1998..................  88,392,163,000
Amount of budget estimates, 1999........................  94,081,470,705
    Under estimates for 1999............................     749,528,675
    Above appropriations for 1998.......................   4,939,779,030


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs..........................     6
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development............    27
Title III--Independent agencies:
    American Battle Monuments Commission.........................    54
    Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board...............    54
    Department of the Treasury: Community development financial 
      institutions...............................................    55
    Consumer Product Safety Commission...........................    55
    Corporation for National and Community Service...............    57
    U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals...............................    58
    Department of Defense--Civil: Cemeterial expenses, Army......    58
    Environmental Protection Agency..............................    59
    Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and 
      Technology Policy..........................................    84
    Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental 
      Quality....................................................    84
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector 
      General....................................................    85
    Federal Emergency Management Agency..........................    85
    General Services Administration: Consumer Information Center.    95
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration................    96
    National Credit Union Administration.........................   110
    National Science Foundation..................................   111
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................   118
    Selective Service System.....................................   119
Title IV--General provisions.....................................   120

                              INTRODUCTION

    The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1999 provides a total of $93,331,942,030 including 
approximately $23,000,000,000 in mandatory spending. The 
subcommittee allocation was approximately $750,000,000 below 
the President's request in budget authority. In addition, there 
were some significant shortfalls in the President's budget 
which the Committee was forced to restore. The Committee did 
its best to meet important priorities within the bill, with the 
highest priority given to veterans programs and elderly 
housing. Other priorities included maintaining environmental 
programs at or above current year levels, ensuring adequate 
funds for our Nation's space and scientific research programs, 
and providing adequate funding for disaster relief. The 
subcommittee also met the commitment to provide the necessary 
funding to cover all expiring section 8 contracts.
    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, within the constraints imposed by a very tight 
budget allocation, including constraints dictated by the budget 
agreement designed to result in a unified Federal budget in 
fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee recommendation provides $19,180,265,000 in 
discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
an increase of $270,193,000 above the enacted level and 
$372,623,000 above the budget request. The Committee has made 
veterans programs the highest priority in the bill. Increases 
in VA programs include $222,025,000 above the budget request 
for medical care, $10,000,000 above the request for research, 
$53,000,000 above the request for the State home program, and 
$79,300,000 above the request for other construction programs.
    For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
Committee recommendation totals $24,102,118,030, an increase of 
$2,657,553,030 over the fiscal year 1998 level. The Committee 
has provided fair funding for all HUD programs while providing 
the needed funding for all expiring section 8 contracts. In 
addition, the Committee fulfilled a commitment made to the 
elderly by more than fully funding the section 202 elderly 
housing program at $676,000,000, an increase of $31,000,000 
over the fiscal year 1998 level and an increase of $576,000,000 
over the President's request of $109,000,000.
    In addition, at the direction of the Senate and House VA, 
HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees, GAO 
conducted a budget scrub of the HUD section 8 accounts. Based 
on the GAO budget scrub and after discussions with HUD, the 
Committee determined that the budget request for section 8 
contract amendments for fiscal year 1999 is unnecessary, thus 
saving some $1,300,000,000, resulting in a HUD budget which is 
greater than the President's request for HUD. Further, based on 
the GAO analysis, the Committee rescinded $1,400,000,000 in 
excess of section 8 project-based assistance.
    For the Environmental Protection Agency, the Committee 
recommendation totals $7,413,062,000, an increase of 
$50,016,000 over the enacted level and a decrease of 
$382,213,000 below the budget request. The Committee has made a 
priority of environmental programs, as all EPA programs have 
been funded at or above the enacted level. Major changes from 
the President's request include an increase of $350,000,000 for 
State revolving funds and a decrease of $600,000,000 below the 
request for Superfund owing to the many concerns with this 
program and its lack of authorization. Despite significant 
budget constraints, the Committee recommends a total of 
$123,000,000 for the clean water action plan, approximately 80 
percent of the President's request for this new initiative. The 
Committee strongly supports activities associated with 
controlling nonpoint sources of water pollution and supports 
the clean water action plan emphasis on a watershed approach 
and interagency coordination.
    The Committee recommendation includes $1,354,195,000 for 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including $846,000,000 
for disaster relief. The amount provided for disaster relief is 
less than the full amount requested, but is sufficient to meet 
anticipated fiscal year 1999 obligations. Most other FEMA 
programs are held at current year levels.
    The Committee recommendation for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration totals $13,615,000,000. This amount is 
$150,000,000 above the President's request. The Committee has 
recommended an additional $50,000,000 for space science 
activities, $25,000,000 for Earth science activities, 
$30,000,000 for academic programs, $15,000,000 for mission 
support, and $30,000,000 for the international space station. 
The Committee continues to be troubled by the escalating cost 
pressure from the international space station and the effect it 
has on other NASA activities, particularly science and 
aeronautics activities. Accordingly, the Committee 
recommendation includes a restructuring of NASA's appropriation 
accounts to ensure greater accountability of the international 
space station program and to protect other vital NASA programs.
    For the National Science Foundation, the Committee 
recommendation totals $3,644,150,000, an increase of 
$215,150,000 above the 1998 level. The Committee views NSF as 
an investment in the future and this funding is intended to 
reaffirm the strong and longstanding support of this Committee 
to scientific research and education.

              Reprogramming and Initiation of New Programs

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

                 Government Performance and Results Act

    The Committee remains very concerned regarding the 
compliance of the major agencies within the jurisdiction of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies with regard to the Government Performance and Results 
Act [GPRA]. While each agency has made some effort toward 
compliance with GPRA, each has provided only a partial picture 
of its intended performance across the agency as opposed to 
actual performance. Each agency must do better at providing 
objective, measurable goals for all program activities and 
projects, and each budget justification must tie these goals 
into a coherent set of funding requests.

                       Year 2000 Computer Problem

    The Committee recognizes that the year 2000 computer 
problem poses a tremendous burden and challenge to the Federal 
Government as well as all other aspects of public and private 
activity. The Committee, therefore, directs all Federal 
agencies and departments, in addition to all existing 
requirements, to include in each operating plan for each agency 
and Department under the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Subcommittee a plan for addressing the year 2000 
computer problem. This plan must include a status report of the 
year 2000 computer problem for each agency, a schedule for 
addressing the problem, an identification of all anticipated 
costs and where these costs are to be paid from, and a review 
of the impact on all the activities and programs of the agency. 
No operating plan will be approved without this plan.

                TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Appropriations, 1998

                                                         $40,976,799,000

Budget estimate, 1999

                                                          42,149,737,000
Committee recommendation
                                                          42,522,360,000

                          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 System, and staff offices.
    The Veterans Health Administration develops, maintains, and 
operates a national health care delivery system for eligible 
veterans; carries out a program of education and training of 
health care personnel; carries out a program of medical 
research and development; and furnishes health services to 
members of the Armed Forces during periods of war or national 
emergency. A system of 172 medical centers, 673 outpatient 
clinics, 134 nursing homes, and 40 domiciliaries is maintained 
to meet the VA's medical mission.
    The Veterans Benefits Administration provides an integrated 
program of nonmedical veteran benefits. This Administration 
administers a broad range of benefits to veterans and other 
eligible beneficiaries through 58 regional offices and the 
records processing center in St. Louis, MO. The benefits 
provided include: compensation for service-connected 
disabilities; pensions for wartime, needy, and totally disabled 
veterans; vocational rehabilitation assistance; educational and 
training assistance; home buying assistance; estate protection 
services for veterans under legal disability; information and 
assistance through personalized contacts; and six life 
insurance programs.
    The National Cemetery System provides for the interment in 
any national cemetery with available grave space the remains of 
eligible deceased servicepersons and discharged veterans; 
permanently maintains these graves; marks graves of eligible 
persons in national and private cemeteries; and administers the 
grant program for aid to States in establishing, expanding, or 
improving State veterans' cemeteries. The National Cemetery 
System includes 149 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 Director of the National Cemetery System.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $42,522,360,000 for the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, including $23,342,095,000 in mandatory 
spending and $19,180,265,000 in discretionary spending. The 
amount provided for discretionary activities represents an 
increase of $372,623,000 above the budget request and 
$270,193,000 above the enacted level.
    The Committee's recommendation includes a number of 
important increases, principally $222,025,000 above the 
President's request for medical care, $53,000,000 above the 
request for the State Home Construction Grant Program, and 
$79,300,000 for the major and minor construction programs. In 
addition, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of 
$10,000,000 above the request for VA research. The Committee 
strongly believes providing high-quality health care services 
and other benefits to our Nation's veterans is the highest 
priority in this legislation. Therefore, significant increases 
have been recommended notwithstanding budgetary constraints 
imposed by the subcommittee allocation.
    The Committee is pleased with the progress within the 
Veterans Health Administration in reorganizing, improving 
quality of health care and cost effectiveness, and becoming 
more veteran focused. While additional improvements are needed 
in such areas as cost recovery, the Committee acknowledges the 
significant progress which has been accomplished over the past 
few years within VHA. On the benefits side, however, much work 
remains to be accomplished to improve service delivery to 
veterans. The Committee intends to monitor closely the Veterans 
Benefits Administration's actions to improve quality and 
timeliness of decisionmaking and customer satisfaction, through 
such initiatives as field office restructuring, business 
process reengineering, information technology activities, and 
ensuring management is held accountable for performance.
    The Committee notes VA generally complied with requirements 
of the Government Performance and Results Act in its first 
submission of a performance plan. The Committee is pleased that 
the Veterans Health Administration has over the past several 
years reoriented its activities with a focus on outcomes, 
including the use of performance agreements with network 
directors and the use of results-oriented measures to assess 
progress. VHA offers a strong model for Departmentwide GPRA 
efforts.
    VA still has much to do, however, in developing results-
oriented performance measures, mainly in the nonmedical 
benefits area. GAO has noted several challenges VA faces as it 
refines its annual performance plan in future years, including 
improving the linkage between VA's performance goals and 
measures and the program activities in VA's budget accounts and 
improving VA's ability to obtain valid and reliable performance 
and cost data needed to measure VA's progress in achieving 
performance goals, through improvements in VA's financial and 
information systems. The Committee expects to monitor closely 
VA's progress in these areas, and anticipates that GPRA 
implementation will result in meaningful improvements to VA's 
service to veterans.
    The Committee notes VA has identified a total of 
$95,900,000 in year 2000 requirements for fiscal year 1999, 
including such critical areas as biomedical equipment. The 
Committee is pleased that, according to a recent Booz-Allen 
review of VA's year 2000 activities, VA is on track to resolve 
year 2000 problems. Booz-Allen found no direct or immediate 
risks to veteran health care delivery or benefits. The 
Committee expects VA will ensure all year 2000 requirements are 
fully addressed.

                    Veterans Benefits Administration

                       compensation and pensions

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1998

                                                         $20,482,997,000

Budget estimate, 1999

                                                          21,857,058,000
Committee recommendation
                                                          21,857,058,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has provided $21,857,058,000 for compensation 
and pensions. This is an increase of $1,374,061,000 over the 
current budget and the same as the budget estimate.
    The estimated caseload and cost by program follows:

                                            COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             1998                1999             Difference    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:                                                                                                       
    Compensation:                                                                                               
        Veterans....................................          2,283,761           2,361,862             +78,101 
        Survivors...................................            304,683             305,438                +755 
        Children....................................              2,000               2,000   ..................
        (Clothing allowance)........................            (74,384)            (75,252)              (-868)
    Pensions:                                                                                                   
        Veterans....................................            398,802             390,063              -8,739 
        Survivors...................................            300,029             282,984             -17,045 
        Minimum income for widows (nonadd)..........               (397)               (782)              (-385)
        Vocational training (nonadd)................                (85)  ..................               (+85)
    Burial allowances...............................             97,300              92,400              -4,900 
                                                     ===========================================================
Funds:                                                                                                          
    Compensation:                                                                                               
        Veterans....................................    $14,052,014,000     $15,270,428,000     +$1,218,414,000 
        Survivors...................................      3,298,467,000       3,313,334,000         +14,867,000 
        Children....................................         21,488,000          21,700,000            +212,000 
        Clothing allowance..........................         39,308,000          39,767,000            +459,000 
    Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and 102-568)          1,460,000           1,472,000             +12,000 
    Medical exams pilot program.....................          7,953,000          16,700,000          +8,747,000 
Pensions:                                                                                                       
    Veterans........................................      2,306,876,000       2,326,838,000         +19,962,000 
    Survivors.......................................        743,426,000         720,712,000         -22,714,000 
    Minimum income for widows.......................          2,812,000           5,668,000          +2,856,000 
Vocational training.................................            234,000   ..................           -234,000 
Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-568, and                                                               
 103-446)...........................................          9,824,000           9,905,000             +81,000 
Payment to Medical Care (Public Laws 101-508 and 102-                                                           
 568)...............................................         15,088,000          13,157,000          -1,931,000 
Payment to Medical Facilities.......................  ..................  ..................  ..................
Burial benefits.....................................        131,310,000         121,045,000         -10,265,000 
Other assistance....................................          1,994,000           2,000,000              +6,000 
Contingency.........................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
Unobligated balance and transfers...................       -149,257,000          -5,668,000        +143,589,000 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation...........................     20,482,997,000      21,857,058,000      +1,374,061,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The appropriation includes $24,534,000 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, and the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994. 
The amount provided includes funds for a projected 1999 cost-
of-living increase of 2.2 percent for pension recipients.
    Also, the bill includes language permitting this 
appropriation to reimburse such sums as may be necessary, 
estimated at $2,322,000, to the medical facilities revolving 
fund to help defray the operating expenses of individual 
medical facilities for nursing home care provided to 
pensioners, should authorizing legislation be enacted.
    The Committee has not included language proposed by the 
administration that would provide indefinite 1999 supplemental 
appropriations after June 30, 1999 for compensation and 
pensions. The Committee has also rejected proposed bill 
language to split this account into three separate 
appropriation accounts.

                         readjustment benefits

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $1,366,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   1,175,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,175,000,000

                          program description

    The readjustment benefits appropriation finances the 
education and training of veterans and servicepersons whose 
initial entry on active duty took place on or after July 1, 
1985. These benefits are included in the All-Volunteer Force 
Educational Assistance Program (Montgomery GI bill) authorized 
under 38 U.S.C. 30. Eligibility to receive this assistance 
began in 1987. Basic benefits are funded through appropriations 
made to the readjustment benefits appropriation and transfers 
from the Department of Defense. Supplemental benefits are also 
provided to certain veterans and this funding is available from 
transfers from the Department of Defense. This account also 
finances vocational rehabilitation, specially adapted housing 
grants, automobile grants with the associated approved adaptive 
equipment for certain disabled veterans, and finances 
educational assistance allowances for eligible dependents of 
those veterans who died from service-connected causes or have a 
total permanent service-connected disability as well as 
dependents of servicepersons who were captured or missing in 
action.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has recommended the budget estimate of 
$1,175,000,000 for readjustment benefits. The amount 
recommended is a decrease of $191,000,000 below the enacted 
level.
    The estimated caseload and cost for this account follows:

                                              READJUSTMENT BENEFITS                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                1998               1999            Difference   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:                                                                                             
    Education and training: Dependents.................            42,253             43,043               +790 
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:                                                                 
        Veterans and servicepersons....................           308,000            309,900             +1,900 
        Reservists.....................................            76,800             76,400               -400 
    Vocational rehabilitation..........................            53,269             52,190             -1,079 
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................           480,322            481,533             -1,211 
                                                        ========================================================
Funds:                                                                                                          
    Education and training: Dependents.................      $106,617,000       $108,530,000        +$1,913,000 
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:                                                                 
        Veterans and servicepersons....................       807,533,000        816,798,000         +9,265,000 
        Reservists.....................................        91,226,000        100,737,000         +9,511,000 
    Vocational rehabilitation..........................       402,767,000        402,907,000           +140,000 
    Housing grants.....................................        14,723,000         14,723,000   .................
    Automobiles and other conveyances..................         4,660,000          4,660,000   .................
    Adaptive equipment.................................        22,100,000         21,500,000           -600,000 
    Work-study.........................................        31,974,000         31,078,000           -896,000 
    Payment to States..................................        13,000,000         13,000,000   .................
    Jobs training (Public Law 102-484).................  .................  .................  .................
    Unobligated balance and other adjustments..........      -128,600,000       -338,933,000       -210,333,000 
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total appropriation............................     1,366,000,000      1,175,000,000       -191,000,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   veterans insurance and indemnities

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $51,360,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      46,450,000
Committee recommendation................................      46,450,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has provided $46,450,000 for veterans 
insurance and indemnities, as requested by the administration. 
This is a decrease of $4,910,000 below the current budget. The 
Department estimates there will be 4,740,794 policies in force 
in fiscal year 1999 with a total value of $487,822,000,000.

                 VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Administrative
                                        Program account      expenses   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998..................     $166,370,000     $160,437,000
Budget estimate, 1999.................      263,587,000      159,121,000
Committee recommendation..............      263,587,000      159,121,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides for all costs, with the 
exception of the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program, 
of VA's direct and guaranteed loans, as well as the 
administrative expenses to carry out the direct and guaranteed 
loans programs, which may be transferred to and merged with the 
general operating expenses appropriation.
    The purpose of the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program is to 
facilitate the extension of mortgage credit on favorable terms 
by private lenders to eligible veterans. This account 
represents a new fund established last year to consolidate the 
guaranty and indemnity fund, loan guaranty fund, and direct 
loan fund. This consolidation merges 11 accounts into 4 
accounts under the new veterans housing benefit program fund 
[VHBPF] to achieve administrative efficiencies. All 
appropriations and income formerly received from the old 
accounts will be deposited in this new fund. No program or 
scoring changes result as an effect of this presentation.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends such sums as may be necessary for 
funding subsidy payments, estimated to total $263,587,000, and 
$159,121,000 for administrative expenses. The administrative 
expenses may be transferred to the ``General operating 
expenses'' account. Bill language authorizes not to exceed 
$300,000 in gross obligations for direct loans for specially 
adapted housing loans.

                      education loan fund program

                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998....................          $1,000        $200,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................           1,000         206,000
Committee recommendation................           1,000         206,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 bill includes $1,000 for program costs and $206,000 for 
administrative expenses. The administrative expenses may be 
transferred to and merged with the ``General operating 
expenses'' account. Bill language is included limiting program 
direct loans to $3,000.

                 vocational rehabilitation loan program

                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998....................         $44,000        $388,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................          55,000         400,000
Committee recommendation................          55,000         400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

    This appropriation covers the 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 $830.90 
(based on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are 
available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in 
vocational rehabilitation programs as provided under 38 U.S.C. 
chapter 31 when the veteran is temporarily in need of 
additional assistance. Repayment is made in 10 monthly 
installments, without interest, through deductions from future 
payments of compensation, pension, subsistence allowance, 
educational assistance allowance, or retirement pay.

                        committee recommendation

    The bill includes the requested $55,000 for program costs 
and $400,000 for administrative expenses for the Vocational 
Rehabilitation Loan Program. The administrative expenses may be 
transferred to and merged with the ``General operating 
expenses'' account. Bill language is included limiting program 
direct loans to $2,401,000. It is estimated that VA will make 
4,900 loans in fiscal year 1999, with an average amount of 
$490.

              native american veteran housing loan program

                     (including transfer of funds)

                                                          Administrative
                                                                expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................        $515,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         515,000
Committee recommendation................................         515,000

                          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, 2001. Subsidy amounts necessary to 
support this program were appropriated in fiscal year 1993.

                        committee recommendation

    The bill includes the budget estimate of $515,000 for 
administrative expenses associated with this program in fiscal 
year 1999. These funds may be transferred to the ``General 
operating expenses'' account.

                     Veterans Health Administration

                              MEDICAL CARE

Appropriations, 1998.................................... $17,057,396,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................  17,027,975,000
Committee recommendation................................  17,250,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates the 
largest Federal medical care delivery system in the country, 
with 172 hospitals, 40 domiciliaries, 134 nursing homes, and 
673 outpatient clinics which includes independent, satellite, 
community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
    This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment 
of eligible beneficiaries in VA hospitals, nursing homes, 
domiciliaries, and outpatient clinic facilities; contract 
hospitals; State home facilities on a grant basis; contract 
community nursing homes; and through the hometown outpatient 
program, on a fee basis. Hospital and outpatient care also are 
provided for certain dependents and survivors of veterans under 
the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the VA [CHAMPVA]. 
The medical care appropriation also provides for training of 
medical residents and interns and other professional 
paramedical and administrative personnel in health science 
fields to support the Department's and the Nation's health 
manpower demands.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $17,250,000,000 for VA medical 
care, an increase of $222,025,000 over the budget request and 
$192,604,000 above the enacted level. In addition, VA has 
authority to retain third-party collections, estimated by the 
Department to total $677,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. 
Therefore, the Committee's recommendation represents total 
discretionary resources for medical care of $17,927,000,000.
    The Committee commends VA's efforts in support of its 30-
20-10 goal--a 30-percent reduction in per-patient costs, a 20-
percent increase in the number of veterans served, and 10 
percent of the medical care budget from nonappropriated 
revenues by the year 2002 relative to the baseline year 1997. 
VA has made significant progress in the past year in reducing 
per-patient costs and has also increased the number of veterans 
receiving care in the VA above original estimates. However, 
VA's efforts to increase funds from alternative revenue sources 
have not been as successful. In particular, VA has fallen 
behind its estimates in the collection of funds from third-
party payers. VA is to implement aggressively all 
recommendations from the General Accounting Office and the 
Coopers & Lybrand MCCR national study to improve its 
collections efforts to ensure collections targets are met or 
exceeded.
    In addition, the Department has not received legislative 
authority for seeking reimbursement from Medicare for certain 
Medicare-eligible veterans. Achievement of the goal to increase 
alternative revenue sources is heavily dependent on enactment 
of Medicare subvention authority. VA has underutilized capacity 
that will allow the treatment of additional veterans who are 
Medicare-eligible at marginal cost. The Committee urges the 
committees of jurisdiction to act expeditiously to provide this 
authority.
    The Committee continues to support VA's veterans equitable 
resource allocation system [VERA]. Price Waterhouse recently 
completed a review of VERA and found that the system equitably 
distributes funds across networks, focuses funding on the 
highest priority veterans, and addresses veterans' special 
health care needs. Price Waterhouse also found, however, that 
some adjustments to the VERA system may be warranted including 
strengthening data accuracy and accountability. VA is to keep 
the Committee apprised of its plans and progress in 
implementing the Price Waterhouse recommendations.
    The Committee urges VHA as it attempts to become more 
business-like to be mindful of its critical mission of 
providing high quality care for veterans, and meeting their 
most important needs. The Committee is aware of misguided and 
inappropriate efforts in one network seeking to increase its 
enrollment by providing services which were not being sought, 
to area businesses' veteran employees. This example points to 
the need for appropriate guidelines and standards to be 
provided to the networks by central office as VA's 
restructuring of the field continues and as cost efficiency 
measures are implemented.
    The Committee is encouraged by the Department's efforts to 
expand access to health care for veterans unable to visit VA 
facilities by establishing telemedicine centers. The Committee 
notes that in rural areas such as Montana, veterans have 
difficulty accessing VA care, and these areas are particularly 
well suited for telemedicine technology.
    The Committee supports the Alaska Federal Health Care 
Partnership's proposal to develop an Alaskawide telemedicine 
network to provide access to health services and health 
education information in remote areas of Alaska to the more 
than 200,000 Federal beneficiaries now living in Alaska, 
including more than 65,000 veterans. The partnership, a joint 
effort of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of 
Defense, Coast Guard, and the Indian Health Service, will 
create 235 telemedicine health care access sites over a 4-year 
period at VA, IHS, DOD, and Coast Guard clinical facilities 
throughout Alaska linking remote installations and villages 
with tertiary health facilities located in Anchorage and 
Fairbanks. It should serve as a model for the use of 
telemedicine technology for the delivery of health care 
services and health care education in remote and inaccessible 
settings. The Committee anticipates that, once operational, the 
Alaska telemedicine network will generate substantial savings 
by avoiding the high cost of transporting veterans from remote 
villages to Anchorage or other hub medical facilities for 
routine health problems and will result in a significantly 
higher level of available health care for Alaska veterans 
living in remote and inaccessible locations. The Committee has 
provided funding of $1,000,000 for the first year costs for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to participate in the 
partnership's Alaska telemedicine project.
    The Committee recognizes the advancing age of the veteran 
population and the possibility some State veterans homes may 
not have the capacity to meet this growing demand. The 
Committee is aware of the increasing number of unused inpatient 
hospital beds since outpatient care is on the rise. The 
Committee encourages VA to work in partnership with States to 
determine if such a shortage of nursing home beds will exist in 
the future. VA should evaluate the feasibility and 
appropriateness of converting some available hospital beds into 
nursing home beds where the need is apparent. VA is to report 
to the Committee within 120 days of enactment of this act on 
its progress in this area and provide a long-range plan for 
meeting the increasing long-term care needs of the veteran 
population.
    The Committee commends VA for increasing the State home per 
diem to $43.92 in fiscal year 1999, consistent with the goal of 
increasing the VA share over time to 33\1/3\ percent. The 
administration's budget includes $9,057,000 to accommodate this 
increase, and the Committee is fully supportive.
    The Committee notes that in the past 3 years VA has closed 
approximately 4,500 acute mental health and substance abuse 
beds, while increasing the number of patients receiving 
outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment by 
approximately 43,200. Outpatient-based treatment for homeless 
veterans with mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders 
can be effective, but must be coupled with safe, supervised 
transitional housing programs. The Committee urges VA to ensure 
adequate funding for grants and per diem payment assistance to 
community-based providers of services to homeless veterans.
    The Committee is aware of the years of service provided to 
veterans at the Fort Howard VAMC in Baltimore County, MD. The 
Committee is aware of discussions to locate a new State 
veterans home on the property at Fort Howard. The Committee 
wishes to ensure that veterans in the area continue to receive 
the services necessary to meet their needs. The Committee is 
interested in a continuum of care approach being explored for 
the current or future facilities at Fort Howard, and urges VA 
to develop a plan for providing gerontology services at Fort 
Howard. In developing the plan, VA should study a wide range of 
service options.
    The Committee commends VHA for improving the process used 
to establish new community-based outpatient clinics by 
providing guidance to the networks and instituting a more 
structured planning process. However, according to the General 
Accounting Office, it is not clear that the networks are using 
clinics to equalize veterans' access to primary care. Given the 
importance of equalizing access, the Committee urges VHA to 
address this important concern.
    The Committee notes the need for community-based outpatient 
clinics in St. Johnsbury and Rutland, VT, Petersburg and 
Franklin, WV, and Anne Arundel County, MD, and urges the 
Department to consider establishing clinics expeditiously in 
these locations if the criteria for CBOC's are met and 
requisite procedures followed.
    In addition, the Committee is aware of the need for CBOC's 
in Beaufort, Sumter, Rock Hill, and Orangeburg, SC, which would 
improve services to over 150,000 veterans in 16 counties. The 
Committee urges VHA to accelerate efforts by the Charleston and 
Columbia VAMC to promote these valuable initiatives.
    The Committee remains supportive of the VA/DOD distance 
learning project designed to transition clinical nurse 
specialists into roles as adult nurse practitioners.
    The Committee continues to support VA's efforts to 
strengthen its Psychology Training Program.
    The Committee directs the Department to continue the 
demonstration project involving the Clarksburg VAMC and the 
Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia University.
    The Committee is aware of the important clinical work being 
done with the Depleted Uranium Follow-Up Program at the 
Baltimore VAMC. The Depleted Uranium [DU] Follow-Up Program at 
Baltimore is the only one of its kind in the VA or Department 
of Defense. The staff of this program have provided valuable 
training, consultation, and treatment recommendations to 
medical staff at VAMC's, DOD hospitals, and private hospitals 
across the country on the medical management of veterans with 
DU exposure. The clinical information that results from the 
regular, ongoing monitoring of these veterans also helps 
contribute to the developing research on the long-term health 
effects of DU. Therefore, the Committee urges VA to continue to 
support the DU Program at the Baltimore VAMC and the unique 
population of veterans served by it.
    The Committee urges VA to complete testing of a fluidized 
bed combustor at the Lebanon, PA, VAMC, which combines a new 
clean coal burning technology with the safe and economic 
disposal of infectious hospital wastes. In addition to 
destroying the hospital's infectious waste, this technology 
will provide an onsite source of steam and heat for heating and 
laundry needs.
    The Committee is concerned that the rate of serious illness 
related to diabetes are expected to rise rapidly among the 
veteran population over the next decade, and the costs of 
treatment are significant. Such costs can be reduced with early 
screening and prevention programs. Therefore, the Committee 
urges VA to provide support for a cooperative diabetes 
prevention research and demonstration pilot to link regional 
VAMC's with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 
[CDC's] prevention centers located within accredited schools of 
public health. The prevention centers would work with the 
VAMC's to develop a diabetes prevention program targeted at 
exercise, nutrition, and the latest geriatric expertise. The 
Committee recommends the pilot be conducted at three VAMC's 
located near accredited schools of public health which 
currently have CDC prevention centers in operation.
    The Committee notes the growing problem of hepatitis C and 
related liver disease among veterans, and the importance of 
screening veterans in order to detect and treat such diseases 
early enough to prevent serious and costly illness. The 
Committee urges VA adopt the appropriate hepatitis C testing 
protocol, including a hepatitis C antibody test, for any 
patient having blood drawn who has no history of a hepatitis C 
antibody or antigen test in the medical record.
    The Committee has included bill language delaying the 
availability until September 30, 1999, of $687,000,000 in the 
equipment, lands, and structures object classifications.
    The Committee has not recommended bill language proposed by 
the administration to make available through September 30, 
2000, up to 8.3 percent of the amounts made available for 
medical care.

                    medical and prosthetic research

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $272,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     300,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     310,000,000

                          program description

    The ``Medical and prosthetic research'' account provides 
funds for medical, rehabilitative, and health services 
research. Medical research supports basic and clinical studies 
that advance knowledge leading to improvements in the 
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and 
disabilities. Rehabilitation research focuses on rehabilitation 
engineering problems in the fields of prosthetics, orthotics, 
adaptive equipment for vehicles, sensory aids and related 
areas. Health services research focuses on improving the 
effectiveness and economy of delivery of health services.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $310,000,000 for medical and 
prosthetic research. This is an increase of $38,000,000 over 
the current level and $10,000,000 above the budget request. 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.
    The Committee urges VA and the Department of Defense to 
work on a new broad cooperative research program on alcoholism. 
The Committee also urges that VA and the National Institute on 
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism establish joint research programs 
on the epidemiology, cause, prevention, and treatment of 
alcoholism. The Committee notes the increased morbidity, 
mortality, lost productivity, accidents, and violence caused by 
the high rate of alcoholism in the veteran population and the 
abundance of research opportunities which will help prevent 
these consequences of alcoholism.
    The Committee encourages VA to fund adequately research on 
neurofibromatosis [NF]. The Committee is pleased VA has 
coordinated its NF research efforts with the U.S. Army Medical 
and Material Command and encourages continued collaboration. 
The Committee expects VA to report on the status of its NF 
research program within 120 days of enactment of this act.
    The Committee urges VA to develop an initiative similar to 
DOD's Triservice Nursing Research Program to enhance nursing 
research initiatives focusing on specific health care needs of 
aging veterans and as a means of improving health care 
outcomes.

      medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $59,860,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      60,000,000

                          program description

    This appropriation provides funds for central office 
executive direction (Under Secretary for Health and staff), 
administration and supervision of all VA medical and 
construction programs, including development and implementation 
of policies, plans, and program objectives.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for medical 
administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, the same 
as the budget request and an increase of $140,000 above the 
current budget.

                   GENERAL POST FUND, NATIONAL HOMES

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Program      Limitation on  Administrative
                                                                      account      direct loans      expenses   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998............................................          $7,000         $70,000         $54,000
Budget estimate, 1999...........................................           7,000          70,000          54,000
Committee recommendation........................................           7,000          70,000          54,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program provides loans to nonprofit organizations to 
assist them in leasing housing units exclusively for use as a 
transitional group residence for veterans who are in (or have 
recently been in) a program for the treatment of substance 
abuse. The amount of the loan cannot exceed $4,500 for any 
single residential unit and each loan must be repaid within 2 
years through monthly installments.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $7,000 for 
the estimated cost of providing loans, $54,000 for 
administrative expenses, and a $70,000 limitation on direct 
loans. The administrative expenses may be transferred to and 
merged with the general post fund.

                      Departmental Administration

                       general operating expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $786,135,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     849,661,000
Committee recommendation................................     854,661,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $854,661,000 for general operating 
expenses, an increase of $68,526,000 above the current budget 
and $5,000,000 above the budget request. In addition to this 
appropriation, resources are made available for general 
operating expenses through reimbursements totaling $374,148,000 
for fiscal year 1999, with total estimated obligations of 
approximately $1,228,809,000.
    The Committee has provided an additional $5,000,000 above 
the budget request for activities associated with restructuring 
the Veterans Benefits Administration. However, no such funds 
shall be spent prior to submission of a detailed spending plan 
which closely follows the recommendations of the National 
Academy of Public Administration.
    The Committee is concerned with the Veterans Benefits 
Administration's continued problems with timeliness and quality 
in processing compensation and pension claims. VBA's 
shortcomings have been identified by the National Academy of 
Public Administration, the Veterans Claims Adjudication 
Commission, the General Accounting Office, and the inspector 
general over the past several years. While VBA has begun to 
implement some recommendations made by NAPA, the Commission, 
and others, VBA is failing to meet its timeliness goals for 
fiscal year 1998, the quality of decisionmaking remains poor in 
too many instances, and many of VBA's business process 
reengineering goals will not be met.
    The Committee is encouraged that in the last year both the 
Department and VBA have gained new leadership, plans are being 
crafted to restructure VBA and its field operations, and a 
number of new initiatives are planned. The Committee expects 
that the Department will give the highest priority to remedying 
the shortcomings in VBA. The Committee strongly urges VBA to 
follow NAPA's recommendation to seek outside expertise to 
remedy its problems. Given the importance of improving service 
delivery to veterans, the Committee has provided an additional 
$5,000,000 above the budget request and has fully funded the 
$22,618,000 request for VBA initiatives to improve compensation 
and pension claims processing.
    The Committee notes the amount recommended includes an 
increase of $2,200,000 for the Office of General Counsel, 
principally to address the growing backlog of veterans claims 
at the Court of Veterans Appeals.

                        national cemetery system

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $84,183,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      92,006,000
Committee recommendation................................      92,006,000

                          program description

    The National Cemetery System was established in accordance 
with the National Cemeteries Act of 1973. It has a fourfold 
mission: to provide for the interment in any national cemetery 
the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons and discharged 
veterans, together with their spouses and certain dependents, 
and permanently to maintain their graves; to mark graves of 
eligible persons in national and private cemeteries; to 
administer the grant program for aid to States in establishing, 
expanding, or improving State veterans' cemeteries; and to 
administer the Presidential Memorial Certificate Program.
    There are a total of 149 cemeterial installations in 39 
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The 
Committee's recommendation for the National Cemetery System 
provides funds for all of these cemeterial installations, 
including the Tahoma National Cemetery.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $92,006,000 
for the National Cemetery System. This is an increase of 
$7,823,000 over the enacted level.

                    office of the inspector general

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $31,013,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      32,702,000
Committee recommendation................................      36,000,000

                          program description

    The Office of Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit 
and investigation and inspections of all Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs and operations.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $36,000,000 for the inspector 
general. This is an increase of $3,298,000 above the request 
and $4,987,000 above the current budget.
    Additional funds have been provided to enable the Office to 
hire approximately 35 additional staff. Currently the Office of 
the Inspector General has approximately 320 FTE's 
(nonreimbursable), compared to the statutory floor of 417. 
Without additional funds, the Office of Investigations, for 
example, would be able to respond to no more than 25 percent of 
the requests for investigative assistance. Additional resources 
will enable the OIG to pursue additional cases involving 
benefits fraud, fee basis health care fraud, workers' 
compensation fraud, audits of the reliability of VA performance 
measurement data under GPRA, and other nationwide program 
audits and investigations.
    The Committee is aware of the General Accounting Office's 
[GAO] report, entitled ``Veterans Affairs Special Inquiry 
Report was Misleading,'' on the suspicious deaths at the Harry 
S. Truman VA Medical Center in Columbia, MO. The Committee is 
concerned about several issues highlighted in the GAO's report, 
including the OIG's failure to comply with its own reporting 
policies, the OIG's attribution to the delay in acting upon 
coverup allegations, and the OIG's breaching of the 
confidentiality of the staffperson who made the allegations of 
coverup. The Committee directs the VA to develop guidelines and 
safeguards to ensure that these or similar mistakes do not 
occur in the future and report to the Committee no later than 
February 1, 1999.

                      construction, major projects

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $177,900,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      97,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     142,300,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $142,300,000 
for construction, major projects, an increase of $45,300,000 
above the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes $7,500,000 for the 
Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery gravesite development. 
This project includes the development of approximately 13,200 
gravesites for full casket interments in 35 acres and other 
critical improvements to this facility. If this project were 
not undertaken, Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery would 
deplete its current inventory of full casket gravesites in mid-
2005. Such an outcome would be inconsistent with the National 
Cemetery System strategic planning objective to continue to 
provide service by expanding existing cemeteries.
    The recommendation includes $28,300,000 for the Cleveland 
Wade Park ambulatory care addition/renovation project. This 
project will address such critical issues as the lack of 
patient privacy, insufficient emergency room space, congested 
waiting areas, cold treatment rooms, and inadequate heating 
during the winter months. Additionally, access to the building 
does not meet American With Disabilities Act [ADA] 
requirements.
    The Committee has included $9,500,000 for the Lebanon, PA, 
VAMC for nursing unit renovations including providing patients 
with increased privacy.
    The following table compares the Committee recommendation 
with the budget request.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS                      
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Available                              
   Location and description       through        1999        Committee  
                                    1998       request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Program:                                                        
    Seismic:                                                            
        Long Beach, CA,                                                 
         clinical                                                       
         consolidations/                                                
         seismic..............  ...........       23,200         23,200 
        San Juan, PR, seismic                                           
         corrections..........  ...........       50,000         50,000 
    Nursing home care unit:                                             
     Lebanon, PA, renovations.  ...........  ...........          9,500 
    Ambulatory care:                                                    
     Cleveland, OH, outpatient                                          
     addition/renovation......        7,500  ...........         28,300 
    Advance planning fund:                                              
     Various stations.........  ...........        6,600          6,600 
    Asbestos abatement:                                                 
     Various stations.........  ...........        5,460          5,460 
Less: Design fund.............  ...........       -1,160         -1,160 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................  ...........       84,100        121,900 
                               =========================================
National Cemetery Program:                                              
    Florida National Cemetery                                           
     columbarium development..  ...........        6,000          6,000 
    Fort Rosecrans National                                             
     Cemetery columbarium                                               
     development..............  ...........        6,000          6,000 
    Jefferson Barracks                                                  
     National Cemetery                                                  
     gravesite development....  ...........  ...........          7,500 
Advance planning fund: Various                                          
 stations.....................  ...........        1,000          1,000 
Less: Design fund.............  ...........         -600           -600 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................  ...........       12,400         19,900 
                               =========================================
Claims analyses: Various                                                
 stations.....................  ...........          500            500 
                               =========================================
      Total construction,                                               
       major projects.........  ...........       97,000        142,300 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee notes that $900,000 was provided in fiscal 
year 1998 for a veterans cemetery in Oklahoma City. This 
project has long been planned, and additional funds were 
appropriated prior to fiscal year 1998 for planning and related 
activities. The Committee was very disappointed in the 
administration's decision to strike funding for this project 
through the line-item veto. The Committee continues to support 
the project, but will await the outcome of judicial proceedings 
relative to line-item veto authority before taking further 
action on funding.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $175,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     141,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     175,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of VA, 
including planning, architectural and engineering services, and 
site acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is less 
than $4,000,000.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for minor 
construction, the same as the current budget and an increase of 
$34,000,000 above the request.
    The Committee notes the need for connecting the Fort 
Harrison VAMC to the Helena public sewer system. Fort Harrison 
VAMC currently uses an antiquated lagoon sewage treatment 
system which runs near a stream and will soon exceed peak 
capacity. VA is to work closely with the Department of Defense, 
the Montana Army National Guard, the State of Montana, and the 
city of Helena to resolve the matter expeditiously and in a 
mutually acceptable manner.

                         parking revolving fund

                          program description

    The revolving fund provides funds for the construction, 
alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking 
garages at VA medical facilities authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8109.
    The Secretary is required under certain circumstances to 
establish and collect fees for the use of such garages and 
parking facilities. Receipts from the parking fees are to be 
deposited in the revolving fund and would be used to fund 
future parking garage initiatives.

                        committee recommendation

    No new budget authority is requested by the administration 
or provided for fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee has no objection to the administration's 
proposal to utilize $11,900,000 from current unobligated 
balances and parking receipts in the parking revolving fund for 
the parking structure at the Denver VAMC.

       grants for construction of state extended care facilities

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $80,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      37,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      90,000,000

                          program description

    This account is used to provide grants to assist States in 
acquiring or constructing State home facilities for furnishing 
domiciliary or nursing home care to veterans, and to expand, 
remodel or alter existing buildings for furnishing domiciliary, 
nursing home, or hospital care to veterans in State homes. The 
grant may not exceed 65 percent of the total cost of the 
project, and grants to any one State may not exceed one-third 
of the amount appropriated in any fiscal year.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for grants for the 
construction of State extended care facilities. The amount 
provided represents an increase of $53,000,000 above the budget 
request and $10,000,000 above the enacted level. The Committee 
notes there is a backlog of $150,000,000 in priority one 
projects from fiscal year 1998. This program is a cost-
effective means of meeting the long-term health care needs of 
veterans.
    The Committee supports efforts to modify the methodology 
for awarding State home construction grant funds according to 
the following conditions supported by the National Association 
of State Veterans Homes: (1) VA should prioritize requests in 
the year they are received, utilizing current VA needs 
criteria; (2) grant requests received in future years should be 
prioritized in the same manner with the understanding they will 
not receive funding until projects submitted in previous years 
are funded; (3) a State without a State home automatically 
should become eligible for funding for its first home 
regardless of the year its request is received. Following such 
conditions will facilitate effective planning by the States and 
result in the most equitable method of allocating resources.
    The Committee notes the need for Federal assistance for 
State veterans homes in St. Louis and Mount Vernon, MO, both 
priority one projects, which sought funding and were denied in 
fiscal year 1998. In addition, the Committee notes that the 
Delaware Valley Veterans Home in north Philadelphia represents 
a high-priority State home project. Finally, the Committee 
notes the need for replacing the dietary facility at the Grand 
Island, Nebraska State Veterans Home. State matching funds have 
been committed for each of these projects.
    The Committee urges VA to consider a request from the State 
of Pennsylvania for matching funds to replace the boiler plant 
at the Southeastern Veterans Center in Spring City, PA. The 
boiler plant is in urgent need of replacement and may put at 
risk the health and safety of the residents.

       grants for the construction of state veterans' cemeteries

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          program description

    Public Law 95-476, as codified in title 38 U.S.C. 2408, 
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. A grant may not exceed 50 percent of the total value of 
the land and the cost of improvements.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $10,000,000 
for grants for construction of State veterans' cemeteries in 
fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee notes the need for cemeteries in southeast 
and north-central Missouri. State funds have already been 
committed and VA is urged to consider favorably the State's 
grant application.

                       administrative provisions

    The Committee has included seven administrative provisions 
carried in earlier bills. Included is a provision enabling VA 
to use surplus earnings from the national service life 
insurance, U.S. Government life insurance, and veterans special 
life insurance programs to administer these programs. This 
provision was included for the first time in fiscal year 1996 
appropriations legislation. The Department estimates that 
$38,960,000 will be reimbursed to the ``General operating 
expenses'' account as a result of this provision.
    The Committee has included bill language as requested by 
the administration which extends the availability of previously 
appropriated funds for capital leases which would otherwise 
expire in 1999 and 2000. Without this language, certain funds 
for multiyear leases would lapse prior to the end of the lease 
period. The provision is in compliance with section 1557 of 
title 31 which provides that a provision in an appropriation 
act may exempt certain funded activities from the requirement 
that appropriations are available for only 5 years after the 
close of the fiscal period for which they are appropriated.
    The Committee has included bill language requested by the 
administration authorizing the reimbursement of the Office of 
Resolution Management and the Office of Employment 
Discrimination Complaint Adjudication for services provided, 
from funds in any appropriation for salaries and other 
administrative expenses.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 1998.................................... $21,444,565,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................  25,215,263,705
Committee recommendation................................  24,102,118,030

                          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 an appropriation of 
$24,102,118,030 for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. This is an increase of $2,657,553,030 above the 
1998 enacted level.
    The Committee commends Secretary Cuomo for his industry in 
tackling HUD's many problems and his energetic implementation 
of the HUD 2020 management reform plan. Nevertheless, the 
Committee remains concerned over HUD's continuing efforts at 
reinventing itself, most recently through this HUD 2020 
management reform plan, which was announced by the Secretary on 
June 26, 1997.
    The management reform plan calls for major modification of 
HUD's field office and headquarters organizational structure, 
consolidation of HUD's programs and activities, and significant 
modifications to the way HUD does business. The plan also calls 
for the dramatic downsizing of HUD staff from 10,500 to 7,500 
by 2002.
    Nevertheless, it is far too early to judge the success of 
the plan, and the Committee urges the Secretary to make the 
implementation of the plan the first priority coupled with HUD 
program reform and consolidation. The Department has been 
designated as high risk by GAO, the only agency designated as 
high risk in its entirety. This designation is largely founded 
on inadequate internal controls and the fact that HUD lacks 
reliable data to ensure accountability within HUD programs. 
These problems have not been resolved. Both GAO and the HUD 
inspector general continue to find significant problems within 
a number of HUD programs, and especially with regard to 
shortcomings in the section 8 accounting system. Most recently, 
these shortcomings have led to, among other problems, wide 
swings in the budget estimates from shortfalls of 
$1,000,000,000 to $20,000,000,000 for the amount of funds 
necessary for amendments to fund existing section 8 project-
based contracts.
    Of equal concern is the apparent failure of HUD to exercise 
adequate oversight over the contractor responsible for tracking 
the funding needs of section 8 project-based contracts. The 
Committee is concerned over the lack of in-house expertise that 
has led to an overdependence on outside contractors to perform 
many activities. Moreover, as staff downsizing continues, the 
reliance on outside contracting will likely increase while the 
Department apparently has made little progress in developing 
adequate oversight of the contracting work. Recently, an 
inspector general review of HUD contracting practices found 
that ``the lack of adequate planning, needs assessment, good 
initial estimates, monitoring, and control of costs has made 
HUD vulnerable to waste and abuse.''
    In addition, the Committee remains concerned over the 
component of the HUD 2020 plan that calls for reducing HUD 
staff to 7,500 by 2002 and reorganizing functions. Both GAO and 
the HUD inspector general have determined that the 7,500 staff 
target is not grounded in any cost-benefit analysis or any 
assessment of needs. While the Committee defers to the judgment 
of the Secretary, the Committee requests that the Department 
provide a semiannual review to the Committee, with the first 
report due on April 1, 1999, on the current status of the HUD 
2020 plan, including an assessment of how staff resources are 
being used to meet program needs.
    In addition, despite staff downsizing, the Committee is 
concerned that HUD continues to grow new programs rather than 
developing and implementing program consolidation and reform. 
The Committee, therefore, directs the Department to report 
within 120 days of enactment of this legislation on how many 
programs the Department has eliminated in the last 2 years and 
plans to eliminate, what cost savings may be associated with 
the eliminations, and what increased efficiency the Department 
anticipates will be gained by program consolidations and 
eliminations (including staff reassignments and reductions).
    The Committee also is concerned over the Department's 
apparent lack of interest in working with the Senate and House 
housing subcommittees in consolidating and reforming HUD's 
primary programs. Instead, the Department's apparent strategy 
is to seek authority for broad new initiatives and programs 
through general appropriation language. While certain matters 
may be appropriate for the Appropriations Committee to address, 
HUD's apparent disregard for the authorizing committees and 
primary focus on the appropriations process is inappropriate. 
For example, proposals like HUD's regional opportunity 
counseling initiative and regional connections initiative are 
proposals which raise many policy issues and require the 
development of a program structure that is typical of 
authorizing legislation, not appropriation legislation.
    The Committee also urges HUD to continue to work to meet 
all the requirements of the Government Performance and Results 
Act. While the HUD budget needs to reflect the planning 
requirements of GPRA, it largely does not. Again, consultation 
with Congress is critical to the success of the Results Act and 
the success of HUD.

                        housing certificate fund

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $9,373,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   8,981,187,705
Committee recommendation................................  10,013,542,030

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for the section 8 programs, 
including vouchers, certificates, and project-based assistance. 
Section 8 assistance is the principal appropriation for Federal 
housing assistance, with almost 3 million families assisted 
under section 8. Under these programs, eligible low-income 
families pay 30 percent of their adjusted income for rent, and 
the Federal Government is responsible for the remainder of the 
rent, up to the fair market rent or some other payment 
standard.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$10,013,542,030, of which $9,540,000,000 shall be used to fund 
expiring section 8 contracts and $433,542,030 shall be used to 
fund section 8 relocation assistance, including the costs of 
sticky vouchers for families that choose to continue to live in 
multifamily housing in which a mortgage is refinanced and the 
housing was previously eligible for the Preservation Program. 
This account ensures the funding of all expiring section 8 
contracts. This account includes $40,000,000 in incremental 
section 8 assistance to be provided to public housing agencies 
in certain demonstration cities and on a fair share basis for 
families on waiting lists that have agreed to participate in a 
local self-sufficiency/welfare-to-work program. Finally, this 
account includes funds for new section 8 certificates and 
vouchers to assist residents that are facing displacement due 
to prepayment of subsidized mortgages under sections 236 and 
221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act (the Preservation 
Program) or because of demolition and redevelopment activities 
of public housing agencies under HOPE VI.
    For projects facing displacement because of prepayment, HUD 
is authorized to provide sticky vouchers which permit current 
residents of such a project to be subsidized based on the 
market rent for a dwelling unit in the project. Tenants shall 
remain eligible for sticky vouchers so long as they continue to 
live in projects for which owners have prepaid the mortgage, 
subject to a rent reasonableness standard. Other activities 
eligible for funding under this account include the conversion 
of section 23 projects to assistance under section 8, the 
family unification program, and the relocation of witnesses in 
connection with efforts to fight crime in public and assisted 
housing pursuant to a law enforcement or prosecution agency.
    In addition, the Committee believes that section 8 tenant-
based assistance provides a unique opportunity for disabled 
families to have a more diverse housing choice with an 
opportunity to mainstream into a community of choice. In cases 
where elderly public housing and assisted housing projects are 
designated as elderly-only, it is expected that up to 
$40,000,000 be used to provide needed section 8 tenant-based 
housing assistance for disabled families that would otherwise 
be served by public and assisted housing.
    In addition, both the Senate and House VA, HUD, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees requested an 
audit and budget scrub of the section 8 accounts, including all 
tenant-based and project-based section 8 funds. The Committee 
understands that the GAO findings raise serious issues with 
HUD's accounting procedures and its ability to administer its 
accounts. Further, based on discussions with GAO and HUD, the 
Committee has determined that the budget request for 
$1,377,000,000 for section 8 amendment funding is unnecessary 
and that an additional $1,400,000,000 are excess section 8 
project-based funds. These funds have been rescinded in the 
bill. The Committee commends GAO for its fine and diligent work 
on the section 8 account as well as its other fine work on 
other HUD accounts and programs.
    Finally, the Committee reiterates its continuing and 
growing concern over HUD's inadequate accounting procedures for 
identifying excess section 8 contract reserves as well as 
excess project-based section 8 assistance. The Department 
currently continues to express uncertainty over the accuracy of 
its section 8 accounting and its reports to this Committee are 
often misleading and confusing. This is unacceptable and the 
Department's continued failure to provide accurate analysis of 
all accounts has resulted in a lack of credibility beyond all 
reasonableness. Therefore, the Committee reminds HUD that an 
accurate fiscal forecast of the funding in all HUD programs is 
critical to HUD's credibility and is a requirement to a sound 
relationship with this Committee.
    The Committee also requests that HUD provide the Committee 
with a report and recommendations by May 1, 1999, on ways to 
address the escalating costs of the section 8 program, 
including an analysis and recommendations with respect to both 
the anticipated $20,000,000,000 per year cost associated with 
expiring section 8 contracts, as well as HUD's projected 
shortfalls in the funding currently appropriated for section 8 
project-based contracts. This report should include a projected 
yearly cost analysis for the next 20 years, using the current 
cost model, a 2-percent inflation cost model, a 2.5-percent 
inflation cost model, and a 3-percent inflation cost model. All 
factors used in each cost model must be fully described. HUD 
also should include in this report recommendations on how to 
pay for the funding of additional incremental section 8 
contracts under the existing budget agreement, including 
recommendations for program cuts or consolidations.
    As noted above, in response to concerns raised by the 
Department and others for welfare-to-work and self-sufficiency 
initiatives, the Committee has included $40,000,000 in 
incremental section 8 assistance to be administered by public 
housing agencies as part of local self-sufficiency/welfare-to-
work initiatives for families on waiting lists. The Committee 
has designated eight demonstration sites to receive $4,000,000 
in section 8 assistance each: Los Angeles, CA; Cleveland, OH; 
Kansas City, MO; Charlotte, NC; Miami/Dade County, FL; Prince 
Georges County, MD; New York City, NY; and Anchorage, AK. The 
additional funding is to be allocated on a fair-share basis. 
The funding level reflects the Committee's lack of confidence 
in HUD's capacity to manage these resources efficiently, 
including HUD's continuing inability to provide accurate 
accounting of existing funds and out-year obligations.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $2,500,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   2,550,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,550,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for modernization and capital 
needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing 
authorities), including supportive service activities as well 
as technical assistance. Eligible activities include congregate 
services for the elderly and disabled, service coordinators, 
and other supportive services.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,550,000,000 
for the public housing capital fund, the same as the budget 
request and $50,000,000 more than the fiscal year 1998 level.
    Energy efficiency remains a major concern with the older 
public housing stock. The Committee requests HUD to provide a 
report to the Committee by June 1, 1999, on energy cost 
throughout the public housing stock, including recommendations 
on reducing excessive costs. The Committee urges HUD to work 
with the National Center for Appropriate Technology [NCAT] for 
determining an appropriate strategy for addressing excessive 
energy costs in public housing. HUD is directed to report to 
the Committee by July 15, 1999, on a strategy for addressing 
excessive energy costs in public housing.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $2,900,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   2,818,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,818,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for the payment of operating 
subsidies to public housing authorities (except Indian housing 
authorities) to augment rent payments by residents in order to 
provide sufficient revenues to meet reasonable operating costs 
as determined through the performance funding system.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,818,000,000 
for the public housing operating fund, the same as the budget 
request.

             Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $310,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     310,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     310,000,000

                          Program Description

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $310,000,000 
for drug elimination grants for low-income housing, of which 
$10,000,000 shall be awarded for technical assistance grants, 
$10,000,000 shall be appropriated to fund Operation Safe House 
which is administered by the HUD inspector general, $10,000,000 
for administrative cost of the HUD inspector general associated 
with Operation Safe House, and $20,000,000 for competitive 
grants under the New Approach Anti-Drug Program.

     Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $550,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     550,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     600,000,000

                          Program Description

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $600,000,000 
for the ``HOPE VI'' account, $50,000,000 more than the budget 
request and last year's level. The Committee urges the 
Department to continue funding innovative projects that work 
both as public and mixed-income housing as well as building 
blocks to revitalizing neighborhoods.
    The Committee is very pleased with the leadership of the 
HOPE VI office. Nevertheless, the HOPE VI Program is a complex 
program that is an important building block for the economic 
redevelopment of communities. The Committee urges HUD to ensure 
that this office has the necessary staffing and expertise to 
ensure the success of this program.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $600,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     600,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     600,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account funds the native American housing block grants 
program, as authorized under title I of the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. 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. In 
addition, all obligated and unobligated balances for Indian 
tribes from the annual contributions, development of additional 
new subsidized housing, preserving existing housing investment, 
HOME investment partnerships program, emergency shelter grants, 
and homeless assistance grants are transferred to this account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $600,000,000 for the native 
American housing block grant, of which $6,000,000 is set aside 
for a credit subsidy for a demonstration of the section 601 
Loan Guarantee Program. The Committee recommendation is the 
same as the budget request.
    The Committee remains concerned about the implementation by 
the administration of the native American housing block grant 
and the potential risk of problems within such a new and 
complex program. The Committee requests that HUD report to the 
Committee every 6 months beginning on June 1, 1999, with an 
evaluation, including recommendations, of the status of the 
native American housing block grant.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $6,000,000 in program subsidies to 
support a loan guarantee level of $68,881,000. This is 
$1,000,000 more than the fiscal year 1998 appropriation and the 
same as the fiscal year 1999 budget request. The Committee 
requests HUD to provide a status report on the program by June 
1, 1999, assessing the success of the program in providing 
homeownership opportunities for native Americans, a breakdown 
on the use of the program by State and tribal area, and 
recommendations for program improvement.

            office of rural housing and economic development

Appropriations, 1998....................................................
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     $35,000,000

                          program description

    The Committee is concerned about the level of resources 
provided to rural communities and, therefore, is establishing 
an Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development within the 
Office of Housing to administer rural housing and economic 
development programs.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends that the new Office of Rural 
Housing and Economic Development be funded at $35,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1999 to support housing and economic development in 
rural communities as defined by USDA and HUD. The Committee 
recognizes that many of the most creative and innovative 
approaches to community development and economic revitalization 
in urban and suburban areas have been generated by nonprofit 
and community development corporations. While such entities 
exist in rural America, they are not widespread and do not have 
access to the same level of resources. The amount of 
$10,000,000 is intended to be used to establish a clearinghouse 
of ideas for innovative strategies for rural housing and 
economic development and revitalization. Of this, $8,000,000 
shall be provided directly to local rural nonprofits and 
community development corporations to support capacity building 
and technical assistance. This funding should be distributed by 
HUD to the grantees by June 1, 1999, in consultation with USDA. 
The amount of $5,000,000 is directed to be used to provide seed 
support for nonprofits or community development corporations in 
States which have limited capacity in rural areas. HUD shall 
work with the USDA and the Housing Assistance Council to 
determine those areas.
    The Committee directs the remaining $20,000,000 to be 
awarded to State housing finance agencies to support innovative 
community development initiatives in rural communities. 
Examples of innovative approaches would include participation 
by new entities in the community, support of self-sufficiency 
strategies, and expansion of housing and employment 
opportunities. To the degree possible, funds should also be 
leveraged with other loan and grant resources from USDA, HUD, 
or other agencies. These funds principally are intended to be 
used for capital construction and development. These funds 
should be provided directly by the State housing finance 
agencies to the nonprofits or communities and be allocated by 
HUD by June 1, 1999. Up to 10 percent of this fund may be used 
for technical assistance or administrative costs incurred by 
the grantees.
    This office is not intended to duplicate in any way the 
activities performed by the USDA Rural Housing Service, the 
USDA Office of Community Development, or any other agency or 
office of the rural development mission area at the Department 
of Agriculture. HUD should cooperate and collaborate wherever 
possible with rural development at the USDA and is directed to 
enter into a memorandum of understanding with the USDA to 
ensure continuity of Federal housing, community development, 
and economic development policy for rural areas. The Committee 
recognizes that the USDA is the lead Federal department for 
rural issues, including housing and rural development, and 
expects HUD to look to the USDA for leadership with regard to 
rural policy issues.
    In addition, the Committee directs the Office of Rural 
Housing and Economic Development to evaluate the use of HOME 
and CDBG funds in nonentitlement communities and ensure that 
small rural communities are getting equal access to these 
programs. The Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development 
should consider whether any scoring or allocation formulas used 
to distribute HOME funds within a State are unfairly biased 
against rural communities. The Office of Rural Housing and 
Economic Development also is directed to evaluate the use of 
HUD's homeownership counseling funds in rural areas and make 
recommendations to ensure that these funds are equally 
accessible to rural communities.

                   Community Planning and Development

                      community development grants

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $4,675,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   4,725,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,750,000,000

                          program description

    Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act 
of 1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award 
block grants to units of general local government and States 
for the funding of local community development programs. A wide 
range of physical, economic, and social development activities 
are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local 
level, but the law enumerates general objectives which the 
block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate 
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic 
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate 
income. Grant recipients are required to use at least 70 
percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit 
low- and moderate-income persons.
    Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community 
development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective 
formulas, one of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age 
of housing stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are 
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are 
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting 
designated amounts for special purpose grants and Indian 
tribes. Pursuant to the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
Housing Act, Indian tribes are eligible to receive 1 percent of 
the total CDBG appropriation, on a competitive basis.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,750,000,000 
for the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] Program in 
fiscal year 1999.
    Set-asides under CDBG include $67,000,000 for native 
Americans; $60,000,000 for the Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Program; $3,000,000 for the Housing Assistance 
Council; $1,800,000 for the Native American Indian Housing 
Council; $25,000,000 for the National Community Development 
Initiative, with $10,000,000 targeted to rural and tribal 
areas; $40,000,000 for Youthbuild; $7,000,000 for insular 
areas; and $32,000,000 for section 107 grants, including 
$6,500,000 for community development work study, $10,000,000 
for historically black colleges and universities, and 
$3,000,000 for Hispanic-serving institutions.
    In addition, this legislation includes a set-aside of 
$85,000,000 within the CDBG program for the economic 
development initiative to finance efforts that promote economic 
and social revitalization.
    At a minimum, the Secretary is directed to fund the 
following grants as part of the economic development 
initiative:
      $2,500,000 for the University of Alaska Museum, 
        Anchorage, AK;
      $350,000 for the Noelwien Library in Fairbanks, AK;
      $500,000 for the Homer Dock in Homer, AK;
      $2,000,000 for the University of Missouri for the Center 
        for Life Sciences;
      $700,000 for the Little Sisters of the Poor in Kansas 
        City, MO, for the renovation and reconstruction of 
        affordable housing;
      $350,000 for the Guadalupe Center in Kansas City, MO;
      $1,000,000 for the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries for 
        infrastructure repairs;
      $1,500,000 for Provo, UT, the revitalization of the 
        historic downtown business center;
      $500,000 for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, 
        UT, for the redevelopment of the Gateway District;
      $500,000 for SHARE House to build a new nonmedical 
        detoxification center in Missoula County, MT;
      $1,000,000 for the city of Durango, CO, to develop the 
        cultural arts complex of southwest Colorado;
      $1,000,000 for the city of Aurora, CO, for the 
        redevelopment of the Fitzsimons Army Base;
      $600,000 for Bethune-Cookman College;
      $1,000,000 for the city of Brookhaven, MS, for renovating 
        historic Whitworth College buildings in Brookhaven, MS;
      $500,000 for the city of Jackson, MS, for creating a 
        youth entrepreneurship program;
      $250,000 for renovation, accessibility, and asbestos 
        remediation for the Wellstone Neighborhood Center, 
        Wellstone, MO;
      $900,000 to support homeless initiatives, with $300,000 
        for the Bond Center in Pine Lawn, MO; $300,000 for the 
        Kitchens in Springfield, MO; and $300,000 for Rose 
        Brooks in Kansas City, MO;
      $1,000,000 for the construction of a science complex at 
        Spelman College in Atlanta, GA;
      $1,000,000 for Project Social Care in Brooklyn, NY;
      $2,000,000 for the Hispanic Cultural Center in 
        Alburqueque, NM;
      $1,250,000 for the North Carolina State Museum of Natural 
        Resources for the construction and installation of 
        interactive natural history exhibits;
      $900,000 for the city of Rockingham, NC, for a 
        neighborhood level park;
      $250,000 for Blue Ridge Community College, NC, for the 
        Blue Ridge Environmental Training Center;
      $250,000 for the Aycock recreational complex in 
        Henderson, NC;
      $250,000 for Edenton, NC, for waterfront renovation;
      $2,000,000 for the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, WA;
      $500,000 for the renovation of the opera house at 
        Enosburg, Falls, Vt;
      $1,000,000 for the King Urban Life Center in Buffalo, NY, 
        for an early childhood school and community center;
      $1,400,000 for Columbia University for its Audubon III 
        project in New York City;
      $1,500,000 for the restoration of Milo Creek in Kellogg 
        and Wardner, ID;
      $2,000,000 for Campbellsville University in Kentucky to 
        implement a job training partnership;
      $2,000,000 for Jarrell, TX, for a public park and a storm 
        shelter;
      $1,000,000 for a new science and mathematic facility at 
        the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, AL;
      $500,000 for Calhoun County Community College Advance 
        Manufacturing Center in Decatur, AL;
      $1,000,000 for the city of Huntsville for the development 
        of the Center for Early Southern Life at Alabama 
        Constitution Village;
      $2,000,000 for Pittsburgh, PA, to redevelopment the Sun 
        Co./LTV Steel site in Hazelwood, PA;
      $250,000 for the development of a business development 
        center and a job training center in the underserved 
        communities of central and south Philadelphia;
      $750,000 for Wilkes-Barre, PA, for a downtown 
        revitalization project;
      $1,200,000 for the development of the Riverbend Research 
        and Training Park in Post Falls, ID;
      $600,000 for Marguerite's Place, a shelter for battered 
        women, in Nashua, NH;
      $300,000 for Keystone Hall, a drug and rehabilitation 
        Center in Nashua, NH;
      $100,000 for Southern New Hampshire Services for homeless 
        outreach in Nashua, NH;
      $500,000 for the Chabot Observatory and Science Center in 
        California;
      $250,000 for the city of Oceanside, CA, for activities 
        associated with economic redevelopment;
      $250,000 for the Alameda County, CA, homeless base 
        conversion;
      $500,000 for Golden Gate University, San Francisco, CA, 
        for the Agricultural Business Resource Center project;
      $500,000 for San Bernardino International Airport in 
        California for activities associated with the base 
        conversion project;
      $500,000 to the city of Los Angeles, CA, for the 
        activities associated with the economic redevelopment 
        of Santa Barbara Plaza;
      $1,000,000 for the Lake Champlain Science Center in 
        Vermont;
      $1,000,000 to the city of Barre, VT, for downtown 
        development;
      $300,000 for Bennington, VT, for regional affordable 
        housing;
      $200,000 for Burlington, VT, for a multigenerational 
        center;
      $800,000 for work associated with the development of the 
        Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish 
        Refuge Interpretive Center in Dubuque, IA;
      $1,000,000 for the restoration of the Warrior Hotel in 
        Sioux City, IA, to be used for adult day care and other 
        direct services;
      $700,000 for revitalization in the Cedar Rapids, IA, 
        southside neighborhood development project;
      $750,000 for the New Jersey Community Development Corp. 
        to rehabilitate a site in Paterson, NJ, to establish an 
        employment opportunity center;
      $750,000 for Cumberland County, NJ, for the city of 
        Bridgeton redevelopment project;
      $500,000 for Covenant House to construct a residential 
        and community service center in Newark, NJ;
      $500,000 for New Community Corp. to develop abandoned 
        property in Newark, NJ;
      $2,500,000 for the construction of a science/computer 
        teaching center at Wheeling Jesuit University in West 
        Virginia;
      $2,000,000 for the work associated with the construction 
        of the Community Resource Center at Kuhio Homes/Kuhio 
        Park Terrace in Hawaii;
      $500,000 to the city of Ozark, AR, for the economic 
        development of its downtown area;
      $500,000 to the Turtle Mountain Chippewa educational 
        complex in North Dakota;
      $250,000 to the Atlantic Beach Community Development 
        Corp. in Horry County, SC, for activities associated 
        with economic development in Horry County;
      $250,000 to the School of Public Health at the University 
        of South Carolina to consolidate its programs in a new 
        central location;
      $1,500,000 to the city of Milwaukee for the second phase 
        of the riverwalk development in Milwaukee's historic 
        third ward;
      $1,000,000 to the city of Sioux Falls, SD, for the 
        downtown restoration and redevelopment purposes;
      $400,000 to the Greater Huron Development Corp. for 
        economic development efforts in the Huron, SD, 
        community;
      $400,000 to the Northern Hills Community Development 
        Corp. for economic development efforts in the Lead, 
        South Dakota community;
      $350,000 to the city of Woonsocket, SD, for 
        infrastructure improvements at the city's industrial 
        park;
      $200,000 to the city of Mobridge, SD, for economic 
        development expansion and development purposes;
      $200,000 to the Mitchell Economic Development Corp. to 
        construct an access road and make improvements at the 
        Railroad Industrial Park in Mitchell, SD;
      $500,000 for the restoration of the Boston Symphony Hall;
      $250,000 to the Antelope Valley for the redevelopment of 
        east downtown Lincoln, NE;
      $250,000 for phase two of the Portland central city 
        streetcar project in Portland, OR;
      $200,000 for development of biotechnology facility at the 
        University of Connecticut;
      $200,000 to the Inner City Education and Recreation 
        Foundation in Chicago, IL, to rehabilitate vacant inner 
        city parcel;
      $200,000 for development efforts in the Scottsdale 
        subdivision of Harvey, LA;
      $200,000 for development of the Wing Luke Museum in the 
        international district of Seattle, WA;
      $100,000 for renovation and development of John Carroll 
        University's Bohannon Science Center in Cleveland, OH;
      $100,000 to the Mountain Association for Community 
        Economic Development for economic development 
        activities in Kentucky;
      $250,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Las Vegas, NV, for 
        activities associated with the renovation and expansion 
        of the existing education and recreation facility;
      $1,350,000 to Prince Georges County, MD, for work 
        associated with the Manchester Square Redevelopment 
        Project in Suitland, MD;
      $1,350,000 for economic development and revitalization in 
        the southern Silver Spring business district;
      $1,500,000 to the Maryland Department of Housing and 
        Community Development to establish a national Pediatric 
        Functional Imaging Center, to serve as a job training 
        site for individuals with neurological impairments, 
        located in a federally designated empowerment zone;
      $100,000 to Payne Memorial Outreach, Inc. in Baltimore, 
        MD, for economic development efforts related to the 
        1701 Madison Avenue Redevelopment Project; and
      $400,000 for Garret County, MD, for activities related to 
        development activities associated with the Highview 
        Apartments redevelopment project in Oakland, MD.
    In addition, HUD is required to report on all projects 
funded under any EDI grants awarded independently by HUD, 
identifying the purpose of the project, the funding structure 
of the project, the economic impact and social utility of the 
project, and the lessons learned from the project that can be 
applied as a model throughout the country.
    The Committee supports efforts by the University of San 
Francisco as it works to complete construction of its Center 
for International Business Education, which will serve as a 
national model program for training in environmental 
management, international commerce, and business ethics, and 
will provide both short- and long-term jobs and investment 
benefit.
    The Committee notes that a project at the University of San 
Diego related to scientific education and outreach, is eligible 
for funding under the EDI program.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of efforts by the 
city of San Francisco to revitalize Visitacion Valley with new 
affordable housing, combined with supportive services and 
onsite child care and senior centers. The Committee encourages 
HUD to provide funding to the city for the development of a 
senior center and four child care centers as an integral part 
of this revitalization effort.
    In addition, $29,000,000 is provided for the cost of 
guaranteed loans, as authorized under section 108 of the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, to subsidize a 
total loan principal not to exceed $1,261,000,000.
    The Committee rejects the administration's proposal for 
funding of $100,000,000 for a new initiative called regional 
connections. This proposal should be considered through the 
appropriate authorization committees of the House and Senate, 
not through the appropriations process. The broad language of 
this proposal provides HUD with virtually unfettered discretion 
to make grants and runs counter to the basic principle of the 
CDBG Program that States and localities are in the best 
position to make the decisions about State and local housing 
and community development issues.

                  home investment partnerships program

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $1,500,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   1,883,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,550,000,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,550,000,000 
for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This amount is 
$50,000,000 more than the 1998 appropriation and $333,000,000 
less than the budget request.
    The Committee rejects the administration's proposal to 
merge the section 202 Elderly Housing Program and section 811 
Disabled Housing Program into the HOME Program. At the same 
time, the administration's proposal would reduce sharply the 
available funding in the HOME Program for the section 202 
program from the current level of $645,000,000 for the existing 
section 202 program to $109,000,000, and provide $50,000,000 
for elderly vouchers. The Committee strongly supports both the 
section 202 Elderly Housing Program and the section 811 program 
as independent programs. There is no rational justification for 
merging the section 202 program into the HOME Program. Not only 
is the section 202 program extremely successful and critically 
needed, a recent GAO report indicated that the HOME Program has 
provided few elderly housing units since enactment.
    In particular, from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 
1996, over 1,400 section 202 projects were developed with some 
52,000 rental units for over 47,800 elderly individuals. During 
the same period of time, the HOME Program produced 30 elderly 
housing projects with 681 units which serve some 675 elderly 
individuals.
    In addition, while vouchers are a very important housing 
tool, the elderly deserve to have decent, safe, and affordable 
housing designed to meet specific needs of the elderly as well 
as needed supportive services. Section 202 elderly housing 
accomplishes these purposes; vouchers do not.

                          homeless assistance

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $823,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   1,150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,000,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``Homeless Assistance Grants Program'' account is 
intended to fund the emergency shelter grants program, the 
supportive housing program, the section 8 moderate 
rehabilitation single-room occupancy program, and the shelter 
plus care program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000,000 for homeless 
assistance grants. The amount recommended is $177,000,000 more 
than the fiscal year 1998 level and $150,000,000 less than the 
budget request for fiscal year 1999. The Committee is concerned 
about the funding structure of the McKinney homeless assistance 
grants programs and the overall direction of HUD's 
administration of the program. The Committee believes that 
there is a need for a strong continuum of care approach which 
results in permanent and stable housing, not a revolving door. 
There is a particular need to stabilize homeless persons with 
mental disabilities to avoid this revolving door syndrome as 
well the destabilizing impact this population can have on the 
effectiveness of local continuum of care strategies. Therefore, 
the Committee is recommending a requirement that 30 percent of 
funds be allocated to permanent housing.
    The Committee believes that a significant portion of these 
permanent housing funds should be targeted primarily to persons 
with mental disabilities as an important step to a permanent 
solution by providing these persons with stable housing and 
needed supportive services. Research now shows that chronically 
homeless, chronically disabled individuals, and families 
receive housing primarily through regular, long-term use of the 
emergency shelter system. This interferes with their treatment 
regimen resulting in costly hospital and jail stays. It also 
clogs the emergency system with permanent users, reducing its 
ability to address the more temporary problems of families and 
individuals who are homeless because of an economic crisis.
    The Committee believes that Federal homeless funding should 
be adjusted to focus an appropriate portion of resources on 
providing permanent supportive housing for chronically 
disabled, chronically homeless people, who cannot expect to be 
housed by any other system. This will not only improve outcomes 
for this most needy subpopulation, but will free the emergency 
system to successfully help people who are experiencing an 
economic crisis.
    In addition, there would be a new 25-percent match 
requirement for services, thus expanding resources and 
establishing a balance between homeless services and the 
development of transitional and permanent housing.
    The Committee is concerned over questions about the current 
adequacy of funding for the Homeless Assistance Grants Program. 
The Committee expects HUD to provide a full accounting of the 
program to the Appropriations Committee by May 1, 1999, 
including trends in the costs and activities associated with 
the homeless, as well as an analysis of the success of the 
various strategies for a continuum of care and transition to 
permanent housing.
    The Committee is concerned that the large number of new and 
renewal applications in the 1997 homeless super NOFA 
competition left many existing homeless assistance initiatives 
unfunded, creating serious gaps in the homeless safety net in 
affected areas. The Committee urges HUD to give special 
consideration in the 1998 grant competition to initiatives in 
communities whose programs were disproportionally impacted by 
last year's competition.
    The Committee also believes that the Department of Health 
and Human Services should be actively involved in working with 
HUD on the issue of provision of services to the homeless. The 
Committee urges HUD to work with HHS through the Interagency 
Council on the Homeless to find an appropriate balance between 
each Department's responsibilities in the provision of shelter, 
housing, and services for the homeless.

          Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $204,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     225,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     225,000,000

                          Program Description

    The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA] 
Program is designed to provide States and localities with 
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive 
strategies for meeting the housing needs of persons living with 
HIV/AIDS and their families.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $225,000,000 
for this program, an increase of $21,000,000 over the fiscal 
year 1998 level and the same as the budget request. The 
Committee remains deeply concerned about the growing costs of 
this program, especially compared with the funding levels of 
other housing programs and the overall housing needs of low-
income families. HUD, therefore, is requested to submit to the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies no later than January 15, 1999, a review of the 
program, including the costs and location of each project, 
including all component costs associated with bricks and 
mortar, supportive services, and administrative costs. HUD also 
is requested to submit legislative and administrative reforms 
designed to cap the costs of the program at the current level.

                            Housing Programs

                    Housing for special Populations

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $839,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     870,000,000

                          Program Description

    This account consolidates the housing for the elderly under 
section 202; housing for the disabled under section 811; and 
public housing for Indian families. Under these programs the 
Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the 
acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing. 
Twenty-five percent of the funding provided for housing for the 
disabled is available for tenant-based assistance under section 
8.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $870,000,000 
for development of additional new subsidized housing. Included 
in this recommendation is $676,000,000 for capital advances for 
housing for the elderly and $194,000,000 for capital advances 
for housing for the disabled. These amounts will maintain the 
current fiscal year levels of subsidized housing production for 
the section 811 program and increase the section 202 elderly 
housing program by $31,000,000. Up to 25 percent of the funding 
allocated for housing for the disabled can be used to fund 
section 8 assistance for the disabled.
    As discussed under the ``HOME Investment Partnership 
Program'' account, the Committee rejected a proposal to merge 
the section 202 Elderly Housing Program and the section 811 
Disabled Housing Program into the HOME Program. More 
importantly, the Committee strongly supports these programs and 
opposes the administration's proposal to slash the funding for 
the section 202 program from $645,000,000 level for fiscal year 
1998 to $109,000,000 and $50,000,000 for elderly vouchers in 
fiscal year 1999. This is a cut of over 83 percent in funding 
and will mean a reduction from building some 6,000 units with 
fiscal year 1998 funding to building only 1,500 units with the 
President's proposed fiscal year 1999 funding.
    In particular, the Committee believes that the section 202 
Elderly Housing Program is the most important housing program 
for elderly, low-income Americans, providing both affordable, 
low-income housing and supportive services designed to meet the 
special needs of the elderly. This combination of supportive 
services and affordable housing is critical to promoting 
independent living, self-sufficiency, and dignity while 
delaying the more costly alternative of institutional care.
    Since the inception of the program in 1959, the section 202 
Elderly Housing Program has funded some 5,400 elderly housing 
projects with over 330,000 units. Nevertheless, by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's own estimates, 
there are over 1,400,000 elderly families currently identified 
as having worst case housing needs and in need of affordable 
housing.
    Despite the need for and the success of the section 202 
Elderly Housing Program, the administration proposes to 
decrease sharply funding for this program from $645,000,000 in 
fiscal year 1998 to $109,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. We cannot 
afford this critical loss of housing.
    The Committee is concerned with the state of elderly 
housing, especially in light of departmental requests for 
reduced funding. The Committee directs HUD to report on the 
unmet need for elderly housing in the country, and the physical 
condition of existing elderly housing. HUD's report should also 
include information on what HUD can do to encourage new and 
innovative approaches to providing elderly housing that may 
reduce costs and increase efficiency. This may include 
approaches such as providing continuum of care service at 
residents' housing by facilitating onsite care by service 
providers.
    The Committee directs HUD to include in the report what HUD 
can do to create new partnerships with private industry, 
nonprofits, and other Federal agencies to create a more 
efficient and effective delivery of a continuum of care to 
residents in a way that will improve their living conditions. 
The report should also address what can be done to assist 
effectively those residents who are aging in place in older 
section 202 buildings. The report is due to the VA-HUD and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee by February 1, 
1999.
    Because of the Committee's concern with the delay in 
addressing these issues, HUD is directed to provide $1,000,000 
to the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development 
for work associated with the building of Caritas House and 
expansion of the St. Ann Adult Medical Day Care facility. HUD's 
report on new ideas for addressing aging in place issues should 
study the Catholic Charities Senior Life Services' Jenkins 
Community approach as a model for providing affordable assisted 
living and a continuum of care management blending acute care, 
long-term care, housing, and supportive services.

                     federal housing administration

             fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on       Limitation on      Administrative  
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans        expenses     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998................................        $200,000,000    $110,000,000,000        $338,421,000
Budget estimate, 1999...............................          50,000,000     110,000,000,000         328,888,000
Committee recommendation............................         200,000,000     110,000,000,000         328,888,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             fha--general and special risk program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Limitation on      Limitation on    Administrative                
                                               direct loans     guaranteed loans      expenses     Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998......................       $120,000,000    $17,400,000,000    $222,305,000     $81,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999.....................         50,000,000     18,100,000,000     221,455,000      81,000,000
Committee recommendation..................        120,000,000     18,100,000,000     211,455,000      81,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

    The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the 
mortgage and loan insurance activity of about 40 HUD mortgage/
loan insurance programs which are grouped into the mutual 
mortgage insurance [MMI] fund, cooperative management housing 
insurance [CMHI] fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and 
the special risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and 
accounting control purposes, these are divided into two sets of 
accounts based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized 
insurance programs of the mutual mortgage insurance fund and 
the cooperative management housing insurance fund constitute 
one set; and the general risk insurance and special risk 
insurance funds, which are partially composed of subsidized 
programs, make up the other.
    The amounts for administrative expenses are to be 
transferred from the FHA program accounts to the HUD ``Salaries 
and expenses'' accounts.
    Language is proposed to provide a commitment limitation 
amounting to $110,000,000,000 in the ``MMI/CMHI'' account and 
$17,400,000,000 in the ``GI/SRI'' account.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has included the requested amounts for the 
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on 
guaranteed loans of $110,000,000,000, a limitation on direct 
loans of $100,000,000, and an appropriation of $328,888,000 for 
administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee 
recommends $18,100,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans, 
a limitation on direct loans of $120,000,000, and $211,455,000 
for administrative expenses. The administrative expenses 
appropriation will be transferred and merged with the sums in 
the Department's ``Salaries and expenses'' account.
    In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct 
loan programs in 1999 for multifamily bridge loans and single 
family purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain 
properties owned by the Department. Temporary financing would 
be provided for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 
multifamily projects by purchasers who have obtained 
commitments for permanent financing from another lender. 
Purchase money mortgages would enable governmental and 
nonprofit intermediaries to acquire properties for resale to 
owner-occupants in areas undergoing revitalization.
    The administration has proposed both new regulations and 
new legislation to allow bulk sales of foreclosed property and 
to reauthorize the assignments of single-family notes for 
auction. The Committee agrees that the FHA property disposition 
process needs improvement; private sector companies manage and 
dispose of large portfolios of real estate-owned properties 
much more effectively and economically. The Committee urges the 
Department to adopt some of these practices, subject to 
additional consultation with the Congress. Moreover, the 
Committee directs the Department not to move forward with bulk 
sales without further consultation with the Congress. The 
Committee is very concerned that bulk sales of properties could 
reduce the returns to the FHA fund compared to other reforms 
that would improve the management of this portfolio. Moreover, 
the Committee believes that disposition of foreclosed 
properties in certain neighborhoods where FHA foreclosures may 
be concentrated may need to be done in partnerships with 
community-based nonprofits, where feasible, as a way to enhance 
these communities rather than having these communities risk 
further distress.
    The bill contains a provision that would provide modest 
increases in the FHA mortgage insurance limits, raising the 
floor from 38 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit, 
or some $86,000, to 48 percent of the conforming loan limit, or 
some $109,000, and establishing a new ceiling for high cost 
areas from the existing 75 percent of the conforming loan 
limit, or some $170,000, to 87 percent of the conforming loan 
limit, or some $197,000. While this provision is controversial, 
the Committee is seeking to strike a reasonable balance to 
promote additional homeownership. In particular, these new FHA 
mortgage insurance limits will help in nonurban areas where the 
price of new housing has escalated beyond the capacity of 
first-time homebuyers to use FHA mortgage insurance to buy a 
house. In some areas, because of the FHA lower limits, 
financing is not available for construction of first homes for 
families of workers with lower wages. Because of the high cost 
of constructing and purchasing homes in Alaska and Hawaii, the 
Committee expects HUD to make appropriate adjustments to the 
FHA single family mortgage insurance limits in those States.
    Nevertheless, the Committee remains concerned about HUD's 
capacity to manage the FHA mortgage insurance programs and the 
potential exposure of the Federal Government if there is an 
economic downturn. The Committee directs HUD to contract every 
3 years with a different auditor for the annual actuarial 
review of the mutual mortgage insurance fund. HUD is directed 
to contract with a new auditor, other than Price Waterhouse, 
beginning in fiscal year 1999. The Committee also, in 
conjunction with the authorizing committees, will be looking 
for additional ways to ensure the solvency of the mutual 
mortgage insurance fund. The Committee requests that GAO review 
whether differences between the requirements of the FHA 
mortgage insurance programs and those of the private mortgage 
insurance marketplace have resulted in the steering of home 
purchasers to FHA programs.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department has invested 
considerable time and resources in developing a policy 
statement that would clarify the Department's position on 
lender payments mortgage broker fees and their legality under 
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Publishing a policy 
statement could provide invaluable guidance to consumers, 
brokers, and the courts. The Committee is concerned about the 
legal uncertainty that continues absent such a policy 
statement. The Committee directs the Department to publish a 
policy statement to clarify its position on lender payments to 
mortgage brokers as soon as practicable. The Committee expects 
HUD to work with representatives of industry and all other 
interested parties on this policy statement.

                Government National Mortgage Association

                guarantees of mortgage-backed securities

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1998:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                        $130,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                               9,383,000

Budget estimate, 1999:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         150,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                               9,383,000

Committee recommendation:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         150,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                               9,383,000

                          program description

    The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA], 
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees 
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA 
is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United 
States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed 
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended. 
GNMA is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee 
the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that 
are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of 
mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal 
Housing Administration, the Farmers Home Administration, or the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA's guarantee of mortgage-
backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the 
United States.
    In accord with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990 [OBRA] requirements for direct and guaranteed loan 
programs, the administration is requesting $9,383,000 for 
administrative expenses in the mortgage-backed securities 
program. Amounts to fund this direct appropriation to the ``MBS 
program'' account are to be derived from offsetting receipts 
transferred from the ``Mortgage-backed securities financing'' 
account to a Treasury receipt account.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments of 
mortgage-backed securities of $150,000,000,000. This amount is 
the same level as proposed by the budget request. The Committee 
also has included $9,383,000 for administrative expenses, the 
same as the budget request.

                    Policy Development and Research

                        research and technology

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $36,500,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      36,500,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $36,500,000 for research and 
technology activities in fiscal year 1999. This amount is the 
same as the 1998 level but is $13,500,000 less than the budget 
request. In addition, because HUD has used this office's broad 
authority to administer new and unauthorized programs, this 
office is denied demonstration authority except where approval 
is provided by Congress in response to a reprogramming request.
    The Committee is aware that access to quality and cost-
effective primary and preventive health care is an essential 
component of public housing residents making the transfer from 
welfare to work. From within the funds provided, the Committee 
urges the Department to collaborate with Swope Parkway Health 
Center in Kansas City and other community health centers that 
have successfully developed systems of urban community health 
care to demonstrate and evaluate health care service delivery 
models which address this critical need.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

                        fair housing activities

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $30,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      52,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      35,000,000

                          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 $35,000,000, of which 
$20,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP] 
and no more than $15,000,000 is for the fair housing 
initiatives program [FHIP].
    The Committee is concerned 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 grow their 
understanding, expertise, and implementation of the law.
    HUD is directed to develop policy guidelines on all aspects 
of fair housing policy by August 1, 1999. These policy 
guidelines shall be developed in conjunction with the Congress, 
and the public through public hearings. Before the guidelines 
are published, HUD shall submit the proposed guidelines for 
comment and review to all committees of jurisdiction, including 
the Committees on Appropriations.
    In addition, the Committee remains concerned that the HUD 
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity continues to 
pursue regulatory authority over the property insurance 
industry through the Fair Housing Act. While HUD has indicated 
that it does not intend to focus its regulatory authority over 
the property insurance requirements, the Committee reminds the 
Department that the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 explicitly 
states that, ``unless a Federal law specifically relates to the 
business of insurance, that law shall not apply where it would 
interfere with State insurance regulation.'' HUD assertion of 
authority regarding property insurance regulation contradicts 
this statutory mandate.
    Moreover, HUD's insurance-related activities duplicate 
State regulation of insurance. Every State and the District of 
Columbia have laws and regulations addressing unfair 
discrimination in property insurance and are actively 
investigating and addressing discrimination where it is found 
to occur. HUD's activities in this area create an unwarranted 
and unnecessary layer of Federal bureaucracy.

                     Management and Administration

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        FHA funds by    GNMA funds by    CGDB funds by                  
                                                                      Appropriation       transfer         transfer         transfer          Total     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998...............................................     $446,000,000     $544,443,000       $9,383,000       $1,000,000   $1,000,826,000
Budget estimate, 1999..............................................      471,843,000      518,000,000        9,383,000        1,000,000    1,000,826,000
Committee recommendation...........................................      471,843,000      518,000,000        9,383,000        1,000,000    1,000,826,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,826,000 
for salaries and expenses. This amount is the same as the 
fiscal year 1998 appropriation and the budget request. The 
appropriation includes the requested amount of $518,000,000 
transferred from various funds from the Federal Housing 
Administration, $9,383,000 transferred from the Government 
National Mortgage Association, $1,000,000 from the community 
development appropriation, $200,000 from title VI, and $400,000 
from the native American housing block grant.
    In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing 
more than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive 
service employees.
    The Committee is concerned that HUD's request for salaries 
and expenses do not reflect the Secretary's commitment to and 
implementation of downsizing at the Department, as already 
implemented and as proposed in the HUD 2020 management reform 
plan. The Committee directs HUD to submit to the Committee by 
April 15, 1999, an analysis of the HUD budget request for 
salaries and expenses for fiscal year 1999, including all 
projected savings from the Secretary's reform efforts. The 
report should include a breakdown of all salaries and expenses 
in a review of staffing and staffing costs by program, office, 
and grade, including all staffing costs in the field. All 
expenses, other than staffing costs, within this account also 
should be clearly identified.

                      Office of Inspector General

                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Drug                     
                                                                   FHA funds by     elimination                 
                                                   Appropriation     transfer         grants           Total    
                                                                                     transfer                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998............................     $40,567,000     $16,283,000     $10,000,000     $66,850,000
Budget estimate, 1999...........................      34,507,000      22,343,000      10,000,000      66,850,000
Committee recommendation........................      34,507,000      22,343,000      10,000,000      66,850,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

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

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends a funding level of $30,507,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General. This amount is the same as the 
1998 level and $6,060,000 more than the budget request. This 
funding level includes $22,343,000 by transfer from various FHA 
funds and $10,000,000 from drug elimination grants, the same 
level as proposed in the budget request.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $16,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      16,551,000
Committee recommendation................................      16,000,000

                          program description

    This appropriation funds the Office of Federal Housing 
Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO], which was established in 1992 to 
regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing 
Government sponsored enterprises [GSE's], the Federal National 
Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
Corporation. The Office was authorized in the Federal Housing 
Enterprise Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also 
instituted a three-part capital standard for the GSE's, and 
gave the regulator enhanced authority to enforce those 
standards.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is $551,000 less 
than the budget request. The Committee remains concerned that 
OFHEO is long overdue in developing risk-based capital 
standards for the GSE's, as required by the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1992.

                       Administrative Provisions

    Sec. 201. Extenders. Provides a number of public housing 
and section 8 reforms carried over from the VA/HUD 
appropriations bills for fiscal year 1998.
    Sec. 202. Financing adjustment factors. Provides an 
incentive for refinancing projects financed with FAF bonds to 
lower the cost of section 8 assistance.
    Sec. 203. Fair housing and free speech. Prohibits 
prosecution of persons under the Fair Housing Act where person 
is engaged in lawful activity.
    Sec. 204. HUD public notice and comment rulemaking. 
Requires HUD to maintain public notice and comment rulemaking. 
HUD is directed to use notice and comment rulemaking for all 
significant policy changes in HUD notices of funding 
availability.
    Sec. 205. Brownfields as eligible CDBG activity. Makes 
activities related to brownfields cleanup an eligible activity 
under CDBG.
    Sec. 206. Rehabilitation grants. Provides HUD flexibility 
to make rehabilitation grants and loans in disposing of HUD-
owned and HUD-held properties. Nevertheless, the Committee is 
concerned about accountability in making rehabilitation grants 
and loans from the general and special risk insurance funds. 
HUD, therefore, is directed to report to the Committee on 
January 15, 1999, and August 15, 1999, on all rehabilitation 
grants and loans made under this authority, including a 
description of the requirements and criteria of each grant. It 
is expected that HUD is exercising this authority according to 
written guidelines or regulations in the Federal Register.
    Sec. 207. HUD rent reform. Provides flexible use of funding 
with section 236 projects.
    Sec. 208. HOPWA grants. Technical correction to HOPWA.
    Sec. 209. Partial payment of claims on health care 
facilities. Permits partial payment of claims on hospitals and 
health care facilities.
    Sec. 210. FHA multifamily mortgage credit demonstrations. 
Extends HUD's multifamily mortgage insurance risk-sharing 
programs through fiscal year 1999.
    Sec. 211. Calculation of FHA downpayment. Extends for 2 
years the FHA single family streamlined downpayment program 
nationwide.
    Sec. 212. State CDBG IDIS funding. Provides funding for 
IDIS implementation.
    Sec. 213. Nursing home lease terms. Technical correction.
    Sec. 214. Emprovement zone criteria. Prohibits the use of 
grant funds in an empowerment zone as a criteria in awarding 
grants.
    Sec. 215. Grant announcements. Requires HUD to notify the 
Committees on Appropriations of all grant awards at least 24 
hours before public or private announcement.
    Sec. 216. Emergency CDBG. Technical correction.
    Sec. 217. Account transition. Requires HUD to hold all 
program recaptures subject to reprogramming.
    Sec. 218. Prohibition on university funding. Prohibits HUD 
from paying university tuition for community builders.
    Sec. 219. FHA single family mortgage insurance limits 
reforms. Increases the FHA mortgage insurance limits, raising 
the floor from 38 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan 
limit, or some $86,000, to 48 percent of the conforming loan 
limit, or some $109,000, and establishes a new ceiling for high 
cost areas from the existing 75 percent of the conforming loan 
limit, or some $170,000, to 87 percent of the conforming loan 
limit, or some $197,000.
    Sec. 220. Use of HOME funds for public housing 
modernization. Provides funding flexibility for a project in 
Bismark, ND.
    Sec. 221. CDBG and HOME exemption. Provides funding 
flexibility for a project in Oxnard, CA.

                    TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $26,897,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      23,931,000
Committee recommendation................................      26,931,000

                          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 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 cemetery memorials on foreign soil; 17 monuments and 
memorials not a part of the cemeteries; and 4 bronze tablets. 
In addition, the Commission administers four large memorials on 
U.S. soil. It is presently charged with erecting a Korean and a 
World War II war veterans memorial in the Washington, DC, area.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,931,000 
for the American Battle Monuments Commission, which is 
$3,000,000 over the administration's request and $34,000 over 
the fiscal year 1998 level. This includes $2,500,000 for 
renovation of the Liberty Memorial Monument.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       7,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board was 
authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to 
investigate accidental releases of certain chemical substances 
resulting in serious injury, death, or substantial property 
damage. It became operational in fiscal year 1998.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $6,500,000 for the Chemical Safety 
and Hazard Investigation Board, an increase of $2,500,000 above 
the fiscal year 1998 level and a decrease of $500,000 below the 
budget request.
    The Committee is concerned that the Board's budget request 
is not adequately justified, particularly with respect to the 
projected average annual salary costs. Fiscal responsibility 
and accountability should be of paramount importance as the 
Board becomes fully operational. The Committee expects the 
Board not to allow operational costs to become excessive over 
the next few years and to make careful, deliberate decisions 
with respect to the growth and expansion of both operations and 
staff. The General Accounting Office is to conduct an annual 
review of the Board's operations and report to the Committee by 
April 1, 1999, on the implementation and effectiveness of the 
Board in carrying out its mission.
    The Committee has 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, 1998....................................     $80,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     125,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      55,000,000

                          Program Description

    The community development financial institutions [CDFI] 
fund would provide grants, loans, and technical assistance to 
new and existing community development financial institutions 
such as community development banks, community development 
credit unions, revolving loan funds, and microloan funds. 
Recipient institutions would be required to support mortgage, 
small business, and economic development lending in currently 
underserved, distressed neighborhoods.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $55,000,000 because of 
accountability concerns raised in hearings held by the Senate 
Banking Committee.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $45,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      46,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      46,500,000

                          program description

    The Commission is an independent regulatory agency that was 
established on May 14, 1973, and is responsible for protecting 
the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer 
products; assisting consumers to evaluate the comparative 
safety of consumer products; developing uniform safety 
standards for consumer products and minimizing conflicting 
State and local regulations; and promoting research and 
investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related 
deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
    In carrying out its mandate, the Commission establishes 
mandatory product safety standards, where appropriate, to 
reduce the unreasonable risk of injury to consumers from 
consumer products; helps industry develop voluntary safety 
standards; bans unsafe products if it finds that a safety 
standard is not feasible; monitors recalls of defective 
products; informs and educates consumers about product hazards; 
conducts research and develops test methods; collects and 
publishes injury and hazard data, and promotes uniform product 
regulations by governmental units.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $46,500,000 for the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, the same as the budget estimate and 
$1,500,000 above the current level.
    The Committee recognizes CPSC's need for additional 
resources for information technology, including updating the 
agency's network system and establishing an integrated 
information system; and replacing and upgrading equipment and 
software, including network hardware and servers, and adding 
increased storage capability. Unfortunately, the subcommittee 
allocation precluded providing additional funds above the 
administration request to meet this need. Therefore, all 
efforts should be made to fund such activities through 
reprogrammings from lower priority areas.
    The Committee is aware of the Commission's advanced notice 
of proposed rulemaking regarding a fire safety standard for 
residential furniture. The Committee strongly encourages the 
Commission to study thoroughly the potential health effects, 
including the carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, and 
any other chronic and acute effects upon individuals, 
especially infants and children, exposed to the chemical 
treatment of fabrics before issuing a final rule.
    The Committee congratulates CPSC on its role in developing 
mandatory and voluntary crib safety standards. However, deaths 
from cribs still exceed all other nursery products combined. 
Over 9,000 children are injured in cribs every year seriously 
enough to require hospital treatment. In the past 10 years, 
over 550 children died from crib injuries. One problem is that 
safety standards that apply to manufacturers are not enforced 
for cribs sold in secondary markets such as thrift stores and 
resale furniture stores. The Committee encourages CPSC to 
develop an annual public awareness campaign to educate both 
retailers and consumers on the consequences of selling and 
purchasing unsafe cribs.

             Corporation for National and Community Service

                national and community service programs

                           operating expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $425,500,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     499,316,000
Committee recommendation................................     425,500,000

                          program description

    The Corporation for National and Community Service, a 
Corporation owned by the Federal Government, was established by 
the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 (Public 
Law 103-82) to enhance opportunities for national and community 
service and provide national service educational awards. The 
Corporation makes grants to States, institutions of higher 
education, public and private nonprofit organizations, and 
others to create service opportunities for a wide variety of 
individuals such as students, out-of-school youth, and adults 
through innovative, full-time national and community service 
programs. National service participants may receive educational 
awards which may be used for full-time or 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 of the Corporation. Board 
members and the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation are 
appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed 
by the Senate.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $425,500,000 
for the Corporation for National and Community Service. Of this 
amount, $70,000,000 is for educational awards; $227,000,000 is 
for grants under the National Service Trust, including the 
AmeriCorps program; $5,500,000 is for the Points of Light 
Foundation; $18,000,000 is for the Civilian Community Corps; 
$43,000,000 is available for school-based and community-based 
service-learning programs; $30,000,000 is for quality and 
innovation activities; $27,000,000 is for administrative 
expenses; and $5,000,000 is for audits and other evaluations. 
The total amount appropriated and each of the program earmarks 
are identical to the level appropriated for fiscal year 1998. 
The Committee strongly supports the Corporation's literacy and 
mentoring efforts.

                      Office of Inspector General

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,000,000

                          Program Description

    The Office of Inspector General within the Corporation for 
National and Community Service is authorized by the Inspector 
General Act of 1978, as amended. The goals of the Office are to 
increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness and to 
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. The Office of Inspector 
General within the Corporation for National and Community 
Service was transferred to the Corporation from the former 
ACTION agency when ACTION was abolished and merged into the 
Corporation in April 1994.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General. This is the same as the amount 
appropriated for this Office in fiscal year 1998 and the budget 
request.

                     U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $9,319,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      10,195,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          program description

    The Court of Veterans Appeals was established by the 
Veterans' Judicial Review Act. The court has exclusive 
jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans' 
Appeals. It has the authority to decide all relevant questions 
of law, interpret 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 
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 $10,000,000 for the Court of 
Veterans Appeals, a decrease of $195,000 below the budget 
estimate and an increase of $681,000 above the 1998 level. The 
recommendation includes $865,000 for the pro bono 
representation program, and assumes no increase in Court of 
Veterans Appeals staffing.

                      Department of Defense--Civil

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $11,815,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      11,666,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,666,000

                          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, 1997, 
Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries 
contained the remains of 266,351 persons and comprised a total 
of approximately 628 acres. There were 3,525 interments and 
2,000 inurnments in fiscal year 1997; 3,500 interments and 
2,000 inurnments are estimated for the current fiscal year; and 
3,600 interments and 2,100 inurnments are estimated for fiscal 
year 1999.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $11,666,000 
for the Army's cemeterial expenses. This amount is $149,000 
below the 1998 enacted level.

                    Environmental Protection Agency

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $7,363,046,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   7,795,275,000
Committee recommendation................................   7,413,062,000

                          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 [CAA] of 1990 authorize 
a national program of air pollution research, regulation, 
prevention, and enforcement activities.
    Water quality.--The Clean Water Act [CWA], as amended in 
1977, 1981, and 1987, provides the framework for protection of 
the Nation's surface waters. The law recognizes that it is the 
primary responsibility of the States to prevent, reduce, and 
eliminate water pollution. The States determine the desired 
uses for their waters, set standards, identify current uses 
and, where uses are being impaired or threatened, develop plans 
for the protection or restoration of the designated use. They 
implement the plans through control programs such as permitting 
and enforcement, construction of municipal waste water 
treatment works, and nonpoint source control practices. The CWA 
also regulates discharge of dredge or fill material into waters 
of the United States, including wetlands.
    Drinking water.--The Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] 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 [RCRA] 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 [FIFRA] and the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act [FFDCA] 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 [TSCA] 
establishes a program to stimulate the development of adequate 
data on the effects of chemical substances on health and the 
environment, and institute control action for those chemicals 
which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
environment. The act's coverage affects more than 60,000 
chemicals currently in commerce, and all new chemicals.
    Multimedia.--Multimedia activities are designed to support 
programs where the problems, tools, and results are cross media 
and must be integrated to effect results. This integrated 
program encompasses the Agency's research, enforcement, and 
abatement activities.
    Superfund.--The Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 [CERCLA] 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 [SARA]. 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 [SARA] established 
the leaking underground storage tank [LUST] trust fund to 
conduct corrective actions for releases from leaking 
underground storage tanks that contain petroleum or other 
hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST response program 
primarily through cooperative agreements with the States.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends a total of $7,413,062,000 for EPA. 
This is a decrease of $382,213,000 below the budget request and 
an increase of $50,016,000 above the current budget. The 
Committee recommendation falls below the President's request 
principally owing to a decision not to provide an increase for 
the Superfund Program.
    The recommendation includes increases in a number of key 
areas, including a $295,000,000 increase above the President's 
request and $173,000,000 over the enacted level for water 
quality activities including clean water State revolving funds; 
an increase of $10,000,000 over the President's request for 
particulate matter research; an increase of $13,600,900 for air 
quality grants over the enacted level; and an increase of 
$75,000,000 above the enacted level for drinking water State 
revolving funds.
    The Committee's recommendation falls below the enacted 
level in only two areas: buildings and facilities--a decrease 
of $56,472,000 is proposed by the administration and 
recommended by the Committee owing to a decrease in 
requirements associated with the Research Triangle Park 
Laboratory construction project--and special water and sewer 
projects, for which approximately $150,000,000 less than the 
enacted level is recommended. Funding at or slightly above the 
enacted level is recommended for all other programs including 
Superfund. Given the many problems surrounding the Superfund 
Program, as delineated in the ``Superfund'' account section of 
this report, coupled with significant budget constraints, the 
Committee cannot justify a significant increase in spending at 
this time.
    The Committee notes that EPA's budget has been reformatted 
consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act. It 
includes for the first time, performance goals and measures and 
in many instances focuses on results. These changes are 
positive and EPA is to be commended for its work in this area. 
However, there are a number of important concerns. Despite the 
new budget format, it does not appear that GPRA initiatives 
have resulted in a new budget discipline in which EPA made some 
hard choices, disinvested in lower priority activities, and 
made budget priorities based on the greatest opportunities for 
risk reduction.
    Recently the General Accounting Office indicated that a key 
management issue facing EPA is the need to improve its 
performance in establishing priorities that better reflect the 
risks to human health and the environment and that compare 
risks and risk reduction strategies across programs and 
pollution problems. It is expected that in the fiscal year 2000 
budget and annual plan, EPA will improve its allocation of 
resources to reflect real risks that particular environmental 
problems pose, and the benefits of Federal investments in 
addressing these problems, and target for priority attention 
those areas offering the greatest opportunity for risk 
reduction.
    Second, there continues to be a strong emphasis in some 
areas of the budget and annual plan on outputs rather than 
outcomes. For example, in the enforcement area, all performance 
measures are traditional outputs, such as the number of 
inspections to be conducted. To comply with the intent and 
spirit of the Results Act, the emphasis should be squarely on 
outcomes--protection of and improvements to the environment and 
public health. In addition, the Committee is concerned with 
some of the goals that EPA has selected. It does not appear 
that all goals will outlast a single administration. To measure 
progress over a long period, there needs to be stability and 
consistency in the goals and measures.
    The Committee is also very concerned that the new budget 
format provides very little resource information on agency 
programs; programs are divided amongst multiple goals and 
objectives, resulting in great confusion over program budgets 
and activities. The lack of program information is unacceptable 
and must be addressed in the fiscal year 2000 budget 
submission. The Committee expects to be able to identify in the 
budget specific resource information for all key agency 
programs and activities without having to rely on supplementary 
sources for such information.
    The Committee also questions whether EPA's strategic plan 
and budget provide any more accountability than there has been 
in the past. The inspector general earlier this year provided a 
list of the top 10 areas of concern within EPA. According to 
the inspector general, ``An overarching issue that relates to 
many of EPA's problems is a lack of accountability.'' GPRA's 
focus is on accountability for results, yet accountability has 
been among EPA's weakest areas, as the inspector general, the 
National Academy of Public Administration, and others have 
pointed out in the past.
    According to the inspector general, ``One of the most 
significant challenges EPA faces in implementing the Results 
Act is developing an accurate baseline of environmental data 
for planning, budgeting, implementing, and evaluating EPA's 
programs. Without accurate data, EPA's managers cannot assess 
EPA's progress in carrying out its environmental mission.'' 
Accurate environmental information is imperative in order to 
know whether programs are working, whether dollars are being 
invested wisely, and to hold EPA accountable for meeting the 
goals it has set forth. Furthermore, ensuring data quality is 
critical in view of EPA's emphasis on right-to-know activities, 
with virtually every EPA program involved in some form of a 
right-to-know program. The information EPA provides to the 
public about the environmental performance of companies, 
facilities, and products, and about environmental conditions, 
trends, and risk absolutely must be accurate and reliable, and 
presented in an appropriate and meaningful context.
    Unfortunately, while this issue has been pointed out by the 
inspector general, GAO, and NAPA many times over the past 
several years, EPA has not made environmental data quality a 
high priority. In its September 1997 report, NAPA said, ``The 
agency has not yet established the institutions it will need to 
ensure that data are reliable, objective, credible, and 
consistent across programs and media.'' While NAPA called for a 
one-stop-shop for environmental information, EPA ignored this 
recommendation and senior agency leadership has not accorded 
this issue priority attention.
    The Committee notes that the Deputy Administrator recently 
appointed EPA's Chief Information Officer to lead a strategic 
action plan to implement an agencywide approach to ensuring the 
quality of EPA data. This is an encouraging development, and it 
is expected that the CIO will be held accountable for ensuring 
the quality of and stewardship for environmental information at 
EPA. The Committee further expects EPA to (1) invest sufficient 
funds in improving the quality of data; (2) ensure this issue 
is accorded high priority within the agency with senior agency 
leadership supervision; and (3) provide a quarterly report on 
its progress in addressing data quality and stewardship 
concerns.
    The Committee notes that EPA's budget includes $6,100,000 
for activities necessary to ensure EPA systems are year 2000-
compliant. EPA estimates this amount will be sufficient for 
final evaluation and testing of all mission critical systems at 
EPA. EPA is directed to take all necessary steps to ensure year 
2000 compliance and make this a high priority.
    The agency is directed to notify the Committee prior to 
each reprogramming in excess of $500,000 between objectives, 
when those reprogrammings are for different purposes. The 
exceptions to this limitation are as follows: (1) for the 
``Environmental programs and management'' account, Committee 
approval is required only above $1,000,000; and (2) for the 
``State and tribal assistance grants'' account, reprogramming 
of performance partnership grant funds is exempt from this 
limitation.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $631,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     633,460,000
Committee recommendation................................     643,460,000

                          program description

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $643,460,000 for science and 
technology, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget request 
and $12,460,000 over the enacted level. In addition, the 
Committee recommends the transfer of $40,200,000 from the 
Superfund account, for a total of $683,660,000 for science and 
technology.
    The Committee has made the following changes to the budget 
request:
  +$1,750,000 for the National Jewish Medical and Research 
        Center for research on the relationship between indoor 
        and outdoor pollution and the development of 
        respiratory diseases. The research should be 
        coordinated with EPA's overall particulate matter 
        research program and consistent with the 
        recommendations set forth by the recent National 
        Academy of Sciences report on PM research.
  +$2,000,000 for the National Environmental Respiratory Center 
        at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute. The 
        research should be coordinated with EPA's overall 
        particulate matter research program and consistent with 
        the recommendations set forth by the recent National 
        Academy of Sciences report on PM research.
  +$1,250,000 for the Center for Air Toxics Metals at the 
        Energy and Environmental Research Center.
  +$2,500,000 for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research 
        Center.
  +$2,500,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate 
        Competitive Research.
  +$1,000,000 for the Texas Regional Institute for 
        Environmental Studies [TRIES] to test cost-effective 
        environmental restoration technologies.
  +$1,000,000 for the Institute for Environmental and 
        Industrial Science at Southwest Texas State University.
  +$1,500,000 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 research on perchlorate treatment 
        technologies, managed by the American Water Works 
        Association Research Foundation on behalf of the East 
        Valley Water District.
  +$1,250,000 for continuation of the California PM-10/PM-2.5 
        air quality study.
  +$1,000,000 for the Alabama Center for Estuarine Studies.
  +$2,000,000 for the national decentralized water resources 
        capacity development project [NDWRCDP]. The Committee 
        notes that as part of the clean water action plan the 
        administration has requested, and the Committee 
        recommends, $500,000 in support of the establishment of 
        management programs for rural or suburban onsite 
        wastewater treatment systems. EPA should work closely 
        with the NDWRCDP in this effort.
  +$2,000,000 for the Center for Environmental Research, 
        Education, and Training at the University of Maryland-
        Baltimore County. The center will support research on 
        watershed science, ecological and environmental impacts 
        of urban and suburban development, fate and transport 
        of contaminants from urban and rural land use, and 
        analysis of large spatial data sets vital to EPA's 
        mission.
  +$6,000,000 for the Mine Waste Technology Program and the 
        Heavy Metal Water Program at the National Environmental 
        Waste Technology, Testing, and Evaluation Center.
  +$1,000,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation.
  +$1,000,000 for the American Water Works Association Research 
        Foundation.
  +$1,000,000 for the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics 
        Research Center.
  +$10,000,000 for particulate matter research, for a total of 
        $39,000,000. This amount is to be allocated according 
        to the high-priority areas identified by the National 
        Academy of Sciences.
  -$8,000,000 from the environmental monitoring for public 
        access and community tracking. This new program has 
        been funded at current levels.
  -$2,000,000 from the advanced measurement initiative. This 
        program has been funded at current levels.
  -$6,000,000 from global change research. This program has 
        been funded at current levels.
  -$10,000,000 from the climate change technology initiative. 
        The amount provided represents a $20,000,000 increase 
        over the enacted level. This increase will allow for 
        the acceleration of EPA's efforts in support of the 
        Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.
  -$3,750,000 as a general reduction, subject to normal 
        reprogramming guidelines.
    The Committee notes that the National Academy of Sciences 
recently issued a report on particulate matter [PM] research as 
directed by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The 
NAS panel, which included a diverse group of scientists from a 
variety of backgrounds, reported that EPA's allocation of PM 
research dollars was misdirected. ``EPA should devote more 
funds to studying the types of particles most likely to be 
harmful to human health, the ways particles cause damage, and 
the levels of exposure people actually receive.'' The panel 
further found, ``Given the potential magnitude of public health 
consequences associated with exposures to particulate matter 
and the potential economic costs of implementing the new PM 
standards, it is essential that policymakers and the American 
public have confidence that sufficient, high-quality scientific 
and technical information is available to reduce the risks 
effectively and efficiently. Proceeding in the absence of such 
information could lead policymakers to focus on standards and 
controls for PM that are not of the highest public health 
priority.''
    The Committee fully expects EPA will refocus its research 
agenda consistent with the NAS recommendations. EPA is to work 
closely with NAS in ensuring limited PM research dollars are 
allocated to the highest priority areas, particularly in view 
of the short timeframe leading to the next national ambient air 
quality standards [NAAQS] review.
    With respect to the PM monitoring network, NAS recommended 
EPA reevaluate the network. NAS reported ``The agency should 
consider more fully the possibility that future research 
results might indicate that the expensive monitoring program is 
not measuring the most biologically important aspects of 
particulate matter. Such an inconsistency would undermine the 
credibility and effectiveness of future control strategies and 
underprotect vulnerable subpopulations.'' While the Committee 
has fully funded the administration's request for the PM 
monitoring network, EPA is expected to follow the NAS 
recommendation to have the monitoring network peer reviewed. 
EPA should involve NAS in this effort. Such an evaluation is 
not intended to delay implementation of the monitoring network 
by the statutory deadline of December 1999.
    EPA is urged to fund the hazardous substance research 
centers at current levels.
    The Committee fully supports EPA's budget request of 
approximately $35,600,000 for drinking water research, and the 
Committee expects that microbial contamination will be given a 
high priority within that budget. The Committee also supports 
no less than the full budget request for the Environmental 
Technology Verification Program.
    The Committee urges EPA to study the potential health 
effects of the following chemicals: boric acid, 
decabromodiphenyl oxide, hexabromocyclododecane, antimony 
trioxide, tris phosphate, urea, phenol isopropylated phosphate, 
ammonium bromide, phosphorothioic acid, phosphonic acid, 
ammonium polyphosphate, ammonium sufamate, triphenyl phosphate, 
and melamine. The Committee is particularly concerned about the 
possible carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, and any 
other chronic and acute effects of these chemicals.
    The Committee strongly encourages EPA to support cross-
agency interdisciplinary research initiatives in environmental 
research and biology and engineering. EPA should reach out to 
other Federal agencies involved in similar research activities 
in order to expand participation in this field. EPA is 
encouraged to work with the University of Maryland-Baltimore 
County through the development of a cooperative agreement to 
facilitate this effort.
    The Committee urges EPA to fund an analysis of the 
effectiveness of gasoline fuel additives in reducing octane 
control requirement increase [ORI] and the potential global 
environmental benefits offered by ORI. Such an analysis should 
include identification of products that claim to reduce ORI; 
review of existing test reports and evaluation of existing data 
on the health effects of such additives; and assessment of the 
fuel economy, air quality, and other environmental and health 
benefits associated with bulk treatment of gasoline with 
additives that reduce ORI. Participation of the Department of 
Energy, engine manufacturers, petroleum companies, fuel 
additive companies, and environmental organizations and experts 
should be invited.
    EPA is urged to work with the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences to conduct a national study on 
potential health risks involved in the application of sludge to 
agricultural lands. A national research project would resolve 
gaps in scientific data and uncertainty of sludge impacts on 
air, soil, surface, and ground water.
    The Committee notes that activities being pursued by the 
Center for Freshwater Studies at the University of Alabama are 
consistent with EPA's clean water action plan. The center 
proposes to integrate field observations and ecological 
experiments with transport and kinetic reaction modeling to 
develop effective strategies to diminish water degradation 
resulting from excessive nutrient inputs derived from land 
applications of animal waste. EPA should favorably consider a 
proposal from the center for such important research.
    The Committee urges EPA to fund a study at the Vermont 
Agency of Natural Resources in conjunction with the National 
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, of the malformation 
of frogs, including chemical characterization of known affected 
sites and tissue analysis, embryo assay with ambient water and 
sediments from sites, radiology and histopathology of frogs 
from test and control sites, and surveys to determine 
distribution of problems in Vermont.
    The Committee is aware of the increased use of the organism 
burkholderia cepacia as a biologic control agent. The Committee 
is concerned over the level of information that exists with 
regard to the environmental strains of B. cepacia used in 
products that can pose health problems for people with cystic 
fibrosis. The Committee recommends EPA convene a workshop which 
includes specialists from industry, microbiologists, 
epidemiologist, and cystic fibrosis experts to assess the 
health risks of B. cepacia, and report back to the Committee 
with an assessment of the impact of B. cepacia on high-risk 
populations.
    The Committee has not included proposed bill language 
relative to the environmental services fund.

                 environmental programs and management

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $1,801,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   1,993,780,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,840,500,000

                          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; compliance assurance; and 
assistance to Federal agencies in complying with environmental 
standards and insuring that their activities have minimal 
environmental impact.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,840,500,000 for environmental 
programs and management, an increase of $39,500,000 above the 
1998 level and a decrease of $153,280,000 below the budget 
request.
    The Committee has made the following changes to the budget 
request:
  +$1,500,000 for training grants under 104(g) of the Clean 
        Water Act.
  +$8,000,000 for the National Rural Water Association.
    The Committee notes that in addition to the funds provided 
directly in this legislation for onsite rural water training 
and technical assistance, States are authorized to set aside 2 
percent of the funds provided under their drinking water State 
revolving fund allotment, which would total $16,000,000 in 
fiscal year 1999.
    The inspector general recently raised serious concerns 
regarding lobbying activities and noncompetitive contracting 
practices by NRWA. EPA is to take all necessary steps to ensure 
this grant, and all other grants and contracts, are executed in 
compliance with all appropriate laws and regulations. No 
Federal funds are to be used to support lobbying activities. 
EPA is to ensure that all grantees establish adequate controls 
to ensure that both direct and indirect lobbying costs are 
systematically identified and excluded from charges to Federal 
assistance agreements and contracts. Finally, all 
recommendations included in the inspector general's report are 
to be followed by EPA.
  +$2,100,000 for the Rural Community Assistance Program.
  +$400,000 for the Groundwater Protection Council.
  +$1,000,000 for the National Environmental Training Center at 
        West Virginia University.
  +$1,550,000 for the Small Flows Clearinghouse.
  +$1,250,000 for the national onsite wastewater treatment 
        demonstration project through the Small Flows 
        Clearinghouse. The NODP peer review panel shall include 
        representatives of the national decentralized water 
        resources capacity development project and the two 
        groups shall coordinate their activities, along with 
        EPA, to maximize the Federal investment. Within 3 
        months of a grant award from EPA, the Small Flows 
        Clearinghouse is to obligate funds for specific 
        projects. The clearinghouse is to provide to EPA and 
        the Congress within 90 days of enactment of this act a 
        progress report on what has been accomplished by the 
        program to date, including a description of projects 
        funded, ongoing monitoring activities of such projects, 
        and lessons learned.
  +$3,000,000 for the demonstration project involving leaking 
        storage tanks in Alaska.
  +$3,000,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental 
        Research and Policy.
  +$500,000 for the continuation of the small water system 
        cooperative initiative at Montana State University.
  +$500,000 for the Small Public Water System Technology Center 
        at Western Kentucky University.
  +$500,000 for the Small Public Water System Technology Center 
        at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
  +$500,000 for a small public water system technology center 
        at the University of New Hampshire.
  +$1,000,000 for water quality monitoring in the Tennessee 
        River basin through the Alabama Department of 
        Environmental Management.
  +$500,000 to conduct demonstration projects to aid 
        communities on the islands of Molokai and Maui to meet 
        successfully the water quality permitting requirements 
        for rehabilitating native Hawaiian fishponds.
  +$5,000,000 under section 104(b) of the Clean Water Act for 
        America's Clean Water Foundation for implementation of 
        onfarm environmental assessments for hog production 
        operations, with the goal of improving surface and 
        ground water quality.
  +$2,000,000 to support ongoing efforts to address the causes, 
        mechanisms, and health and environmental effects of 
        Pfiesteria.
  +$500,000 for the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program 
        through the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
  +$550,000 for continuation of the Idaho water initiative. The 
        initiative is working to reduce waste and improve 
        quality in water affecting aquaculture and confined 
        animals industries.
  +$500,000 for a study of dioxin in the Ohio River basin.
  +$3,000,000 to continue the sediment decontamination 
        technology demonstration in the New York-New Jersey 
        Harbor.
  +$1,500,000 for the National Alternative Fuels Vehicle 
        Training Program.
  +$2,500,000 for King County, WA, molten carbonate fuel cell 
        demonstration project.
  +$800,000 for the National Center for Vehicle Emissions 
        Control and Safety for onboard diagnostic research.
  +$250,000 for a pilot program to evaluate the most cost-
        effective technologies for treating nonpoint sources of 
        phosphorous in the Lake Sammamish, WA, watershed.
  +$250,000 to work with farmers and the Natural Resources 
        Conservation Service in Vermont to adopt best 
        management practices to reduce phosphorus runoff into 
        Lake Memphremagog.
  +$2,000,000 for the New York City Watershed Protection 
        Program.
  +$750,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants 
        Program.
  +$1,000,000 for the Lake Champlain management plan.
  +$1,380,000 for the Great Lakes National Program Office, for 
        a total of $14,700,000.
  +$2,000,000 for the Food and Agricultural Policy Research 
        Institute's Missouri watershed initiative project to 
        link economic and environmental data with ambient water 
        quality.
  +$500,000 for the Small Business Pollution Prevention Center 
        at the University of Northern Iowa.
  +$750,000 for the painting and coating compliance enhancement 
        project through the Iowa Waste Reduction Center.
  +$1,000,000 to strengthen the State Small Business Ombudsman 
        and Technical Assistance Programs as authorized by 
        section 507 of the Clean Air Act. These funds are to be 
        administered by EPA's small business ombudsman, who 
        shall award grants to States to provide information, 
        advice and assistance to small businesses on compliance 
        with CAA regulations. Grant awards are to be based upon 
        identified deficiencies in State programs, the number 
        of small businesses in a State, and the potential for 
        the grants to assist in the achievement of the national 
        ambient air quality standards objective. Up to 10 
        percent of the grant funds may be used to develop 
        criteria for the State awards and program 
        administration. EPA is to report on the grants, their 
        use, effectiveness and an estimate of the emissions 
        reductions achieved by the section 507 program in the 
        annual report to Congress.
  +$500,000 for the Office of Regulatory Management and 
        Information and the Office of Small Business Ombudsman 
        to be used for resources and personnel to enhance the 
        agency's efforts to comply with SBREFA and the 
        Regulatory Flexibility Act, and to inform small local 
        governments about Agency programs and regulations.
  +$300,000 for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use 
        Management.
  +$2,500,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute for 
        development and demonstration of environmental cleanup 
        technologies.
  +$500,000 for the Ala Wai Canal watershed improvement 
        project.
  +$200,000 for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the 
        University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture 
        and Human Resources to develop agriculturally based 
        remediation technologies. The diverse climatic and 
        biologic conditions in Hawaii offer a range of 
        verification and demonstration activities not possible 
        in other parts of the United States.
  +$100,000 for the city of Philadelphia to study the impact on 
        the Delaware River watershed of vacant and abandoned 
        land in Philadelphia, determine the environmental and 
        economic benefits of remediation, and implement 
        mitigation measures.
  +$500,000 for the environmentors project involving the 
        matching of young people with environmental science 
        professionals to work on environmentally oriented 
        research projects.
  +$1,000,000 for the Animal Waste Management Consortium 
        through the University of Missouri, acting with Iowa 
        State University, North Carolina State University, 
        Michigan State University, Oklahoma State University, 
        and Purdue University to supplement ongoing research, 
        demonstration, and outreach projects associated with 
        animal waste management.
  +$2,000,000 for the University of Missouri Agroforestry 
        Center to support the agroforestry floodplain 
        initiative on nonpoint source pollution.
  +$300,000 for the Dry Creek Channel project in Sandy, UT, to 
        design and implement a nonpoint source project in 
        conjunction with the ongoing Jordan River nonpoint 
        source project, including the creation of wetlands to 
        control urban stormwater runoff.
  +$1,000,000 for the Columbia basin ground water management 
        assessment.
  +$1,500,000 for the city of West Palm Beach, FL, for its 
        wetlands-based potable water reuse program including 
        stormwater and wastewater recycling.
  +$500,000 for the Urban Rivers Awareness Program at the 
        Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia to develop 
        a new environmental science program.
  +$2,000,000 for education, outreach, technical studies, and 
        training to minimize lead hazards created during home 
        improvement and repainting projects.
  +$1,000,000 for an expansion of EPA's efforts related to the 
        Government purchase and use of environmentally 
        preferable products under Executive Order 12873 
        including life cycle analysis. EPA should work with 
        GSA, USDA, DOD, DOE, and the Office of the Federal 
        Environmental Executive as well as other related 
        agencies. EPA should establish appropriate definitions 
        and standards, and use life-cycle methodologies and use 
        nongovernmental certification and/or seal-type 
        programs, where possible. Priority should be given to 
        product areas where agri-based products are likely to 
        be a significant component, including solvents, 
        lubricants, building materials, and plastic substitute 
        products.
  +$200,000 to develop a technical guidance manual for use by 
        permit reviewers and product specifiers (Government and 
        private sector) to ensure appropriate uses of preserved 
        wood in applications including housing, piers, docks, 
        bridges, utility poles, and railroad ties.
  +$2,000,000 for the State of Missouri Department of Natural 
        Resources [DNR] for a clandestine methamphetamine lab 
        cleanup project. The methamphetamine production process 
        creates toxic and explosive gases and residue. The 
        funds are to be used by the Missouri DNR in cooperation 
        with law enforcement and local governments to fund the 
        cleanup and removal of contaminated materials from 
        methamphetamine lab sites.
  +$100,000 to continue the Design for the Environment for 
        Farmers Program to address the unique environmental 
        concerns of the American Pacific area and the need to 
        develop and adopt sustainable agricultural practices 
        for these fragile tropical ecosystems.
  +$200,000 for the Fairmount Water Works Interpretive Center 
        for environmental education activities.
  -$81,000,000 from the climate change technology initiative. 
        The amount provided represents an increase of 
        $5,023,000 for these activities. None of the funds 
        provided to EPA are to be used to support activities 
        related to implementation of the Kyoto protocol prior 
        to its ratification.
  -$11,500,000 from the environmental monitoring for public 
        access and community tracking. The amount provided is 
        the same as the current level for this new program.
  -$9,000,000 from the Montreal protocol fund. The amount 
        provided is the same as the fiscal year 1998 level of 
        $12,600,000.
  -$5,000,000 from sustainable development challenge grants. 
        The amount provided is the same as the current level.
  -$1,000,000 from accident investigations. This responsibility 
        has been transferred to the newly established Chemical 
        Safety Board.
  -$1,000,000 from GLOBE.
  -$1,597,000 from urban livability. The agency has not 
        demonstrated an effective application of the funds 
        provided for this program. Further, the Committee is 
        concerned with the proliferation of new programs and 
        initiatives while many critical core agency activities 
        are not being met adequately.
  -$111,113,000 as a general reduction, subject to normal 
        reprogramming guidelines.
    The Committee has recommended the full budget request of 
$37,800,000 for activities under the clean water action plan in 
the EPM account. In addition, a number of items have been added 
by the Committee which support the clean water action plan, 
including on-farm environmental assessments and monitoring and 
related activities associated with the toxic microbe 
Pfiesteria.
    The Committee supports the President's full request for the 
south Florida ecosystem restoration project, the National 
Estuary Program including Sarasota Bay and Mobile Bay, the 
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, and the water quality monitoring 
program along the New Jersey-New York shoreline.
    The Committee supports funding for the environmental 
finance centers at the 1998 level of $940,000.
    The Committee is concerned with EPA's implementation of the 
Food Quality Protection Act. In response to concerns raised by 
a broad array of stakeholders, the White House issued a 
memorandum on April 8, 1998, directing EPA and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to work together ``to ensure that 
implementation of the paramount public health goals of the new 
law is informed by a sound regulatory approach, by the 
expertise of the USDA, by appropriate input from affected 
members of the public, and by due regard for the needs of our 
Nation's agricultural producers.'' The memorandum delineated 
four principles to be followed in implementing the law, 
including (1) using sound science in protecting public health, 
(2) ensuring transparency in the decisionmaking process, (3) 
the need to address transition challenges for affected 
constituencies, and (4) establishing an effective means of 
consultation with the public and other agencies. The Committee 
supports these principles and fully expects EPA to comply with 
the letter and the spirit of the White House memorandum.
    EPA is directed to report to the Committee quarterly on its 
progress in this area.
    The Committee commends EPA for its progress in the 
commonsense initiative with the metal finishing sector. Under 
the agreement reached with the industry, State environmental 
agencies, local wastewater treatment authorities, and the 
environmental and labor communities, individual metal finishing 
companies--which are mostly small businesses--are now 
committing voluntarily to achieve continuous environmental 
improvements and operate at beyond compliance levels in 
exchange for a range of benefits, including regulatory 
flexibility in certain areas and reduced compliance costs. In 
order to ensure that necessary progress is reached, sufficient 
funding is to be provided to the Office of Policy, Planning and 
Evaluation for continued industry outreach and implementation 
of key pilot projects under the metal finishing strategic goals 
program. In addition, in accordance with one of the three 
primary goals of the metal finishing strategic goals 
agreement--a 50-percent reduction in facility compliance 
costs--ORD and OPPE are to be provided sufficient resources for 
additional analysis of metal finishing facility regulatory 
burdens, compliance cost reduction opportunities, and design 
and implementation of facility-level compliance measures. The 
Committee expects to be kept apprised of EPA's progress in this 
area.
    The Committee is concerned that the agency's reinventing 
environmental information [REI] action plan falls short in 
addressing the needs of small business. As EPA seeks to 
transform the environmental reporting system, the agency should 
explicitly incorporate specific plans to ensure that reductions 
in reporting burdens are achieved where possible through 
consolidation of reporting as well as elimination of 
duplication and overlap. EPA has determined that in many cases 
reporting burdens could be significantly minimized while fully 
preserving current protections to environmental and human 
health. The agency is directed to report to Congress no later 
than March 1, 1999, on opportunities within REI to achieve 
burden reduction for small business through consolidation of 
reporting and elimination of duplication and overlap, and 
outline the findings of current and ongoing agency projects 
connected to burden reduction.
    The Committee commends EPA for establishing compliance 
assistance centers, funded by EPA and managed by industry 
partnerships, to assist small businesses seeking information on 
how to meet and exceed their environmental responsibilities. 
The current complexity and volume of environmental regulations 
overwhelm many small businesses. Few small businesses have 
ready access to the technical and financial resources required 
to identify and analyze what, if any, action is required by 
environmental regulations potentially affecting their 
operations, making compliance assistance centers essential. The 
Committee directs EPA to provide sufficient funding to maintain 
these compliance assistance centers. For instance, the 
compliance assistance center serving the 500,000 small 
businesses in the automotive service and auto body repair 
industry will be self-sustaining by fiscal year 2003. To remain 
viable in the interim, however, it is estimated that a minimum 
of $300,000 in Federal assistance is required in fiscal year 
1999. The Committee notes that while the enforcement budget in 
this account is projected to rise by $11,000,000 in fiscal year 
1999, EPA has not requested any increase for compliance 
assistance activities. EPA should do as much as possible to 
promote compliance assistance activities.
    The Committee directs EPA to facilitate collaboration and 
communication among groups and projects in decentralized 
wastewater treatment, particularly those funded by EPA, along 
with EPA's Office of Water and Office of Research and 
Development.
    The Committee encourages EPA to consider favorably the 
application for a sustainable development challenge grant 
submitted by Envision Utah, a private/public organization 
tasked with planning for future growth in Utah. According to 
the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Utah is the third fastest 
growing State in the Nation. The Committee supports Utah's 
efforts in preparing for the future and is interested in the 
progress being made by Envision Utah.
    The Committee is concerned about the administration's 
fiscal year 1998 line-item veto action of a wastewater 
operating training program in Alabama. The Office of Management 
and Budget's veto explanation incorrectly identified the page 
number, item and purpose of the wastewater operating training 
program. The administration actually sought to veto a program 
that did not exist. While the constitutionality of the line-
item veto authority is currently under judicial review, in this 
case it is the Committee's belief that OMB's attempt to line-
item this project was ineffective on its face. The Committee 
continues to support the Alabama Department of Environmental 
Management's model water/wastewater training program.
    The Committee is concerned that EPA recently released a 
proposed ``Pesticide Registration Notice for Treated Articles'' 
as a notice rather than a rule, thereby avoiding any 
congressional review requirements or an opportunity for 
interested parties to comment. Given that this notice appears 
to be a major change in existing EPA policy, the Committee 
strongly urges EPA to promulgate a formal rule and in the 
interim allow sellers or distributers of consumer products 
treated with or containing a registered pesticide accepted for 
such use, to make the same claims that have been approved by 
the agency for use by the pesticide registrant.
    The Committee notes that implementation of the North 
American waterfowl management plan would be aided by improved 
wetland planning, monitoring, and evaluation. The Committee 
urges EPA to review favorably a grant proposal to develop a 
national wetlands data base clearinghouse, in cooperation with 
other Federal and State agencies, to demonstrate the 
applicability of geographic information system planning 
technology to provide a single, unified data base available to 
private and public stakeholders.
    The Committee directs EPA to coordinate efforts with the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy to conduct assessments 
of a sampling of seized clandestine methamphetamine producing 
laboratories and evaluate cleanup requirements necessary to 
ensure that such sites are safe for future human occupation. 
Findings and recommendations shall be reported to the chairman, 
the Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Director 
of ONDCP.
    The Committee is aware that the lower Brazos River provides 
drinking water for some of the fastest growing areas of Texas. 
Through a project at Tarleton State University, the Brazos 
River Authority will continue to monitor the nutrient levels in 
the watershed and calibrate environmental standards to the 
poultry industry in the lower part of the Brazos. The Committee 
encourages EPA to support the efforts of the Brazos River 
Authority and Tarleton State University.
    The Committee understands that EPA and the Council on 
Environmental Quality is looking at the impact of urban sprawl 
on water quality as part of the clean water action plan. The 
Committee encourages EPA to work with the Vermont Natural 
Resources Conservation Service and the University of Vermont 
who have formed a partnership to develop tools for local 
planners to assess the environmental impact of development on 
water quality.
    The Committee directs the EPA to provide an accounting of 
global warming-related grants and contracts over $500,000. This 
report should be provided to the Committee by May 1, 1999.
    The Committee is supportive of the Treasure Valley 
hydrologic project in Boise, ID, which involves a study of the 
impacts of irrigation and wells on ground water levels and 
water quality, in addition to providing valuable information 
about the source of contaminants which have been detected in 
the regional water supply system. EPA is urged to continue 
supporting this project.
    The Committee is concerned with the regulatory burdens 
placed upon State and local governments by the EPA. The 
Committee encourages the Agency to work with State and local 
governments to increase the understanding and preparation for 
the effects and impacts of the regulations prior to the 
effective date for implementation of such regulations.
    The Committee continues to be concerned with the Agency's 
sector facility indexing project. The Committee directs the 
Agency to ensure that the data used in this project is of good 
and accurate quality and to respond to and correct data errors, 
omissions, and inaccuracies in response to public comments.
    On October 22, 1997, the President announced a three-stage 
proposal on climate change in anticipation of an international 
agreement to be negotiated 2 months later in Kyoto, Japan. With 
regard to programs pursued under the President's proposal, the 
Committee expects the Environmental Protection Agency to comply 
with the letter and spirit of the Government Performance and 
Results Act. The Committee directs the Agency to provide the 
Committee with a detailed plan for implementing the President's 
proposal, which would include an annual performance goal for 
the reduction of greenhouse gases that has objective, 
quantifiable, and measurable target levels. The plan should 
provide substantial evidence on the effectiveness of 
implementing the President's proposal in facilitating 
compliance with binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction 
commitments contained in international agreements negotiated on 
behalf of the United States. The Agency shall submit this plan 
to the Committee by December 31, 1998. The General Accounting 
Office is directed to prepare a report that evaluates the 
Agency's completed plan and submit its report to the Committee 
within 90 days after receipt of the Agency's plan.
    The Committee has not included proposed bill language 
relative to the environmental services fund.

                      office of inspector general

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $40,142,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      43,391,300
Committee recommendation................................      43,391,300

                          program description

    The Office of Inspector General provides EPA audit and 
investigative functions to identify and recommend corrective 
actions of management, program, and administrative deficiencies 
which create conditions for existing or potential instances of 
fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
    Trust fund resources are transferred to this account 
directly from the hazardous substance Superfund.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $43,391,300 for the Office of 
Inspector General, the same as the budget request. The 
appropriation includes $31,154,000 from the general fund in 
this account and $12,237,300 from the Superfund trust fund. The 
trust fund resources will be transferred to the inspector 
general ``General fund'' account with an expenditure transfer.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $109,420,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      52,948,000
Committee recommendation................................      52,948,000

                          program description

    The appropriation for buildings and facilities at EPA 
covers the necessary major repairs and improvements to existing 
installations which are used by the Agency. This appropriation 
also covers new construction projects when appropriate.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $52,948,000 
for buildings and facilities. The Committee has not provided 
the administration's request for an advance appropriation of 
$40,700,000. The Committee recommendation includes the 
administration request of $32,000,000 for the Research Triangle 
Park laboratory construction project and $16,000,000 for the 
new headquarters project.

                     hazardous substance superfund

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $1,500,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   2,092,745,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,500,000,000

                          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.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,500,000,000 for Superfund, the 
same as the current budget. The amount provided includes 
$250,000,000 from general revenues, as authorized, and the 
balance from the trust fund.
    The amount recommended includes the following:
      $1,000,462,700 for the response program. This includes 
        the President's full request for brownfields.
      $155,900,000 for enforcement.
      $40,200,000 for research and development.
      $119,000,000 for management and support.
      $74,000,000 for the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
        Disease Registry, including $2,500,000 for the Great 
        Lakes fish consumption study and $2,000,000 for the 
        Tom's River cancer cluster study. It is expected that 
        no more than 7.5 percent of the funds provided will be 
        used for administrative expenses of the Centers for 
        Disease Control and Prevention.
      $58,000,000 for the National Institute of Environmental 
        Health Sciences, including $23,000,000 for worker 
        training grants and $35,000,000 for research.
      $40,200,000 for other Federal agencies.
      $12,237,300 for the inspector general.
    The Committee cannot support the administration's proposed 
increase of almost $600,000,000 in the Superfund Program in 
fiscal year 1999. To provide such an increase would force 
unacceptable tradeoffs in such areas as veterans medical care 
or low-income housing owing to the constraints imposed by the 
budget cap. Moreover, the conferees on the VA, HUD, and 
Independent Agencies fiscal year 1998 appropriations 
legislation reached agreement with the administration last year 
that additional funds would be made available for Superfund in 
fiscal year 1999 only if the program was reauthorized. 
Furthermore, the Committee remains extremely troubled by the 
following facts.
    First, the General Accounting Office continues to list 
Superfund as a high-risk program, subject to fraud, waste, and 
abuse. GAO recently reported that Superfund is a key management 
concern at EPA. In a letter to the VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies Subcommittee chairman dated April 23, 1998, GAO said 
``Our work has identified several management problems in the 
program, including that EPA has not allocated cleanup resources 
to the most significant threats to health and the environment, 
has recovered only a small percentage of its costs from the 
parties responsible for the pollution, has had difficulties in 
controlling the costs for contractors, and has not established 
performance goals needed to monitor the success of the agency's 
efforts to reduce the time cleanups take and to control the 
amount of funds for activities besides the actual cleanups, 
such as the expenses for legal fees.''
    Second, EPA has failed to demonstrate whether it could 
effectively allocate the additional funds requested for site 
cleanups. The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 
Management Officials last year raised questions as to whether 
EPA could effectively spend the increase it was requesting. To 
date, EPA has not answered that question adequately. 
Furthermore, it is clear that funds invested in Superfund 
cleanups result in relatively little reduction of risk to human 
health and the environment compared to spending on other 
environmental programs.
    In addition, EPA's budget request assumed inflated costing 
factors, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the 
General Accounting Office. GAO found that EPA relied on 
historical cost data as the basis for its fiscal year request, 
rather than more recent cost information. For the fiscal year 
1999 budget, EPA did not change its cost assumptions.
    Also, the committee of jurisdiction does not support 
increased funding for this program prior to reauthorization. In 
its views and estimates letter on the fiscal year 1999 budget 
to the Senate Budget Committee earlier this year, the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee noted, ``Superfund is a 
seriously flawed program that needs significant legislative 
improvement before any increase in funding is appropriate. 
Several peer-reviewed EPA studies have found Superfund sites, 
at best, represent a midrange threat to human health and the 
environment as compared to other more pressing threats.''
    While the Committee supports the goal of accelerating site 
cleanups, it cannot support wasteful, abusive, or ineffective 
use of Federal funds. A recent inspector general report found 
that at the Austin Avenue radiation site in Pennsylvania, EPA 
spent on average over $650,000 to replace houses that had an 
average market value of $147,000. In one case, EPA spent more 
than $900,000 to custom build a house while the appraised 
market value of the original house was $200,000. Not only was 
it inappropriate to use the Superfund Program to build new 
houses, funds were used to custom build houses far in excess of 
the original market value of the houses being replaced. This 
report illustrates how mismanaged and in need of reform the 
Superfund Program is.
    The Committee is aware that opportunities exist to recover 
significant funds obligated for completed Superfund projects. 
While EPA has made a concentrated effort to recover unspent 
funds that GAO identified, there remains $39,000,000 available 
for deobligation in fiscal year 1998 and an additional 
$125,000,000 available for recovery in fiscal year 1999 from 
contracts and assistance agreements completed in 1997. The 
Committee notes that these funds are available for additional 
site cleanup work. EPA is directed to move quickly to 
deobligate the available funds, and to apply deobligated funds 
to site cleanup work only, not administrative activities.
    The Committee encourages EPA to review favorably a request 
from the city of Charlotte, NC, for a brownfields demonstration 
pilot. The Charlotte area is home to over 3,000 brownfields 
sites and has been a leader in developing relationships with 
the banking and small business communities in dealing with 
brownfields. The Committee also notes that the city of Renton, 
WA, is leading an effort to cleanup a brownfield site referred 
to as the Port Quendall site, along Lake Washington. State, 
local, and private funds have already been committed for this 
project. EPA is to consider the city's request for Federal cost 
sharing. Finally, the Committee notes the city of 
Philadelphia's urban greenfields project, a collaborative 
effort seeking to demonstrate a comprehensive approach to 
reusing vacant and abandoned land, and urges favorable 
consideration of a request from the city for a brownfields 
grant.
    The Committee encourages EPA to review favorably a 
brownfields grant request from the city of St. Louis, MO, to 
further assist the city in its efforts to address the over 
1,000 brownfield sites covering approximately 2,000 acres.
    The Committee understands that a highly skilled work force 
specializing in uranium mill tailings remediation for the 
Department of Energy exists in Grand Junction, CO. This work 
force will soon be available for other, nonradiological 
remediation work. The Committee encourages the EPA to work with 
the Department of Energy to find ways this work force may be 
eligible for EPA abandoned mine or other remediation work in 
the Rocky Mountain region.
    The Committee has included bill language, as in the fiscal 
year 1998 legislation, prohibiting the use of Superfund funds 
for brownfields revolving loan funds unless authorized by 
subsequent legislation.
    The Committee has included bill language delaying the 
availability of $100,000,000 until September 1, 1999. This 
language was included in the fiscal year 1998 Superfund 
appropriation and is not anticipated to have a programmatic 
impact.

              leaking underground storage tank trust fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $65,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      71,210,000
Committee recommendation................................      75,000,000

                          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 a budget of $75,000,000 for the 
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, an increase of 
$10,000,000 over the 1998 enacted level and $3,790,000 above 
the budget request. The Committee directs that not less than 85 
percent of these funds be provided to the States and tribal 
governments.
    The Committee has included bill language, requested by the 
administration, clarifying that funds under this heading may be 
used to support the development and implementation of 
underground storage tank programs in Indian country.

                           oilspill response

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      17,321,400
Committee recommendation................................      15,000,000

                          program description

    This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act of 1987 and amended by the Oil Pollution 
Act of 1990, provides funds for preventing and responding to 
releases of oil and other petroleum products in navigable 
waterways. EPA is responsible for: directing all cleanup and 
removal activities posing a threat to public health and the 
environment; conducting inspections, including compelling 
responsible parties to undertake cleanup actions; reviewing 
containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency 
plans; pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed cleanups; and 
conducting research of oil cleanup techniques. Funds are 
provided through the oilspill liability trust fund established 
by the Oil Pollution Act and managed by the Coast Guard.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the oilspill 
response trust fund, the same as the current level and a 
decrease of $2,321,000 below the request.

                   state and tribal ASSISTANCE grants

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $3,213,125,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   2,902,657,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,255,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``State and tribal assistance grants'' account funds 
grants to support the State revolving fund programs; State, 
tribal, regional, and local environmental programs; and special 
projects to address critical water and waste water treatment 
needs.
    This account funds the following infrastructure grant 
programs: State revolving funds; United States-Mexico Border 
Program; colonias projects; and Alaska Native villages.
    It also contains the following environmental grants, State/
tribal program grants, and assistance and capacity building 
grants: (1) Nonpoint source (sec. 319 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act); (2) water quality cooperative 
agreements (sec. 104(b)(3) of FWPCA; (3) public water system 
supervision; (4) air resource assistance to State, local, and 
tribal governments (secs. 105 and 103 of the Clean Air Act); 
(5) radon State grants; (6) water pollution control agency 
resource supplementation (sec. 106 of the FWPCA); (7) wetlands 
State program development; (8) underground injection control; 
(9) Pesticides Program implementation; (10) lead grants; (11) 
hazardous waste financial assistance; (12) pesticides 
enforcement grants; (13) pollution prevention; (14) toxic 
substances enforcement grants; (15) Indians general assistance 
grants; and, (16) underground storage tanks. The funds provided 
in this account, exclusive of the funds for the SRF and the 
special water and waste water treatment projects, may be used 
by the Agency to enter into performance partnerships with 
States and tribes rather than media-specific categorical 
program grants, if requested by the States and tribes. The 
performance partnership/categorical grants are exempt from the 
congressional reprogramming limitation.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,255,000,000 
for State and tribal assistance grants, an increase of 
$352,343,000 over the budget request and $41,875,000 above the 
enacted level.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following:
      $850,000,000 for performance partnership/categorical 
        grants and associated program support. The amount 
        provided includes an increase above the enacted level 
        of $75,000,000 for nonpoint source grants, for a total 
        of $180,000,000, and $10,000,000 for section 106 water 
        quality grants, for a total of $105,529,300; an 
        increase above the enacted level of $13,600,900 for air 
        quality grants; and the administration's request for 
        all other programs.
      $800,000,000, an increase of $25,000,000 above the budget 
        request, for drinking water State revolving funds.
      $1,400,000,000 for clean water State revolving funds, an 
        increase of $325,000,000 above the budget request.
      $75,000,000 for water and wastewater projects on the 
        United States-Mexico border.
      $30,000,000 for rural and Alaskan Native villages to 
        address the special water and wastewater treatment 
        needs of thousands of households that lack basic 
        sanitation, including $2,000,000 for training and 
        technical assistance. The State of Alaska will provide 
        a match of $15,000,000.
      $100,000,000 for special needs infrastructure grants, as 
        follows:
        $2,500,000 for the Lake Tahoe pipeline replacement 
            project.
        $500,000 for the Orange County, CA, Water District and 
            the County Sanitation District of Orange County for 
            the ground water replenishment system.
        $1,000,000 for the Olivenhain Municipal Water District 
            in northern San Diego County for water treatment 
            plant improvements.
        $250,000 for Moapa Valley, NV, water district for 
            repairs and upgrades to the water system.
        $2,200,000 for the Charleston Water Conservancy 
            District, UT, to meet sewer infrastructure needs 
            associated with the 2002 winter Olympic games.
        $1,000,000 for the Ogden City, UT, water and sewer 
            system.
        $5,000,000 for the city of Bozeman, MT, water and sewer 
            system.
        $1,600,000 for the town of Mountain Village and 
            Telluride, CO, for a shared sewer system upgrade.
        $8,000,000 for Jackson County, MS, for remaining 
            construction of the pipeline and water treatment 
            improvements.
        $1,000,000 for DeSoto County, MS, wastewater 
            improvement activities.
        $2,450,000 for the Big Haynes Creek, GA, basin 
            stormwater retention and reuse project.
        $7,000,000 for the village of Hempstead, NY, for water 
            system improvements.
        $500,000 for the city of Hartford, SD, for the 
            construction of a new water treatment plant.
        $1,200,000 for the village of Jemez Springs, NM, to 
            improve its wastewater treatment system.
        $4,900,000 for the city of Grand Forks, ND, water 
            treatment plant relocation project.
        $5,600,000 for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, 
            NC, Big Cove Community wastewater collection 
            project.
        $2,000,000 for the city of Berlin, NH, for water 
            infrastructure improvements.
        $2,500,000 for the city of Winterset, IA, for sewer 
            system improvements.
        $5,000,000 for improvements to the St. Maries, ID, 
            drinking water system.
        $3,000,000 for Lake Marion Regional Water Agency, SC, 
            to provide potable water for residents of 14 
            municipalities. The service area for this regional 
            water system contains South Carolina's highest 
            unemployment and highest level of poverty.
        $3,000,000 for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage 
            District for the central metropolitan improvement 
            project.
        $3,750,000 for the Passaic Valley, NJ, Sewerage 
            Commission for wastewater improvements.
        $3,500,000 for the city of Springfield, VT, to upgrade 
            its wastewater system.
        $2,000,000 for Anderson County, KY, to renovate the 
            Alton Water District's sewer system.
        $1,550,000 for the city of Kinston, NC, wastewater 
            treatment improvements.
        $350,000 for the Green River Water District, Hart 
            County, KY, for water system improvements.
        $1,200,000 for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, AK, water 
            and sewer improvements.
        $1,700,000 for the city of Anchorage for water system 
            improvements involving the town of Girdwood, AK.
        $1,000,000 for the North Star, AK, Borough for water 
            system improvements.
        $1,000,000 for the Middleburg/Franklin Township, PA, 
            wastewater improvement project.
        $1,000,000 for Springettsburg Township, city of York, 
            PA, for sewer system improvements.
        $2,250,000 for the city of Sparks, NV, to construct a 
            water treatment facility including nitrogen 
            removal.
        $2,500,000 for the three rivers wet weather 
            demonstration project, Allegheny County, PA, to 
            eliminate separate sewer flows.
        $5,000,000 for the city of Cumberland, MD, to separate 
            and relocate the city's combined sewer and 
            stormwater system.
        $3,000,000 for Geneva County, AL, drinking water system 
            improvements.
        $1,000,000 for the Goodwater Utilities Board, Alabama, 
            to connect the town of Goodwater with Alexander 
            City.
        $4,000,000 for the Kansas City Blue River wastewater 
            treatment plant improvements.
        $4,000,000 for the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer 
            District Meramec River treatment plant 
            improvements.
        $1,000,000 for Somerset County, MD, wastewater 
            treatment improvements in support of biological 
            nutrient removal.
    EPA is to work with the grant recipients on appropriate 
cost-share arrangements consistent with past practice.
    EPA is encouraged to consider a proposal by the Hawaii 
Department of Health to address nonpoint source pollution and 
erosion control on the island of Molokai.
    The Committee notes that the amounts provided for the 
drinking water State revolving funds are available for national 
set-asides outlined in section 1452; however, health effects 
research is funded in the ``Science and technology'' account as 
proposed by the administration.
    The Committee understands that the priority environmental 
and public health protection problem in the Brownsville, TX, 
region is the need to utilize better excess Rio Grande River 
water for a long-term regional water supply. Brownsville is 
working with the Texas Water Development Board, the Mexican 
state of Tamaulipas and other local Lower Rio Grande River 
Valley communities to design a project to resolve this problem. 
To support this effort, the Committee urges that $3,000,000 
from the border infrastructure funds be allocated to 
Brownsville for use in its initial environmental assessment and 
planning.
    The Committee has included bill language, as in fiscal year 
1998, allowing States to cross-collateralize their clean water 
and drinking water State revolving funds. This language makes 
explicit that in fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, funds 
appropriated to the SRF's may be used as common security in a 
bond issue for both SRF's, ensuring maximum opportunity for 
leveraging these funds.
    The Committee has included bill language which provides 
that fiscal year 1997 funds for Texas colonias may be matched 
by 20 percent in State funds, and used for water as well as 
wastewater projects.
    The Committee has included bill language, requested by the 
administration, clarifying that funds under this heading may be 
used to support the development and implementation of hazardous 
waste management programs in Indian country.
    The Committee has also included bill language, requested by 
the administration, that clarifies the intent of section 23(a) 
of FIFRA.

                        Administrative Provision

    The Committee has included bill language prohibiting EPA 
from allowing the export of ships to be dismantled in foreign 
countries that do not have environmental standards comparable 
to those in the United States. Last year EPA approved 
agreements with Federal ship-owning agencies to allow the 
export of surplus ships contaminated with hazardous materials 
such as PCB's and asbestos. Federal ships would have been 
exported to be scrapped in developing countries with minimal or 
no environmental standards on hazardous material removal and 
abatement.
    These agreements by EPA raised two major concerns. First, 
they encouraged the export of hazardous materials that would 
have very likely been dumped off the shorelines of developing 
nations and into our oceans. Second, the Federal ship-owning 
agencies now had less incentive to scrap domestically--where 
they must comply with stricter and more costly standards for 
hazardous waste removal and abatement--thus sending potential 
U.S. jobs and business overseas and placing the U.S. domestic 
industry at a competitive disadvantage. To address these 
concerns the Committee has included bill language prohibiting 
such exports unless EPA certifies to Congress that the 
destination country has comparable environmental standards (and 
enforcement of those standards) to the United States. The 
Committee more specifically intends that those environmental 
standards should be comparable to U.S. standards governing the 
removal, disposal, and abatement of PCB's, asbestos, and other 
relevant hazardous materials from ships being scrapped--and 
that these standards are enforced at a comparable level to the 
United States.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

                   Executive Office of the President

                Office of Science and Technology Policy

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $4,932,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       5,026,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,026,000

                          program description

    The Office of Science and Technology Policy [OSTP] was 
created by the National Science and Technology Policy, 
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-238) 
and coordinates science and technology policy for the White 
House. OSTP provides authoritative scientific and technological 
information, analysis, and advice for the President, for the 
executive branch, and for Congress; participates in 
formulation, coordination, and implementation of national and 
international policies and programs that involve science and 
technology; maintains and promotes the health and vitality of 
the U.S. science and technology infrastructure; and coordinates 
research and development efforts of the Federal Government to 
maximize the return on the public's investment in science and 
technology and to ensure Federal resources are used efficiently 
and appropriately.
    OSTP provides support for the National Science and 
Technology Council [NSTC].

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,026,000 for 
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This amount is the 
same as the budget request and $94,000 above the current level.
    The Committee recommends that OSTP review the 
recommendations of the National Animal Genome Research Program 
to map the genome of trout. The Committee directs OSTP to 
report by February 15, 1999, to the Committee regarding the 
funding of the trout genome as well as other animal genome 
subjects, where this research should be conducted in the 
Government and a schedule for the research.

  Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $2,500,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       3,020,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,575,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Council on Environmental Quality/Office of 
Environmental Quality was established by the National 
Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Quality 
Improvement Act of 1970. The Council serves as a source of 
environmental expertise and policy analysis for the White 
House, Executive Office of the President agencies, and other 
Federal agencies. CEQ promulgates regulations binding on all 
Federal agencies to implement the procedural provisions of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and resolves interagency 
environmental disputes informally and through issuance of 
findings and recommendations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $2,575,000 for the Council on 
Environmental Quality, an increase of $75,000 above the current 
level. Bill language relative to the use of detailees has been 
continued again this year.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                      Office of Inspector General

                          (Transfer of Funds)

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $34,365,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      34,666,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,666,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Prior to 1998, the FDIC inspector general's budgets have 
been approved by the FDIC's Board of Directors from deposit 
insurance funds as part of FDIC's annual operating budget that 
is proposed by the FDIC Chairman. A separate appropriation more 
effectively ensures the independence of the OIG.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $34,666,000 
for the FDIC inspector general, which are to be derived by 
transfer from the bank insurance fund, the savings association 
insurance fund, and the FSLIC resolution fund. The Committee is 
concerned that the FDIC inspector general does not have 
independent control of the basic personnel decisions of the 
office, potentially undermining the independence of the office 
contrary to the spirit of the Inspectors General Act. The 
Committee believes that the FDIC should recuse itself from all 
inspector general personnel decisions. In addition, the 
Committee is and will be receptive to FDIC's comments on its 
inspector general's budget submissions.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

Appropriations, 1998..................................\1\ $2,429,958,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     831,182,000
Committee recommendation...............................\2\ 1,354,195,000

\1\ Includes $1,600,000,000 in supplemental appropriations for disaster 
relief (Public Law 105-174).
\2\ Includes $846,000,000 in disaster relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          general description

    FEMA is responsible for coordinating Federal efforts to 
reduce the loss of life and property through a comprehensive 
risk-based, all hazards emergency management program of 
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,354,195,000 for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. The amount provided includes 
$846,000,000 in disaster relief expenditures and $508,195,000 
for other programs. The amount provided for accounts other than 
disaster relief are approximately the same as the fiscal year 
1998 funding level. The major changes from the President's 
request include an increase of $11,000,000 for State and local 
assistance grants, bringing this program back to the enacted 
level, and a decrease of $25,000,000 from the request level for 
predisaster mitigation grants. The Committee believes it would 
not be prudent to double the size of this new program in a 
single year, particularly as grant awards for current year 
funds were only recently announced and FEMA has not been able 
to evaluate comprehensively the pilot projects.
    The Committee has provided $846,000,000 for disaster 
relief, in lieu of the administration's request for 
$307,745,000 and an additional $658,485,000 in disaster relief 
contingency funds (a total of $966,230,000). This amount is 
expected to be sufficient to meet all fiscal year 1999 and 
prior-year obligational needs. None of the funds are provided 
as contingent emergency funding.
    The Committee notes that FEMA has generally fulfilled the 
basic requirements of the Government Performance and Results 
Act in its first annual performance plan to the Congress. 
However, the Committee is very concerned that FEMA's plan fails 
to address sufficiently the need to control disaster relief 
expenditures--a key management issue this Committee has long 
been concerned with in view of the escalating costs in this 
program over the past several years. In addition, it is not 
clear how FEMA will measure its progress as baseline data in 
most cases is nonexistent. Further, as GAO has noted, ``FEMA's 
financial and information management systems may not have the 
capacity to generate sufficiently reliable information needed 
to monitor progress toward its goals.'' The Committee is 
further concerned that FEMA's annual performance plan was not 
coordinated with those agencies whose programs and activities 
are an integral part of the Federal response to disasters.
    It is expected that FEMA will take steps necessary to 
address such shortcomings, and other specific problems 
identified by the General Accounting Office on FEMA's annual 
performance plan, in its fiscal year 2000 plan.
    The Committee notes FEMA's budget includes approximately 
$2,100,000 for activities necessary to ensure FEMA's 
information systems will accommodate the year 2000, when it 
arrives. FEMA is to make this a priority and take all 
appropriate actions relative to year 2000 compliance 
requirements.

                            disaster relief

Appropriations, 1998..................................\1\ $1,920,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999................................... \2\ 307,745,000
Committee recommendation................................     846,000,000

\1\ Includes $1,600,000,000 in supplemental appropriations.
\2\ The administration requested an additional $658,485,000 in 
contingency funds, for a total of $966,230,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

    Federal disaster assistance is a nationwide program 
operated pursuant to the Stafford Act. FEMA is authorized to 
provide Federal assistance to supplement the efforts and 
resources of State and local governments in response to major 
disasters and emergencies. Funds may be made available directly 
to a State or to other Federal agencies as reimbursement of 
expenditures in disaster relief work performed under this 
authority. Funds and other assistance may also be made 
available to individuals, families, and businesses for disaster 
related needs and expenses. In addition, a variety of other 
Federal assistance is coordinated under this program.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $846,000,000 for FEMA disaster 
relief. This is $120,230,000 less than the budget request 
including contingency funds.
    A total of $1,600,000,000 was included for disaster relief 
in the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriation (Public Law 
105-174). These funds, together with the $846,000,000 in 
additional budget authority, closely approximate the 5-year 
(1993-97) historical average cost of disaster relief in 1999 
dollars. None of the funds recommended by the Committee are 
contingent emergency funds; the administration had requested 
$658,485,000 in addition to the $307,745,000 in noncontingent 
appropriations.
    The Committee believes the growth in disaster relief 
expenditures over the past 5 years is unsustainable and 
fiscally irresponsible. While legislative changes are needed to 
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
Act, the Committee believes FEMA could implement administrative 
changes to the disaster relief program which could result in 
significant cost-savings. FEMA proposed amendments to the 
Stafford Act last summer. If implemented, these changes could 
save $3,000,000,000 over 5 years according to FEMA's own 
estimates. While it is unlikely that Stafford Act amendments 
will be enacted this year, many of the proposed changes likely 
could be implemented through notice-and-comment rulemaking. As 
the FEMA Director committed in hearings before this Committee, 
FEMA is to propose through the regulatory process 
administrative changes to reduce disaster relief costs, and 
report to the Committee within 150 days of enactment of this 
act on its progress. The Committee notes the Director also 
committed to crafting objective declaration criteria, as 
recommended by the General Accounting Office. The Committee 
expects FEMA's administrative changes will address this 
critical area as well.
    The Committee is concerned with a recent audit by the 
inspector general which found that FEMA does not have an 
effective grants management system, which has resulted in 
grantees not fully complying with FEMA and Federal grant 
regulations. According to the inspector general, requirements 
for providing cost-share funds, managing cash, and accounting 
for and reporting on grant funds are not met consistently. The 
inspector general's findings confirm the Committee's long-held 
position that the Disaster Relief Program is badly in need of 
reform and improved controls on spending. The Committee directs 
FEMA to implement immediately the inspector general's 
recommendations, including recouping the $28,500,000 in 
overpayments the inspector general identified, collecting the 
State share of $2,200,000 in mission assignments identified in 
the report, and ensuring that the grants management system 
being developed requires grantees to comply with Federal and 
FEMA regulations.
    The Committee notes FEMA in recent years has made a high 
priority of mitigation activities, which is laudable as 
mitigation activities will help reduce the damage to 
communities--and should result in decreased Federal 
expenditures--following future disaster events. However, it is 
not clear that FEMA's approaches under the hazard mitigation 
404 program, Project Impact, and other mitigation programs are 
effectively targeted to projects where the risk of loss--and 
potential future Federal dollar savings--is the greatest. The 
Committee requests that the General Accounting Office review 
how FEMA, in conjunction with the States, ensures that Federal 
mitigation dollars are used effectively and efficiently.
    With respect to the 404 hazard mitigation grant program 
[HMGP], the Committee is concerned that more than 
$1,000,000,000 remains to be obligated despite significant 
national needs for mitigation. In addition, the Committee notes 
significant concerns raised by the FEMA Inspector General in a 
recent report entitled ``Improvements are Needed in the Hazard 
Mitigation Buyout Program.'' The inspector general's findings 
included that FEMA has not developed detailed guidance for 
local communities regarding property acquisition; cost-benefit 
analysis is often not conducted and the techniques for 
conducting cost-benefit analysis are not well understood; FEMA 
has not developed the ability to evaluate the long-term impact 
of HMGP projects, including buyouts; and the HMGP data base is 
not capable of providing accurate and specific program data. 
FEMA is directed to implement the inspector general's six 
recommendations and ensure that all property acquisition 
projects funded by FEMA meet stringent cost-benefit 
requirements.
    The Committee believes there is a greater need for 
interagency coordination on disaster preparedness, response, 
recovery, and mitigation activities to ensure Federal 
investments are maximized and to prevent duplication and 
overlap. The Committee directs FEMA to convene an interagency 
group to assess areas of duplication and overlap, propose a 
streamlining of activities, and define clearly areas of 
responsibility among agencies. In addition, the interagency 
group is to catalog all Governmentwide mitigation activities. 
The Committee expects FEMA to provide a report to the Committee 
within 150 days of enactment of this act.
    The Committee supports FEMA's efforts to overhaul the 
public assistance program, including improving the preliminary 
damage assessment process, instituting a cost estimating 
format, training and credentialing of staff, and closing out 
disasters within 2 years of the declaration date. This overhaul 
should reduce administrative costs, improve consistency in 
decisionmaking and operations, enhance fiscal responsibility, 
improve tracking of project status and eligibility, and enhance 
cooperation with stakeholders. FEMA is to provide a report 
within 120 days of enactment of this act on its progress in 
this initiative.
    The Committee directs FEMA to fund adequately the Urban 
Search and Rescue Program, to ensure each of the deployable 
teams have the equipment and resources needed to respond 
effectively to disasters.

            disaster assistance direct loan program account

                      (limitation on direct loans)

                            STATE SHARE LOAN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998....................      $1,495,000        $341,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................       1,355,000         440,000
Committee recommendation................       1,355,000         440,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Under the State Share Loan Program, FEMA may lend or 
advance to an eligible applicant or State the portion of 
assistance for which the applicant is responsible under cost-
sharing provisions of the Stafford Act. To be deemed eligible, 
the Governor must demonstrate, where damage is overwhelming and 
severe, that the State is unable to assume its financial 
responsibility to meet the cost share.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    For the State Share Loan Program, the Committee has 
provided $25,000,000 in loan authority and $440,000 in 
administrative expenses. For the cost of subsidizing the 
appropriation, the bill includes $1,355,000.

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $171,773,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     171,138,000
Committee recommendation................................     170,000,000

                          program description

    The salaries and expenses appropriation comprises two 
activities:
    Program support.--This activity provides for staff and 
supporting resources to administer the Agency's various 
programs at the headquarters, field, and regional levels. The 
salaries and expenses for flood plain management under 
mitigation programs and flood insurance operations are provided 
by transfer from the national flood insurance fund.
    Executive direction.--This activity provides staff and 
supporting resources for the general management and 
administration of the Agency in legal affairs, congressional 
and public affairs, personnel, and financial management.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $170,000,000 for FEMA salaries and 
expenses. This is $1,138,000 below the request and $1,773,000 
below the current level.

                    office of the inspector general

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $4,803,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       4,930,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,400,000

                          program description

    The Office of the Inspector General [OIG] conducts, 
supervises, and coordinates all audits, inspections, and 
investigations. The OIG supervises and coordinates other 
activities in the Agency and between the Agency and other 
Federal, State, and local government agencies whose purposes 
are to: (a) promote economy and efficiency; (b) prevent and 
detect fraud and mismanagement; and (c) identify and prosecute 
people involved in fraud or mismanagement.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $5,400,000 for the Office of the 
Inspector General, an increase of $470,000 above the request 
and $597,000 above the enacted level. The amount recommended 
for the inspector general will enable it to come closer to its 
full authorized strength of 60 FTE's.

              emergency management planning and assistance

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $243,546,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     195,574,000
Committee recommendation................................     231,000,000

                          program description

    The emergency management planning and assistance 
appropriation provides resources for the following activities 
which were described previously: Response and recovery; 
preparedness, training, and exercises; fire prevention and 
training; operations support; mitigation programs; and 
executive direction. Flood plain management activity and flood 
insurance operations are funded by transfer from the national 
flood insurance fund in fiscal year 1994.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $231,000,000 for emergency 
management planning and assistance. This is a reduction of 
$12,546,000 below the 1998 level and an increase of $35,426,000 
above the request.
    The Committee has included funds for the new predisaster 
mitigation program in this account, rather than in a separate 
account as proposed by the administration.
    The Committee has made the following changes to the budget 
request:
  +$25,000,000 for the predisaster mitigation program. The 
        administration had proposed $50,000,000 for this 
        activity in a separate account. The Committee fully 
        supports the goals of mitigating against the risks of 
        natural disasters through comprehensive community-based 
        predisaster mitigation efforts. The Committee did not 
        fund fully the administration's request owing to budget 
        constraints, and in view of the fact that this is a new 
        program, pilot projects have not yet been evaluated, 
        and FEMA only recently announced communities invited to 
        participate in the fiscal year 1998 round.
  +$400,000 for the University of Missouri-Columbia Fire and 
        Rescue Training Institute pilot program to develop and 
        implement hazardous materials training for State fire 
        and emergency services personnel in rural and suburban 
        fringe areas in Missouri. Rural and small community 
        fire and emergency services frequently are inadequately 
        prepared to assist law enforcement or cope with 
        emergencies involving illegal drug production 
        facilities within their jurisdictions. This program is 
        intended to address this critical need.
  +$2,400,000 above the budget request for implementation of 
        the dam safety program for a total of $3,900,000.
  +$11,000,000 above the budget request for State and local 
        assistance through comprehensive cooperative 
        agreements. While the Committee supports State cost-
        share requirements which reflect a strong and equitable 
        Federal-State partnership, the Committee is concerned 
        that many States are not prepared to accommodate FEMA's 
        proposal to increase State cost-sharing in the State 
        and Local Assistance Grants Program. FEMA should take 
        this into consideration as it makes final 
        determinations on cost sharing. The Committee expects 
        the administration to include cost sharing for all SLA 
        funds in the fiscal year 2000 budget and the Committee 
        intends to support that proposal. FEMA is to ensure 
        States are aware of these planned policy changes far in 
        advance of their implementation.
  +$3,000,000 above the budget request for terrorism-related 
        initiatives, for a total of $9,800,000. This supplement 
        will allow FEMA to distribute funds to first responders 
        at the State and local level to begin the purchase of 
        necessary equipment. Such funding should also 
        accelerate the training made available to the State and 
        local personnel that will respond to any such 
        incidents. The Committee believes it is vital that 
        these funds move through FEMA since it has a strong 
        working relationship with the fire community and 
        emergency management communities and it is especially 
        important that those channels be utilized for this new 
        mission.
  -$6,374,000 as a general reduction.
    The Committee expects FEMA will work with the Department of 
Commerce to ensure coordination between DOC's natural disaster 
reduction initiative and Project Impact.
    In an effort to further build on Project Impact's national 
awareness campaign and community outreach efforts, the 
Committee directs FEMA to undertake a comprehensive study of 
existing predisaster mitigation practices and measures which 
have proven successful in reducing or eliminating loss of life 
and property due to hurricanes and windborne damage. The study 
shall focus on those practices and measures implemented in 
State and local jurisdictions which have proven to be effective 
in mitigating the risks or impacts of actual natural disasters. 
Special attention shall be given to communitywide land use and 
other ordinances and bylaws; building and safety codes; and 
construction practices and materials (including passive design 
systems for roofs, walls, and window glazing). The report is 
due within 1 year of enactment of this act and should be sent 
to relevant committees of Congress and State emergency 
management agencies.
    The Committee commends FEMA for completing its first State 
capability assessment for readiness [CAR]. However, the 
Committee believes the CAR needs refinement as it does not 
provide a valid baseline for readiness, it does not include an 
analysis of the particular hazards a State faces, it does not 
reflect local capabilities, and it is difficult to validate. 
FEMA should work with the States, the inspector general, and 
others to improve this assessment instrument. In addition, the 
Committee notes that the specific areas identified in the CAR 
as needing significant improvement include planning and 
equipment for response to nuclear, biological, and chemical 
terrorist incidents, disaster housing; and coordination between 
State emergency management agencies and the private sector. 
FEMA should focus on improving State capabilities in these 
critical areas, and keep the Committee apprised of its 
progress.
    FEMA is encouraged to consider an application from Florida 
International University's International Hurricane Center to 
develop a windstorm impact modeling and assessment program 
should FEMA determine the HAZUS loss estimation software 
program will not adequately meet the need to predict better the 
impact of severe windstorms in vulnerable areas. The Committee 
notes that its EMPA recommendation includes FEMA's full request 
of $5,896,000 for the hurricane program in fiscal year 1999.
    FEMA should consider conducting a pilot demonstration of 
seismic retrofit technologies on at least two existing welded 
steel frame buildings in two distinct geographically dispersed, 
seismically active areas in the United States: the New Madrid 
fault region and a California fault region. The Committee 
directs that a report be provided by FEMA, on or before March 
31, 1999, and again on or before June 30, 1999, to the 
Committee regarding progress made toward completion of these 
retrofits and development of an essential data base. The 
Committee recommends that FEMA establish a steering committee 
to receive input from industry associations and the technical 
community regarding the appropriate use of updated building 
codes and industry standards in performing these retrofits.
    The Committee notes FEMA plans to continue to develop the 
design guidelines for steel moment frame construction in fiscal 
year 1999, to address the unexpected earthquake performance of 
this critical type of construction.
    The Committee has learned that the expenditure of $250,000 
provided in 1992 as Federal matching funds for the Jones 
County, MS, Emergency Operating Center [EOC] has been unduly 
delayed, due to FEMA's determination that the proposed EOC 
would be located in the 100-year floodplain. Restudy of the 
tributary in question has found that the planned location of 
the EOC is, in fact, not within the 100-year floodplain and 
FEMA has reversed its determination. Therefore, the Committee 
directs that the 5-year limitation on the expenditure of these 
funds be extended for an additional 3 years.
    FEMA is to conduct a study to determine whether the 
Emergency Management Institute and the National Fire Academy 
have adequate capacity to meet the needs of our Nation's 
emergency professionals in the west. Concerns have been raised 
that space and budget limitations have prevented NFA and EMI 
from accepting all qualified applicants for courses at the 
Emmitsburg campus.
    The Committee supports the full budget request for the U.S. 
Fire Administration and National Fire Academy.

                       emergency food and shelter

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $100,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     100,000,000

                          program description

    The Emergency Food and Shelter Program originated as a one-
time emergency appropriation to combat the effects of high 
unemployment in the emergency jobs bill (Public Law 98-8) which 
was enacted in March 1983. It was authorized under title III of 
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, Public 
Law 100-177.
    The program has been administered by a national board and 
the majority of the funding has been spent for providing 
temporary food and shelter for the homeless, participating 
organizations being restricted by legislation from spending 
more than 2 percent of the funding received for administrative 
costs. The administrative ceiling was increased to 5 percent 
under the McKinney Act. However, subsequent appropriation acts 
limited administrative expenses to 3.5 percent.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $100,000,000 
for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program. This is the same as 
the fiscal year 1998 level.

                RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND

    The Radiological Emergency Preparedness [REP] Program 
assists State and local governments in the development of 
offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans within the 
emergency planning zones of commercial nuclear power facilities 
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]. The 
Committee has included bill language as proposed by the 
administration which establishes a REP fund. The fund is to be 
financed from fees assessed and collected from the NRC to 
recover the cost of the REP program. Currently such fees are 
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury and are used to 
offset appropriations. A separate REP fund will allow the 
program to operate on a more business-like basis and will 
facilitate improved coordination of planning and exercises.

                     national flood insurance fund

                          (transfers of funds)

                          program description

    The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 
authorizes the Federal Government to provide flood insurance on 
a national basis. Flood insurance may be sold or continued in 
force only in communities which enact and enforce appropriate 
flood plain management measures. Communities must participate 
in the program within 1 year of the time they are identified as 
flood-prone in order to be eligible for flood insurance and 
some forms of Federal financial assistance for acquisition or 
construction purposes. In 1994, the budget assumes collection 
of all the administrative and program costs associated with 
flood insurance activities from policyholders.
    Under the Emergency Program, structures in identified 
flood-prone areas are eligible for limited amounts of coverage 
at subsidized insurance rates. Under the regular program, 
studies must be made of different flood risks in flood prone 
areas to establish actuarial premium rates. These rates are 
charged for insurance on new construction. Coverage is 
available on virtually all types of buildings and their 
contents.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has included bill language, providing up to 
$22,685,000 for administrative costs from the Flood Insurance 
Program for salaries and expenses. The Committee has also 
included bill language providing up to $78,464,000 for flood 
mitigation activities including up to $20,000,000 for expenses 
under section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act.
    The Committee recognizes FEMA has significant needs in its 
mapping program. Approximately 45 percent of FEMA flood maps 
are at least 10 years old. Many of the older maps are 
inaccurate and out of date as a result of subsequent 
development or because newer data and/or improved study methods 
are now available. FEMA has developed a multiyear flood map 
modernization plan, totaling $900,000,000. The plan would 
include developing accurate and complete flood hazard 
information for the entire Nation; providing that information 
in a readily available, easy-to-use format; and alerting and 
educating the public regarding the risks of flood hazards. 
Given the critical importance of the maps, the Committee urges 
the administration to propose a means to fund adequately the 
mapping modernization requirements in its fiscal year 2000 and 
future budget requests.
    The Committee recommends that FEMA commit an adequate 
amount of funding to employ the most up-to-date technologies 
available in order to carry out its work in compiling and 
disseminating data on floods and flood-damage potential. The 
Committee notes the significant advantages of using 
technologies, such as GeoSAR, LIDAR, and microwave radiometry, 
compared to traditional methods used by FEMA. By combining 
these technologies, large areas can be mapped quickly and 
accurately. The highly detailed models which result can be used 
in planning and implementation of flood prevention and flood-
proofing tactics. The Committee further recommends that FEMA 
work closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to utilize 
the same technologies to coordinate their work better.
    The Committee has included requested bill language which 
extends the flood insurance program and borrowing authority for 
fiscal year 1999, and permits the continuation of flood mapping 
activities.

                    General Services Administration

                      consumer information center

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $2,419,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       2,419,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,419,000

                          program description

    The Consumer Information Center [CIC] was established 
within the General Services Administration [GSA] by Executive 
order on October 26, 1970, to help Federal departments and 
agencies promote and distribute consumer information collected 
as a byproduct of the Government's program activities.
    The CIC promotes greater public awareness of existing 
Federal publications through wide dissemination to the general 
public of the Consumer Information Catalog. The catalog lists 
both sales and free publications available from the Government 
Printing Office [GPO] distribution facility in Pueblo, CO. In 
fiscal year 1993, the CIC distributed a total of 11.7 million 
publications. Distribution costs of the free publications are 
financed by reimbursements from the Federal agencies to the 
Consumer Information Center.
    Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a 
revolving fund for the CIC. Under this fund, CIC 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 CIC activities. All 
are available as authorized in appropriation acts without 
regard to fiscal year limitations.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $2,419,000 for the Consumer 
Information Center, the same as the budget estimate and the 
enacted level.
    The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, 
user fees from the public, and other income. CIC's anticipated 
obligations for fiscal year 1999 will total approximately 
$6,600,000, approximately one-half of which is directly 
attributable to publication distribution costs.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appropriations, 1998

                                                         $13,648,000,000

Budget estimate, 1999

                                                          13,465,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                          13,615,000,000

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was 
established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 
to conduct space and aeronautical research, development, and 
flight activities for peaceful purposes designed to maintain 
U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space. These activities are 
designed to continue the Nation's premier program of space 
exploration and to invest in the development of new 
technologies to improve the competitive position of the United 
States. The NASA program provides for a vigorous national 
program ensuring leadership in world aviation and as the 
preeminent spacefaring nation.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $13,615,000,000 for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1999. This 
amount is $150,000,000 above the President's budget request.
    The Committee continues to support the broad range of 
activities and programs undertaken by NASA because of their 
inherent value in promoting civilian space exploration, 
scientific advancement, and the development of next-generation 
technologies. However, consistent with the language included in 
last year's conference report (House Report 105-297) the 
Committee continues to be very troubled about the potential 
that escalating cost pressures from the International Space 
Station Program might have on other NASA activities, 
particularly science and aeronautics. This is especially true 
in light of the analysis contained in the recently released 
independent cost assessment and validation [CAV] report, also 
known as the Chabrow report. Moreover, NASA's 1999 budget 
submission does not address the concerns articulated in last 
year's conference report. While space science is proposed to do 
very well over the next 5 years, in the fiscal year 1999 budget 
runout, Earth science and aeronautics are slated for budget 
reductions, especially the latter enterprise.
    The Committee is also deeply troubled with the frequency 
with which NASA reallocates funding within, and requests 
permission to transfer funding between, its three existing 
major appropriation accounts (human space flight; science, 
aeronautics, and technology; and mission support). While the 
Committee agrees that some flexibility must be provided to cope 
with small variations in program planning and execution that 
inevitably occur during a given 12-month period, the degree to 
which NASA shifts funding from one program to another has far 
surpassed our expectations.
    As a result of these concerns, the Committee's interest in 
the Office of Management and Budget initiative to implement 
full-cost accounting in all NASA programs, the need to assist 
the Committee in monitoring NASA's spending, and to ensure that 
funding is spent for the purposes intended by Congress, the 
Committee recommendation has included a restructuring of NASA's 
current appropriations accounts.
    The Committee expects NASA's budget submission for fiscal 
year 1999 to reflect this new account structure, as well as how 
the agency intends to implement its performance plan for its 
activities consistent with the Government Performance and 
Reports Act. NASA needs to provide additional clarity on its 
performance goals as well as the benchmarks it will use to 
assess its performance.
    To ensure greater accountability of international space 
station activities, the ``Human space flight'' account has been 
deleted and two separate accounts have been created entitled 
``International space station'' account and ``Launch vehicle 
and payload operations'' account. The ``International space 
station'' account includes all international space station 
activities formerly funded in the ``Human space flight'' 
account. The amount provided is $2,300,000,000 which is 
$30,000,000 above the President's budget request for these 
activities. The ``Launch vehicle and payload operations'' 
account includes all space shuttle and payload utilization 
activities formerly funded in the ``Human space flight'' 
account. The amount provided is $3,241,000,000, which is the 
same as the President's budget request for space shuttle and 
payload utilization activities.
    In order that critical aeronautics and space transportation 
technology activities be protected from budget reductions, a 
separate account has been created entitled ``Aeronautics, space 
transportation and technology'' account. This account includes 
aeronautics and space transportation technology activities 
formerly funded in the ``Science, aeronautics, and technology'' 
account. The amount provided is $1,305,000,000, which is the 
same as the President's budget request for aeronautics and 
space transportation technology activities. With respect to the 
agency's science and academic programs, these activities are 
funded in the renamed ``Science and technology'' account. The 
amount provided is $4,257,400,000, which is $105,000,000 above 
the President's request for all activities associated with 
space science, Earth science, life and microgravity science, 
mission communications, and academic programs which were 
formerly funded in the ``Science, aeronautics, and technology'' 
account.
    The Committee expects NASA to work with the Committee on 
OMB's recommendation for full-cost accounting for NASA, on 
NASA's continuing efforts to meet the requirements of the 
Government Performance and Reports Act (including consultation 
with the Committee on quantifiable goals and benchmarks), and 
on a smooth transition to the new account structure that will 
enhance NASA's capacity to present its programs and activities.
    In addition, because of the Committee's substantial concern 
regarding the need of all Federal agencies, as well as the 
private sector, to come to terms and address the year 2000 
computer crisis, the Committee directs NASA to submit a report 
to the Committee no later than December 1, 1998, on the status 
of NASA's efforts to resolve the year 2000 computer crisis, 
including a schedule for each program and activity and all 
associated expenditures. The Committee is concerned 
particularly with NASA's efforts on the year 2000 computer 
crisis because of the significant and complex technological 
nature of its activities. NASA is directed to consider this 
area a priority.
    The Committee also notes that NASA has taken major steps to 
consolidate the control and management of space operations 
through the newly created space operations management office 
[SOMO], and is on the verge of its first major action under 
this new structure with the imminent award of the consolidated 
space operations contract [CSOC]. As NASA continues to refine 
and develop its operating practices for space operations under 
SOMO, the Committee wishes to be updated on a real-time basis. 
Moreover, as NASA begins to embark upon full-cost accounting, 
the Committee believes that for the fiscal year 2000 budget 
submission, SOMO activities should be accounted for in a 
consolidated resource schedule.
    Because this new office's responsibilities reach uniquely 
across all NASA enterprises and flight centers, the 
consolidated resource schedule should reflect, from all 
appropriations accounts, a detailed breakdown of all funding 
sources for the SOMO office, the purpose for that funding, and 
a subset program element that identifies CSOC activities. It 
should also include a detailed breakout of all major activities 
including consolidated services, procurement activities, 
information services, civil service FTE costs, and any other 
function that comprises a major activity for the office.
    In order to help the Committee better understand the new 
role that SOMO will play in NASA operations, the Committee 
expects the Chief Financial Officer to submit a report no later 
than August 1, 1999, that details the use of all SOMO-
controlled funds, by current NASA appropriations account, 
program element, and flight center, for fiscal year 1999, and 
what is reasonably projected in each year of the 5-year budget 
runout (fiscal years 1999-2003).
    The Committee recognizes the critical nature of continuing 
efforts to consolidate and increase the efficiencies of NASA's 
space communications activities. The Committee has made clear 
its keen interest in the cost-saving potential of the 
Consolidated Space Operations Contract [CSOC]. Accordingly, to 
enable the Committee to evaluate whether CSOC will achieve its 
anticipated savings, NASA is directed to submit a report no 
later than April 30, 1999, on the savings realized in the first 
6 months of full implementation of CSOC, and a report on the 
expected savings every 6 months through 2005. The April 30 
report should also contain a detailed plan for how NASA expects 
to fully commercialize CSOC functions by 2005 and an 
exploration of activities in other Federal agencies that have 
similar requirements for space communications such as the 
Department of Defense and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration and how they relate to CSOC.

                           HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $5,506,500,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   5,511,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Committee has not provided funds for the ``Human space 
flight'' account. Instead, the Committee has created two new 
accounts, detailed below.

                      International Space Station

Appropriations, 1998....................................................
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................  $2,300,000,000

                          program description

    NASA's ``International space station'' account provides 
funding for the continued development of the space station and 
activities which support utilization of the space station, as 
well as advanced technology projects and engineering technical 
base support for the field centers supporting space station 
activities.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has provided $2,300,000,000 for the 
International Space Station [ISS] Program. This amount is 
$30,000,000 above the President's budget request for these 
activities.
    The Committee has been and continues to be a strong 
supporter of the international space station. When completed, 
the space station will provide an unparalleled opportunity to 
conduct research in the near zero-gravity environment of space. 
The results of that research will benefit future human 
exploration by increasing our understanding of how to live and 
work in space, and provide tangible benefits to mankind through 
advances in biomedicine and materials science.
    Nevertheless, the Committee is concerned greatly about the 
continuing increased costs for the ISS Program. The long 
history of space station cost overruns has reached yet another 
and unprecedented level with the recent release of the report 
by the independent cost assessment and validation [CAV] team 
headed by Jay Chabrow. The CAV report estimates that the space 
station will cost $24,700,000,000 instead of $17,400,000,000, 
will take up to 38 months longer to build than NASA's current 
estimates, and will require additional funding of between 
$130,000,000 to $250,000,000 per year above the President's 
fiscal year 1999 budget submission to Congress.
    Unfortunately, the administration's response to this 
funding dilemma is to propose that additional funding for the 
space station must be provided by raiding NASA's other vital 
programs. Although the Committee firmly believes that space 
station activities are vital to America's future, it does not 
feel that the ISS is more important than the other exciting and 
rewarding activities that NASA supports in science, 
aeronautics, technology development, and space flight programs. 
As the Committee has stated repeatedly in the past, it supports 
a balanced space and aeronautics program, including human 
exploration and development of space, space science, Earth 
science, and aeronautics and space transportation technology. 
Thus, while the Committee has significantly augmented the 
administration's budget request for the International Space 
Station Program, it will not look favorably upon requests to 
reprogram or transfer funds from other NASA programs to augment 
that budget level. As much as the Committee wants the space 
station built and scientific research to begin, that goal 
should not be accomplished at the price of other scientific 
discoveries and technological advances that can be achieved by 
other NASA programs.
    The Committee fully supports deployment of the 
international space station, but recognizes the funds 
appropriated by this act for the development of the 
international space station may not be adequate to cover all 
potential contractual commitments should the program be 
terminated for the convenience of the Government. Accordingly, 
if the ISS is terminated for the convenience of Government, 
additional appropriated funds may be necessary to cover such 
contractual commitments. In the event of such termination, it 
would be the intent of the Committee to provide such additional 
appropriations as may be necessary to provide fully for 
termination payments in a manner which avoids impacting the 
conduct of other ongoing NASA programs.

                 launch vehicles and payload operations

Appropriations, 1998....................................................
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................  $3,241,000,000

                          Program Description

    NASA's ``Launch vehicles and payload operations'' account 
provides funding to maintain space transportation capabilities, 
flight and other activities required for the continued safe 
operation of the space shuttle, and funding for the support of 
payloads flying on the shuttle and space lab, as well as 
advanced technology projects and engineering technical base 
support for the field centers supporting space shuttle 
activities.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,241,000,000 
for the space shuttle and payload utilization activities. This 
amount is the same as the President's budget request for these 
activities.
    The ``Launch vehicles and payload operations'' account 
includes safety and performance upgrades, and shuttle 
operations. It also includes funds previously provided within 
the Payload and Utilization Operations Program element in the 
``Human space flight'' account.
    The Launch Vehicles and Payload Operations Program provides 
launch services to a diversity of customers, supporting 
payloads that range from small hand-held experiments to large 
laboratories. These services include launching spacecraft and 
retrieving payloads from orbit for reuse, serving and repairing 
satellites in space, safely transporting humans to and from 
space, and operating and returning space laboratories.

                  SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, and TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $5,690,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   5,457,400,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Committee has not provided funds for the ``Science, 
aeronautics, and technology'' account. Instead, the Committee 
has created several new accounts, detailed below.

                         Science and Technology

Appropriations, 1998....................................................
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................  $4,257,400,000

                          Program Description

    NASA's ``Science and technology'' account provides funding 
for science, research and development programs that extend 
knowledge of the Earth, its space environment, and the 
universe; to expand the practical applications of space 
technology; and to educate future generations necessary to 
accomplish national goals.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,257,400,000 
for science and technology activities. This amount is 
$105,000,000 above the the President's budget request for these 
activities and also reflects the transfer of aeronautics and 
space transportation technology activities to another separate 
appropriation account.
    The new ``Science and technology'' account provides 
appropriations for activities requested for the Office of Space 
Science, the Office of Earth Science, and the Office of Life 
and Microgravity Science and Applications. In addition it 
includes funds for academic programs, mission communications, 
and those for safety, reliability, and quality assurance 
[SR&QA].
    The Committee is aware of several recent reports by the 
National Research Council [NRC] that make clear that despite 
the promise of NASA's smaller, faster, cheaper, better 
philosophy for lowering costs and shortening development times 
for scientific spacecraft, there are some scientific objectives 
that cannot be accomplished within the limited parameters of 
such missions. The Committee, therefore, directs NASA to 
contract with the NRC for a study across all space science and 
Earth science disciplines to identify missions that cannot be 
accomplished within the parameters imposed by the smaller, 
faster, cheaper, better regime. The report should focus on the 
next 15 years, and attempt to quantify the level of funding per 
project that would be required to meet the specified scientific 
goals. The report also should identify any criteria and methods 
that could be used to measure whether the science accomplished 
using small satellites is better than that accomplished with 
larger, more complex spacecraft. The report is to be submitted 
to the Committee no later than September 30, 1999.
    The Committee has provided $2,108,400,000 for space science 
activities. This amount is $50,000,000 above the President's 
budget request.
    NASA's Space Science Program seeks to answer fundamental 
questions concerning the galaxy and the universe; the 
connection between the Sun, Earth, and heliosphere; the origin 
and evolution of planetary systems; and the origin and 
distribution of life in the universe. The Space Science Program 
is comprised of a base program of research and development 
activities, including research and flight mission activities 
and major flight missions which provide major space-based 
facilities.
    The Committee recommendation supports the President's full 
budget request of $111,700,000 for the space infrared telescope 
facility [SIRTF].
    The Committee notes that the Mars 2001 surveyor orbiter and 
lander mission contains a number of proposed instruments that 
will be utilized for scientific characterization of the Martian 
surface. These costs, totaling about $55,000,000, would go for 
instrumentation and payloads on the proposed Martian lander, as 
well as modifications on the spacecraft, to accommodate these 
instruments. Unfortunately, the Committee also is aware that 
until early this year, these costs were to be paid for by the 
human space enterprise. However, these costs have been 
reassigned recently from the human space enterprise to the 
space science enterprise. This action means a change from the 
baseline requirements of the Mars mission and, therefore, 
should have been subject to the operating plan or reprogramming 
procedures employed by the Committees on Appropriations.
    The Committee has, therefore, provided $20,000,000 for 
spacecraft, payload, instrumentation, and related costs on the 
Mars 2001 mission originally budgeted out of human space flight 
that have been reassigned to the Office of Space Science. 
Restoring funds for this purpose in the space science budget 
will help space science avoid having to absorb mandates for 
which it does not have the resources available or budgeted for 
in future years, and prevent funding reductions in other 
important space science missions and activities.
    The Committee continues to oppose any efforts to tax space 
science activities to pay for human space flight activities 
whether it is through legislative transfer authority or by 
tasking it with unfunded mandates. The Committee also directs 
NASA to restore the Mars 2001 funding profile in the fiscal 
year 2000 budget submission to reflect the original budget 
baseline. Last, in the future, the Committee expects any 
similar proposed transfer of responsibilities to be handled 
through the operating plan or the normal reprogramming process.
    The Committee commends NASA for its efforts to increase 
competition in the award of advanced technology development 
[ATD] funds. The Committee supports this effort and has 
provided $20,000,000 for space science cross-cutting advanced 
technology development. These funds are to be applied to the 
base of ATD funds already assumed in the President's budget 
request that will be awarded through competitive announcements 
of opportunities.
    The Committee has also provided an additional $7,000,000 
for advanced technology development on the next generation 
space telescope [NGST]. The Committee expects NASA to provide 
an additional $5,000,000 beyond this amount, derived from 
prior-year uncosted funds to augment NGST's budget in 1998-99 
by $12,000,000 to guarantee a fiscal year 2003 new start for 
the project.
    The Committee recommendation has provided $11,000,000 above 
the President's budget request for Sun-Earth connecting 
advanced technology development to provide full funding for 
solar-B, continue funding for microsatellite technology, and to 
support a 2002 launch date for solar stereo.
    The Committee recommendation also has provided $1,000,000 
for an astronomical satellite telescope operated at Western 
Kentucky University.
    The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 in support 
of a center for space science and technology at Huntsville, AL.
    The Committee has provided $1,397,000,000 for Earth science 
activities. This amount is $25,000,000 above the President's 
budget request.
    The objective of NASA's Earth Science Program is to 
understand the total Earth system and the effects of natural 
and human-induced changes on the global environment. Earth 
science has three broad goals: to expand scientific knowledge 
of the Earth using NASA's unique capabilities from the vantage 
points of space, aircraft, and in other such platforms; to 
disseminate information about the Earth system; and to enable 
productive use of Earth science and technology in the public 
and private sectors.
    The Committee is aware that NASA's EOS program has had 
significant new requirements placed upon it while absorbing 
several budget reductions. These new requirements include all 
development costs for the Landsat-7 spacecraft, an accelerated 
launch schedule, a substantially more complex ground system, 
including a totally new architecture to integrate the EOSDIS 
into the World Wide Web and a substantially larger amount of 
software development. The Committee also recognizes that NASA's 
EOS program, as it approaches launch of the AM-1 and Landsat-7 
spacecraft, faces potential fiscal and schedule challenges due 
to final integration and testing of both the spacecraft and 
ground system components. The Committee has, therefore, 
provided $25,000,000 to support EOS AM-1 launch requirements, 
including interoperability of the EOS ground systems.
    The Committee continues to support the specific programs 
aimed at fostering the development of a viable U.S. commercial 
remote sensing industry, including cooperative sponsored 
research projects with other Federal agencies and market-
focused applications projects with commercial partners such as 
NASA's focused applications projects with commercial partners 
such as NASA's focused research with Mississippi State 
University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the 
commercial sector for remote sensing applications in 
agriculture and forestry which are being carried out at Stennis 
Space Center, NASA's lead center for commercial remote sensing. 
The Committee provides $10,000,000 for a remote sensing project 
at Mississippi State University.
    The Committee supports NASA's efforts with respect to the 
LightSAR Program. Spaceborne synthetic aperture radars [SAR's] 
provide an all-weather method for remote sensing/monitoring of 
the Earth's surface. Demonstrated capabilities include 
monitoring crops and natural vegetation, natural hazards, soil 
moisture, snow cover, land use, topographic mapping, oil/
mineral exploration, oilspill detection, environmental 
monitoring, ocean waves, and winds, as well as ice on the seas, 
lakes, and glaciers. The United States developed SAR technology 
and NASA has demonstrated both scientific and operational 
applications using SEASAT and the shuttle imaging radars during 
the past 20 years. Now, Canada, Japan, and the European Space 
Agency have operational systems. To affirm U.S. leadership in 
civilian spaceborne radar, NASA is encouraged to proceed with 
the LightSAR mission and to set a target launch date of 2001. 
To further NASA's and the U.S. Government's goal of promoting 
commercial development of spaceborne remote sensing systems, 
the Committee encourages NASA to pursue a commercial partner 
for LightSAR that is responsible for operation of the system 
and that best demonstrates the ability to develop the 
commercial market for radar image and derived radar products.
    The Committee urges NASA to continue support of the 
environmental research aircraft and sensor technology [ERAST] 
remotely piloted aircraft [RPA] performing flight operations in 
Hawaii at the Pacific missile range facility [PMRF]. The 
Committee notes that the ERAST team achieved two sequential 
work altitude records with its Pathfinder solar-powered RPA. In 
addition, the Pathfinder flew a series of science missions over 
Kauai that provided useful data on Hawaii's rich ecology. The 
Committee encourages further development of ERAST to promote 
reusable solar electric aircraft for science and environmental 
research.
    The Committee recommendation includes $242,000,000 for life 
and microgravity science activities. This amount is the same as 
the President's budget request.
    The Life and Microgravity Science Program uses the 
microgravity environment of space to conduct basic and applied 
research to understand the effect of gravity on living systems 
and to conduct research in the areas of fluid physics, 
materials science, and biotechnology. The Life and Microgravity 
Science Program will conduct research, and provide the 
opportunity to refine the definition, design, and development 
of experimental hardware planned for the international space 
station.
    The Committee is aware of NASA's efforts to strengthen life 
sciences research through the National Space Biomedical 
Research Institute [NSBRI]. In its short period of existence, 
the NSBRI has distinguished itself for providing top quality 
research on human space flight and supporting the efforts of 
NASA's Office of Life Sciences in utilizing the results of 
space-based research for application to mainstream biomedical 
scientific knowledge. For this reason, the Committee strongly 
encourages NASA to augment significantly the budget of the 
NSBRI in its fiscal year 2000 budget submission, including a 
substantial expansion of extramural scientific proposals 
funding though the Institute.
    The Committee recommendation has provided $2,000,000 for a 
center on life in extreme thermal environments at Montana State 
University in Bozeman.
    The Committee has provided $130,000,000 for academic 
programs. This amount is $30,000,000 above the President's 
budget request.
    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 has included $23,500,000 for the National 
Space Grant College and Fellowship Program. The Committee 
expects NASA to consider this level to be the future baseline 
for the Space Grant Program. The increase in funding over the 
fiscal year 1998 funding level shall be used to (1) hold a 
prompt competition among the eligible States for promotion to 
designated status; and (2) begin the development through the 
Space Grant Program to encourage the practical application of 
aerospace technology and science in partnership with 
cooperative extension and natural resource programs.
    The Committee recommendation has included $14,600,000 for 
the NASA EPSCoR Program, $10,000,000 above the budget request. 
The Committee expects NASA to conduct a new solicitation in 
fiscal year 1999. It also expects NASA EPSCoR to support a 
broad range of research areas in each EPSCoR State, drawn from 
Earth science, space science, aeronautics and space 
transportation technology, and human exploration and 
development of space, and to distribute the awards, 
competitively, to the largest number of eligible States 
possible.
    The Committee has provided $55,900,000 for NASA's minority 
university research and education activities. This amount is 
$10,000,000 above the President's budget request. These 
additional funds are for a competitively selected grant program 
to strengthen graduate science, mathematics, engineering, and 
technology education at historically black colleges and 
universities. The Committee notes that African-Americans are 
severely underrepresented at the doctoral level in many 
sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology fields. The 
Committee, therefore, directs NASA to make not more than four 
awards to historically black graduate institutions that offer 
doctoral degree granting programs in engineering and science-
related education.
    The Committee recommendation has provided $3,500,000 for 
the NASA International Earth Observing System [EOS] Natural 
Resource Training Center at the University of Montana, 
Missoula, MT; $2,000,000 for Environmental Computer Center at 
Oregon State University; $2,000,000 for a center for advanced 
information technology at the University of Maryland, College 
Park; $2,000,000 for an institute for research in commercial 
remote sensing applications at the University of Missouri-
Columbia; $2,500,000 for the Bishop Museum/Mauna Kea Astronomy 
Education Center; $3,000,000 for the U.S. Space and Rocket 
Center in Huntsville, AL; the full-budget request of $2,000,000 
for the classroom of the future; $1,000,000 for the pipelines 
project at Iowa State University/Southern University--Baton 
Rouge; $2,000,000 for the Chabot Observatory and Science 
Center, Oakland, CA; and $1,000,000 for the continued 
development and refinement of visualization techniques and 
capabilities currently underway through the consortium for the 
application of space data to education [CASDE] to incorporate 
remotely sensed data and information into formal informational 
and educational programs.

            aeronautics, space transportation and technology

Appropriations, 1998....................................................
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................  $1,305,000,000

                          Program Description

    NASA's ``Aeronautics, space transportation and technology'' 
account provides funding for research and development of 
technology to improve the performance of aeronautical vehicles 
while minimizing their environmental effects and to continue 
the development of other aeronautical and space launch 
technology.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee has provided $1,305,000,000 for the 
aeronautics and space transportation technology program. This 
amount is the same as the President's budget request for these 
activities.
    The new ``Aeronautics, space transportation and 
technology'' account includes appropriations for the Office of 
Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology's Programs, 
including commercial technology programs and the small business 
innovation research [SBIR] program.
    The objective of the Aeronautics and Space Transportation 
Technology Program is to pioneer long-term, high-risk, high-
payoff technologies that are effectively transferred to 
industry and Government. The program's technology goals are 
grouped into three areas to reflect the national priorities for 
aeronautics and space: global civil aviation; revolutionary 
technology leaps; and access to space. The Aeronautics and 
Space Transportation Technology Program includes: Aeronautics, 
that addresses critical aeronautical safety, environmental, 
airspace productivity, and aircraft performance needs at 
national and global levels; space transportation technology, 
that will develop technology for the next generation space 
transportation system, with a target of reducing vehicle 
development and operational costs dramatically; and commercial 
technology, that consists of conducting a continuous inventory 
of newly developed NASA technologies, maintaining a searchable 
data base of this inventory, assessing the commercial value of 
each technology, disseminating knowledge of these NASA 
technology opportunities to the private sector, and supporting 
an efficient system for licensing NASA technologies to private 
companies. This program also includes the operation of the 
Small Business Innovation Research Program which is designed to 
enhance NASA's use of small business technology innovators.
    The Committee understands that the administration has 
proposed legislation for NASA to eliminate a gap in current law 
governing the sharing of financial risk for space endeavors, 
specifically to ensure unimpeded progress in development and 
testing of the X-33 and X-34 reusable launch vehicle technology 
and to facilitate U.S. commercial use of the International 
Space Station. The legislation would extend NASA's current 
indemnification authority to provide NASA the ability to 
indemnify developers of experimental aerospace vehicles, such 
as the X-33 and X-34 vehicles, against claims by third parties, 
thereby maximizing the resources which can be invested in the 
actual technology demonstrations (this is similar to existing 
law governing the U.S. commercial launch industry, under which 
the Department of Transportation is authorized to provide 
indemnification for claims above insurance coverage). The 
legislation would also provide clear statutory authority for 
NASA to conclude cross-waivers of liability with U.S. 
companies, similar to existing NASA authority to conclude such 
waivers with foreign partners in aerospace activities. This 
authority would enable NASA to enter into agreements with the 
developers of the X-33 and X-34, and U.S. participants in such 
significant activities as the International Space Station 
Program, whereby each party agrees to assume the risk of damage 
to its assets, and agrees not to sue any other involved party 
(effectively reducing potential financial risk and making more 
private sector dollars available for direct investment in the 
space program).
    The Committee also understands that enactment of this 
legislation is time critical, in as much as flight testing of 
the X-33 and X-34 are scheduled to begin in early 1999, and the 
first elements of the international space station are due to be 
launched later this year. While this legislation is not 
included in this bill, the Committee expects this legislation 
to be enacted this year.
    The Committee recommendation supports the President's 
budget request of $388,000,000 for advanced space 
transportation and technology [ASTT] which includes funding to 
support propulsion test activities at Stennis Space Center; 
$13,940,000 for the independent verification and validation 
[IV&V] facility; and $7,200,000 for the National Technology 
Transfer Center.
    The Committee has included $1,500,000 for ongoing NASA 
aerospace projects at MSE-Technology Applications, Western 
Environmental Technology Office, Butte, MT, to allow the 
continuation of ongoing research and development projects on 
high-priority aerospace technology; $2,000,000 for an 
atmospheric research small expendable deployed phase-B study; 
and $2,000,000 for MSU in Bozeman, MT, to carry out research 
into advanced hardware and software technologies for 
development of advanced optoelectronic materials.
    The Committee also directs NASA to increase funding for the 
Small Business Incubator Program by $5,000,000 over the budget 
request for fiscal year 1999, with at least two new business 
incubators designated, at least one of which is to be located 
in Florida.
    The Committee strongly supports NASA's request of 
$20,000,000 for undertake the future space launch studies with 
the goal of reducing NASA's cost of space launch. These 
industry-led studies will provide a unique opportunity for 
taking advantage of the tremendous growth in the commercial 
space industry. The Committee, therefore, requests that these 
efforts also examine possible modifications to NASA's space 
launch requirements that could enable greater commercial 
participation. These modifications include human ratings 
requirements, downmass requirements, and opportunities for 
allowing smaller launch systems to service the International 
Space Station. In addition to industry and NASA, an independent 
organization should provide an evaluation of this task. Second, 
the Committee also directs NASA as part of this effort to 
examine the design, cost, and schedule associated with 
development of a two-way crew transfer vehicle [CTV] to service 
the International Space Station instead of a one-way crew 
return vehicle [CRV]. A CTV could also be launched on existing 
and planned U.S. commercial launch vehicles, backup the space 
shuttle during downtimes, and provide an eventual transition 
path for space shuttle replacement vehicles. As such, the 
Committee believes that CRV development should not commence 
until the Committee has fully reviewed the CTV option. Third, 
given the continued Russian economic turmoil, the Committee 
also expects NASA to augment the studies effort to investigate 
the purchase of commercial services from Unites States industry 
that could replace the Russian Government's contribution of 
Soyuz and Progress vehicles that are manifested to support the 
International Space Station. NASA should submit the results of 
these three tasks along with the fiscal year 2000 budget 
submission.
    The Committee is also aware that NASA is investing 
substantial funds to conduct internal and external studies for 
the potential replacement of the space shuttle's solid rocket 
boosters with a liquid fly back booster [LFBB] system. 
Presumably this LFBB study effort would be available for 
decisions around the year 2000 regarding a launch system or 
systems to replace the shuttle as currently configured. In the 
Committee's view, it would be most beneficial to have 
information available on an upgraded version of the current 
solid rocket booster that can provide essentially the same 
performance as the envisioned LFBB. This would allow 
alternatives to be weighed if a decision is made to enhance the 
shuttle's capability and extend its operational life. The 
Committee, therefore, directs NASA to provide an additional 
$4,000,000 to the future launch studies effort within advanced 
space transportation. These funds are to be utilized by NASA 
and appropriate private sector companies to complete a phase A 
study on an extended (five segment) version of the current 
(four segment) solid rocket booster. It is anticipated that the 
study will be complete by June 30, 1999.

                            MISSION SUPPORT

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $2,433,200,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   2,476,600,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,491,600,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides for mission support including 
safety, reliability, and mission assurance activities 
supporting agency programs; space communications services for 
NASA programs; salaries and related expenses in support of 
research in NASA field installations; design, repair, 
rehabilitation and modification of institutional facilities, 
and construction of new institutional facilities; and other 
operations activities supporting conduct of agency programs.
    Funds provided in the ``Mission support'' account pay for 
NASA civil service salary and related expenses, travel, 
construction of facilities, and research operations support 
[ROS] contractors.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $2,491,600,000 for mission 
support activities. This amount is $15,000,000 more than the 
President's budget request for these activities.
    The Committee has concerns regarding the level of NASA's 
uncosted budget authority. The Committee recognizes that 
uncosted budget authority is comprised of both unobligated 
budget authority and not costed obligations. Uncosted 
obligations are the funded value of bona fide contracts, 
subject to the force of public law and executive regulation. In 
addition, the Committee recognizes the progress NASA has made 
improving business practices to facilitate timely obligation of 
budget authority. The Committee believes accrued cost planning 
and control, and the resulting uncosted obligations metric are 
important internal tools that NASA managers should use to 
monitor programs regularly. The Committee believes NASA must 
take immediate and permanent steps to reduce unobligated budget 
authority to the very minimum. The Committee believes that the 
amount of unobligated budget authority at fiscal year end 
should be no more than amounts attributable to: unutilized 
program reserves planned for the budget year but carried 
forward and available to the program; procurements which, for 
procedural reasons, could not be obligated; and requirements 
deriving from prudent management of the Agency resources. The 
Committee will monitor closely the unobligated balance of the 
agency as a benchmark of financial stewardship.
    The Committee also strongly supports NASA's efforts with 
respect to the development of the integrated financial 
management system [IFMP] and has provided an additional 
$15,000,000 above the President's budget request for these 
activities.
    The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 to 
complete the facilities at the Stennis Space Center. The 
Committee supports NASA's ongoing test facility modernization 
and manpower enhancements to support growing test requirements. 
NASA's program at Stennis Space Center [SSC] is in the second 
year of a 5-year plan to complete and modernize test facilities 
to accomplish test programs for NASA, DOD, and commercial 
development programs, and will permit consolidation and enhance 
efficiency of the Nation's propulsion test assets. This 
investment supports the SSC's role as the center of excellence 
for propulsion testing and coupled with funding from DOD and 
commercial developers it will provide necessary SSC test 
facility enhancements to accommodate test requirements for 
their programs, such as engines for the Evolved Expendable 
Launch Vehicle [EELV] Program.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $18,300,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978. The Office is responsible for 
providing agencywide audit and investigative functions to 
identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies 
which create conditions for existing or potential instances of 
fraud, waste, and mismanagement.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, 
an increase of $1,700,000 over the fiscal year 1998 
appropriation level and the same as the President's budget 
request.

                       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 in prior-year appropriation 
acts.

                  National Credit Union Administration

                       central liquidity facility

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Direct loan       Administrative 
                                        limitation          expenses    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998..............       $600,000,000           $203,000
Budget estimate, 1999.............        600,000,000            176,000
Committee recommendation..........        600,000,000            176,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the administration's proposed 
limitation of $600,000,000 in loans from the central liquidity 
facility for fiscal year 1999. The Committee also recommends 
the budget request of limiting administrative expenses for the 
CLF to $176,000 in fiscal year 1999.

                      National Science Foundation

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $3,429,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   3,773,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,644,150,000

                          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 basic and 
applied research, science and technology policy research, and 
science and engineering education programs to promote the 
progress of science and engineering in the United States.
    The Foundation supports fundamental and applied research in 
all major scientific and engineering disciplines, through 
grants, contracts, and other forms of assistance, such as 
cooperative agreements, awarded to more than 2,000 colleges and 
universities, and to nonprofit organizations and other research 
organizations in all parts of the United States. The Foundation 
also supports major national and international programs and 
research facilities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,644,150,000 for the National 
Science Foundation for fiscal year 1999. This amount is 
$215,150,000 more than the 1998 level and $128,850,000 less 
than the budget request.

                    RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $2,545,700,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   2,846,800,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,725,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The research and related activities appropriation addresses 
Foundation goals to enable the United States to uphold world 
leadership in all aspects of science and engineering, and to 
promote the discovery, integration, dissemination, and 
employment of new knowledge in service to society. Research 
activities will contribute to the achievement of these goals 
through expansion of the knowledge base; integration of 
research and education; stimulation of knowledge transfer among 
academia and the public and private sectors; and bringing the 
perspectives of many disciplines to bear on complex problems 
important to the Nation.
    The Foundation's discipline-oriented research programs are: 
biological sciences; computer and information science and 
engineering; engineering; geosciences; mathematical and 
physical sciences; and social, behavioral and economic 
sciences. Also included are U.S. polar research programs, U.S. 
antarctic logistical support activities, and the Critical 
Technologies Institute.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,725,000,000 
for research and related activities. This amount is 
$179,300,000 above the fiscal year 1998 level and $121,800,000 
less than the budget request.
    While the Committee strongly supports the goals of the 
National Science Foundation and recognizes the importance that 
the Foundation places in the primary initiatives of knowledge 
and distributed intelligence [KDI], life and Earth's 
environment [LEE], and educating for the future [EFF], the 
Committee remains concerned over the National Science 
Foundation's failure to provide a budget justification for 
fiscal year 1999 that meets the requirements of the Government 
Performance and Results Act. It is important that all 
initiatives and programs of NSF be identified with specific 
funding as well as quantifiable goals and milestones. The 
Committee expects NSF's fiscal year 2000 budget to establish 
quantifiable goals and milestones and, absent compliance, the 
Committee may have to consider appropriating program specific 
funding.
    The Committee directs NSF to submit a plan to the Committee 
by December 1, 1998, detailing a schedule, and all needed 
activities and associated costs (including where the costs will 
be paid from) for resolving all year 2000 computer problems 
within the agency. No operating plan will be approved unless 
this plan has been submitted. The Committee also directs NSF, 
in conjunction with the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, to report to the Committee no later than June 30, 1999, 
on the extent to which the year 2000 computer problem will 
impact universities and technological efforts in the United 
States as well as an assessment on the impact on science, 
technology, and research throughout the world.
    The Committee is aware of the report on the national plant 
genome initiative produced by the administration's Interagency 
Working Group [IWG] on Plant Genomes and commends the 
administration for its strong support of the plant genome 
initiative [PGI] funded by Congress in fiscal year 1998. The 
goals of this ambitious new program are to advance our 
understanding of the structure, organization, and function of 
the genomes of economically significant plants to improve the 
useful properties of plants that are important to humanity. The 
challenges of ensuring an economically and environmentally 
sustainable source of food and fiber for a population which is 
expected to double in the next 30 years can only be achieved by 
breakthrough advances in science. Scientists believe that the 
solutions to these challenges can be met through the 
application of plant-based technologies resulting in the 
manipulation of the DNA of plants.
    In particular, the IWG reports that: ``* * * the 
revitalization of rural America will come from a more robust 
agricultural sector; reduction in greenhouse gasses can be 
achieved from the production of plant biofuels for energy; 
chemically contaminated sites can be rehabilitated economically 
using selected plants; and worldwide malnutrition can be 
greatly reduced through the development of higher yielding and 
more nutritious crops that can be grown on marginal soil.'' 
Currently, the United States is the world's leader in 
biotechnology which many believe will mark the third 
technological revolution. For fiscal year 1998, the PGI has 
attracted 67 proposals from 121 separate institutions 
requesting a total of $348,000,000. The Committee has included 
an additional $10,000,000 to the budget request to help meet 
this pressing need.
    As discussed in last year's report, the Committee expects 
NSF to contract with the National Academy of Public 
Administration to review the procedure and criteria for merit 
review, now that the new criteria has been in place for a year. 
This study should review the overall merit review process in 
the agency, as well as examine how the changes in the merit 
review criteria have affected the different types of research 
that NSF supports.
    The Committee also is concerned about how NSF funds are 
distributed to universities and colleges, as well as to various 
areas of the country. A recent NSF survey of Federal R&D 
expenditures based on data collected through fiscal year 1996 
indicated that the top 50 recipients of university-based 
research received about 60 percent of all available Federal 
research dollars (some $8,300,000,000 out of $13,800,000,000). 
In addition, a number of these top 50 schools received an 
additional $4,300,000,000 because they manage large federally 
funded research and development centers for various Federal 
agencies.
    Consequently, the Committee urges the Foundation to broaden 
the scope of its research support for colleges and 
universities. In addition, the Committee also recognizes the 
need for the agency to foster initiatives between university 
centers of excellence and U.S. manufacturers to promote work 
force training to increase the pool of trained personnel for 
careers in information technology companies. Such an effort by 
the agency could bolster worker productivity and improve U.S. 
global competitiveness in this critical economic activity. The 
Committee, therefore, urges the agency, as part of its KDI 
initiative, to support proposals addressing the demonstrated 
personnel needs of information technology firms for expanded 
education and training at three university-based centers. The 
Committee directs the agency to focus its support on 
universities and colleges that do not normally fall within the 
top 100 of NSF's survey of universities and colleges receiving 
Federal research support to overcome any bias toward more 
established institutions. The Committee has provided $6,000,000 
to support this initiative.
    The National Science Foundation [NSF] established the 
Science and Technology Centers [STC] Program in 1987 to fund 
important basic research and education activities and to 
encourage technology transfer and innovative approaches within 
an interdisciplinary framework. The Committee has been a strong 
supporter of these kinds of efforts and encourages NSF to move 
forward with the STC Program. In that light, the Committee is 
particularly interested in using the STC model to support 
innovative interdisciplinary research and training efforts in 
applied molecular biology. With its close ties to the 
biotechnology industry three new STC's in this area would be 
entirely consistent with the program's objectives.
    The Committee, therefore, directs NSF to develop a new 
research program for the establishment of three multi-
investigator centers in the area of applied molecular biology. 
The development of such centers shall be targeted to 
universities and colleges that do not normally fall within the 
top 100 of NSF's survey of universities and colleges receiving 
Federal research support to overcome bias toward more 
established institutions. The centers should facilitate the 
preparation of a new generation of trained scientists at 
younger institutions. Further, the institutions must 
demonstrate evidence of interdisciplinary efforts in the 
molecular biosciences and have a history of laboratory-based 
training of researchers for the biotechnology industry. The 
Committee is providing $12,000,000 to support this initiative.
    The Committee has provided an additional $24,000,000 to the 
budget request for arctic logistics within the U.S. Arctic 
Research Program. These additional funds are to be used to 
provide logistical support for the research activities funded 
by polar programs and other NSF arctic research and education 
activities. The Committee intends that the recommendations of 
the U.S. Arctic Research Commission in Logistics 
Recommendations for Improved U.S. Arctic Research Capability 
(July 1997) and the 1987 report of the National Science Board's 
Committee on the Role of the NSF in Polar Regions (NSB 87-128) 
will serve as guideposts for the investment of these funds, 
subject to the merit review process. The Committee is 
particularly interested in seeing that some of these additional 
resources support current international collaborations in 
arctic research related to global climate change as well as 
addressing distance learning issues unique to the arctic 
environment. The Committee directs NSF to submit a strategic 
plan to the Committee on the proposed structure for the use of 
these logistical funds by November 15, 1998.
    The Committee is a strong supporter of NSF's participation 
in the Next Generation Internet [NGI] Program and recognizes 
the importance of equal access to the NGI for researchers and 
educators from all areas of the country. The Committee is well 
aware that some States, such as Hawaii and Alaska, face unique 
challenges in getting access to high-performance 
telecommunication networks and urges NSF to continue to work 
closely with universities from these States and with other 
Federal agencies, to address this access problem. The Committee 
strongly encourages NSF and the other relevant agencies 
involved in high-speed networking to provide all appropriate 
support that will assist these and other States and their 
institutions of higher education to gain access to the 
developing national research network testbed. The Committee 
directs NSF to submit a strategic plan on ways to address this 
access and cost issue to the Committee by January 25, 1999.
    The Committee received the report requested in last year's 
appropriation from the Foundation in April 1998 on the 
establishment of a National Institute on the Environment. The 
Committee concurs with the Foundation's view that environmental 
research is an important area that should be strengthened. The 
Committee believes that this objective can be accomplished 
without the creation of an additional bureaucratic structure. 
The Committee looks forward to forthcoming proposals from the 
OSTP, NSF, and the National Science and Technology Council 
concerning a national science and technology strategy for the 
environment, which was recommended in the NSF's April report to 
the Committee.
    The Committee understands that NSF is reorganizing its 
behavioral and social science research programs to accelerate 
the impressive advances that are occurring in these areas. The 
Committee applauds this reorganization as a sign of NSF's 
expanding commitment to these areas and reiterates its belief 
that basic research in the behavioral sciences is central to 
understanding and addressing many national concerns. The 
Committee also is pleased to note the publication of ``Basic 
Research in Psychological Science'', a human capital initiative 
report on the achievements in many areas of psychological 
research such as visual and auditory perception, memory and 
learning, decisionmaking, social and culture-based behaviors, 
and human development. The Committee encourages NSF to use this 
report in establishing behavioral and social science research 
priorities.
    The Committee directs NSF to support through a competitive 
process an additional LTER site, for the study of a pristine, 
inland, mountain wilderness area. Preferences should be given 
to sites with established research facilities operated by an 
accredited university or nonprofit organization. The size and 
location of the site should be conducive to providing baseline 
information on wilderness environments.

                        MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $109,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      94,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      94,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The major research equipment activity will support the 
construction and procurement of unique national research 
platforms and major research equipment. Projects supported by 
this appropriation will push the boundaries of technological 
design and will offer significant expansion of opportunities, 
often in new directions, for the science and engineering 
community.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $94,000,000 
for major research equipment. This amount is $15,000,000 less 
than the fiscal year 1998 level and the same as the budget 
request.
    The Committee has provided the request for the continued 
work on modernizing the South Pole Station. In January 1998, 
the Committee sent a CODEL, led by Senator Stevens, chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, to review first hand the role of 
NSF in the Antarctic and the Foundation's plans for the 
rebuilding of the South Pole Station as well as other upgrades 
necessary to preserve U.S. presence and the U.S. leadership in 
science research in the Antarctic. The Committee found that the 
construction of a new South Pole Station is needed. The 
Committee also found that NSF's investment in the Antarctic as 
a unique research laboratory is responsible, important, and 
useful.
    Nevertheless, the Committee remains concerned about the 
management of the costs of this undertaking in such a harsh and 
unforgiving environment. One particular concern relates to the 
fact that the overall civilian logistics support contract for 
all U.S. Antarctic Program activities will be the subject of a 
recompetition just as construction of the new station begins. 
Therefore, the Committee directs NSF to submit a report by 
February 1999, detailing its plans for construction cost 
containment of the new station and how this process will be 
managed should a new contractor be selected for overall 
logistics support activities. The Committee also has provided 
the request for the large hadron collider and second year 
funding for the millimeter array radio telescope.
    The Committee does not provide funding for the Polar Cap 
Observatory at this time.

                     EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $632,500,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     683,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     683,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Education and human resources activities provide a 
comprehensive set of programs across all levels of education in 
science, mathematics, and technology. At the precollege level, 
the appropriation provides for new instructional material and 
techniques, and enrichment activities for teachers and 
students. Undergraduate initiatives support curriculum 
improvement, facility enhancement, and advanced technological 
education. Graduate level support is directed primarily to 
research fellowships and traineeships. Emphasis is given to 
systemic reform through components that address urban, rural, 
and statewide efforts in precollege education, and programs 
which seek to broaden the participation of States and regions 
in science and engineering.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $683,000,000 
for education and human resources. This amount is $50,500,000 
more than the fiscal year 1998 level and the same as the budget 
request.
    Since 1965, NSF has been involved in international 
comparisons of student math and science performance. Despite a 
significant Federal investment and commitment, for 30 years 
U.S. students have been near or at the bottom of performance. 
The recent TIMMS study again tells us that our Nation's 12th 
graders are not doing as well in math and science as our 
international competitors. The Committee is concerned greatly 
by this study, and requests NSF to develop a strategic plan to 
address this shortcoming. An initial preplan review should be 
provided to the Committee by June 15, 1999.
    In addition, for a number of years--spurred on by a 
National Science Board report in the late 1980's and this 
Committee--NSF has invested on a number of fronts to improve 
math and science education at the undergraduate level. Instead 
of the expected progress, the Carnegie Foundation recently 
issued a report that was critical of the job our research 
universities are doing in undergraduate education. The 
Committee expects NSF to develop a strategic plan to address 
the existing shortcomings in our Nation's undergraduate 
programs, with an initial preplan review due by July 15, 1999.
    Moreover, the Committee strongly supports the Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR] as a way to 
stimulate R&D competitiveness in universities in States which 
receive relatively little Federal R&D funds. The Committee 
directs NSF to increase EPSCoR by an additional $10,000,000. 
The Committee also strongly supports the next generation 
Internet initiative, and continues to emphasize the importance 
of providing equal access to the Internet for students, 
teachers, and researchers throughout the Nation, including 
rural areas.
    The Committee provided $6,000,000 last year to begin a new 
program targeted at the undergraduate level at historically 
black colleges and universities. NSF formally issued a request 
for proposals in April 1998 and the first set of awards are 
expected to be made by the end of fiscal year 1998. The 
Committee believes this effort will help attract and retain 
minority scholars into science and engineering and in that 
light, it is again providing additional funds to augment this 
effort.
    The Committee, therefore, is providing $6,000,000 for 
grants to historically black colleges and universities under 
the under represented population undergraduate reform [UPUR] 
initiative begun last year in House Report 105-297. These funds 
are to be matched by an additional $2,000,000 in funds from the 
research account for a total $8,000,000 program level in fiscal 
year 1999. The Foundation is further directed, beginning in 
fiscal year 2000, to incorporate this program into its annual 
budget submissions.
    The Committee is providing $46,000,000 for informal science 
education [ISE] in fiscal year 1999, an increase of 
$10,000,000. The ISE program acts as a catalyst for educating 
people of all ages and walks of life in family-friendly, 
informal settings--at museums, on public television, in aquaria 
and zoos, and in science and technology centers around the 
country. With considerable local matching dollars, ISE-
supported exhibits and programming help extend the Foundation's 
research and education missions by exposing large segments of 
the public to the value of research and discovery.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $136,950,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     144,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     136,950,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The salaries and expenses appropriation provides for the 
operation, management, and direction of all Foundation programs 
and activities and includes necessary funds to develop and 
coordinate NSF programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $136,950,000 
for salaries and expenses. This amount is the same as the 
fiscal year 1998 level and is $7,050,000 less than the amount 
in the budget request. The Committee believes these are 
adequate funds since most NSF funds are distributed and managed 
outside the agencies.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $4,850,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       5,200,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,200,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,200,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General in fiscal year 1999. This 
amount is $350,000 more than the fiscal year 1998 level and the 
same as the budget request.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      90,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      60,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by 
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the 
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public 
Law 95-557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood reinvestment helps 
local communities establish working partnerships between 
residents and representatives of the public and private 
sectors. The partnership-based organizations are independent, 
tax-exempt, nonprofit entities: Neighborhood housing services 
[NHS], mutual housing associations, and apartment improvement 
programs. Collectively, these organizations are known as the 
NeighborWorks network.
    Nationally, the 177 NeighborWorks organizations 
form a solid network in approximately 150 cities effectively 
revitalizing over 348 neighborhoods. Of the neighborhoods, 71 
percent of the people served are in the very low and low-income 
brackets.
    The NeighborWorks network improves the quality of 
life in distressed neighborhoods for current residents, 
increases homeownership through targeted lending efforts, 
exerts a long-term, stabilizing influence on the neighborhood 
business environment, and reverses neighborhood decline. 
NeighborWorks organizations have been positively 
impacting urban communities for over two decades, and more 
recent experience is demonstrating the success of this approach 
in rural communities when adequate resources are available.
    Neighborhood reinvestment will continue to provide grants 
to Neighborhood Housing Services of America [NHSA], the 
NeighborWorks network's national secondary market. 
The mission of NHSA is to utilize private sector support to 
replenish local NeighborWorks organizations' 
revolving loan funds. These loans are used to back securities 
which are placed with private sector social investors.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee proposes $60,000,000 for the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation, $30,000,000 less than the budget 
request.

                        Selective Service System

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $23,413,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      24,940,000
Committee recommendation................................      24,940,000

                          Program Description

    The Selective Service System [SSS] was reestablished by the 
Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System 
is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces 
adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a 
time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have 
relied on volunteers to fill military manpower requirements. 
However, the Selective Service System remains the primary 
vehicle by which men will be brought into the military if 
Congress and the President should authorize a return to the 
draft.
    In December 1987, Selective Service was tasked by law 
(Public Law 100-180, sec. 715) to develop plans for a 
postmobilization health care personnel delivery system capable 
of providing the necessary critically skilled health care 
personnel to the Armed Forces in time of emergency. An 
automated system capable of handling mass registration and 
inductions is now complete, together with necessary draft 
legislation, a draft Presidential proclamation, prototype forms 
and letters, et cetera. These products will be available should 
the need arise. The development of supplemental standby 
products, such as a compliance system for health care 
personnel, continues using very limited existing resources.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,940,000 
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as 
the budget request for fiscal year 1999 and an increase of 
$1,527,000 over the enacted level.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends inclusion of 21 general provisions 
previously enacted in the 1998 appropriations act. They are 
standard limitations which have been carried in the VA, HUD, 
and Independent Agencies appropriations bill in the past. There 
is an additional requirement that HUD operate within its budget 
estimates and its appropriation.

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

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

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    Housing Certificate Fund: $10,013,542,030.
    Fair housing activities: $35,000,000.
    HOME Investment Partnerships Program: $1,550,000,000.
    Indian housing loan guarantee fund: $6,000,000.
    Government National Mortgage Association (credit 
limitation): $150,000,000,000.
    Homeless assistance grants: $1,000,000,000.
    Community development block grants: $4,750,000,000.
    Research and technology: $36,500,000.
    Rural housing and economic development: $35,000,000.

                   CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

    Salaries and expenses: $46,500,000.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Environmental programs and management: $1,872,000,000.
    Science and technology: $643,460,000.
    State and tribal assistance grants: $2,331,219,500.
    Superfund: $1,500,000,000.

                  FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

    Salaries and expenses: $170,000,000.
    Emergency management planning and assistance: $231,000,000.
    Emergency food and shelter: $100,000,000.

                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Consumer Information Center: $2,419,000.

             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    International space station: $2,300,000,000.
    Launch vehicles and payload operations: $3,241,000,000.
    Science and technology: $4,257,400,000.
    Aeronautics, space transportation, and technology: 
$1,305,000,000.
    Mission support: $2,491,600,000.

                      NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

    Research and related activities: $2,725,000,000.
    Major research equipment: $94,000,000.
    Salaries and expenses: $136,950,000.
    Education and human resources: $683,000,000.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee 
ordered reported en bloc, S. 2159, an original Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
Agencies appropriations bill, 1999, S. 2160, an original 
Military Construction appropriations bill, 1999, and S. 2168, 
an original Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations 
bill, 1999 and each subject to amendment and each subject to 
its budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 27-0, a quorum 
being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mr. Faircloth
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Bumpers
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Boxer

 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.''
    As otherwise discussed, the dramatic and unprecedented 
constraints on domestic discretionary spending has made 
necessary inclusion of a considerable volume of legislative 
reforms and other changes in existing statutes in the Committee 
recommendation. This is particularly in evidence in title II, 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development portion of this 
bill, in which cost-saving and cost-avoidance measures for 
discretionary housing and community development activities 
require modification of programs governed a large body of 
detailed and complex statutory provisions.
    The Committee has included substantial explanatory material 
in this report which attempts to detail fully both the intent 
and practical effect of these statutory provisions. In view of 
the extensive nature of these changes, however, preparation of 
a comparative print detailing each of these statutory 
amendments would delay prompt availability of this report. In 
the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to dispense with 
the requirements of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI to expedite the 
business of the Senate.

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL                                            
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS  
                                                     AMENDED                                                    
                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays        
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount  of   Committee    Amount  of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations                                                    
 to its subcommittees of amounts for 1999: Subcommittee on                                                      
 VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies:                                                                             
    Defense discretionary...................................          131          131          127      \1\ 127
    Nondefense discretionary................................       69,855       70,505       80,653       80,816
    Violent crime reduction fund............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Mandatory...............................................       21,885       22,276       21,570       21,240
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:                                                       
    1999....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 53,037
    2000....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       18,117
    2001....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        7,387
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,017
    2003 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,097
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 1999                                                    
 in bill....................................................           NA       26,098           NA        4,396
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.                                                          
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.                                                          
                                                                                                                
NA: Not applicable.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                
Note.--The Budget Committee scores nondefense discretionary $650,000,000 in budget authority and $163,000,000 in
  outlays lower than does CBO.                                                                                  


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL 
                                                                        YEAR 1999                                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Senate Committee recommendation   
                                                                                                   Committee              compared with (+ or -)        
                        Item                          1998 appropriation    Budget estimate     recommendation   ---------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  1998 appropriation    Budget estimate 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                       TITLE I                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
          Veterans Benefits Administration                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
Compensation and pensions...........................    $20,482,997,000     $21,857,058,000     $21,857,058,000     +$1,374,061,000   ..................
Readjustment benefits...............................      1,366,000,000       1,175,000,000       1,175,000,000        -191,000,000   ..................
Veterans insurance and indemnities..................         51,360,000          46,450,000          46,450,000          -4,910,000   ..................
Veterans housing benefit program fund program                                                                                                           
 account (indefinite)...............................        166,370,000         263,587,000         263,587,000         +97,217,000   ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................           (300,000)           (300,000)           (300,000)  ..................  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................        160,437,000         159,121,000         159,121,000          -1,316,000   ..................
Education loan fund program account.................              1,000               1,000               1,000   ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................             (3,000)             (3,000)             (3,000)  ..................  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................            200,000             206,000             206,000              +6,000   ..................
Vocational rehabilitation loans program account.....             44,000              55,000              55,000             +11,000   ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................         (2,278,000)         (2,401,000)         (2,401,000)          (+123,000)  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................            388,000             400,000             400,000             +12,000   ..................
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account            515,000             515,000             515,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Veterans Benefits Administration.......     22,228,312,000      23,502,393,000      23,502,393,000      +1,274,081,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
           Veterans Health Administration                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
Medical care........................................     16,487,396,000      16,392,975,000      16,563,000,000         +75,604,000       +$170,025,000 
    Delayed equipment obligation....................        570,000,000         635,000,000         687,000,000        +117,000,000         +52,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................     17,057,396,000      17,027,975,000      17,250,000,000        +192,604,000        +222,025,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Medical collections guarantee.......................         15,000,000   ..................  ..................        -15,000,000   ..................
Medical care cost recovery collections:                                                                                                                 
    Offsetting receipts.............................       -543,000,000        -558,000,000        -558,000,000         -15,000,000   ..................
    Appropriations (indefinite).....................        543,000,000         558,000,000         558,000,000         +15,000,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total available...............................    (17,600,396,000)    (17,585,975,000)    (17,808,000,000)      (+207,604,000)      (+222,025,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Medical and prosthetic research.....................        272,000,000         300,000,000         310,000,000         +38,000,000         +10,000,000 
Medical administration and miscellaneous operating                                                                                                      
 expenses...........................................         59,860,000          60,000,000          60,000,000            +140,000   ..................
General Post Fund, National Homes:                                                                                                                      
    Loan program account (by transfer)..............             (7,000)             (7,000)             (7,000)  ..................  ..................
    Administrative expenses (by transfer)...........            (54,000)            (54,000)            (54,000)  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................            (70,000)            (70,000)            (70,000)  ..................  ..................
General post fund (transfer out)....................           (-61,000)           (-61,000)           (-61,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Veterans Health Administration.........     17,404,256,000      17,387,975,000      17,620,000,000        +215,744,000        +232,025,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
             Departmental Administration                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
General operating expenses..........................        786,135,000         849,661,000         854,661,000         +68,526,000          +5,000,000 
    Offsetting receipts.............................        (35,760,000)        (38,960,000)        (38,960,000)        (+3,200,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Program Level..........................       (821,895,000)       (888,621,000)       (893,621,000)       (+71,726,000)        (+5,000,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
National Cemetery System............................         84,183,000          92,006,000          92,006,000          +7,823,000   ..................
Office of Inspector General.........................         31,013,000          32,702,000          36,000,000          +4,987,000          +3,298,000 
Construction, major projects........................        177,900,000          97,000,000         142,300,000         -35,600,000         +45,300,000 
Construction, minor projects........................        175,000,000         141,000,000         175,000,000   ..................        +34,000,000 
Grants for construction of State extended care                                                                                                          
 facilities.........................................         80,000,000          37,000,000          90,000,000         +10,000,000         +53,000,000 
Grants for the construction of State veterans                                                                                                           
 cemeteries.........................................         10,000,000          10,000,000          10,000,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental Administration............      1,344,231,000       1,259,369,000       1,399,967,000         +55,736,000        +140,598,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department of Veterans Affairs     40,976,799,000      42,149,737,000      42,522,360,000      +1,545,561,000        +372,623,000 
          (By transfer).............................            (61,000)            (61,000)            (61,000)  ..................  ..................
          (Limitation on direct loans)..............         (2,651,000)         (2,774,000)         (2,774,000)          (+123,000)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Consisting of:                                                                                                                                
              Mandatory.............................    (22,066,727,000)    (23,342,095,000)    (23,342,095,000)    (+1,275,368,000)  ..................
              Discretionary.........................    (18,910,072,000)    (18,807,642,000)    (19,180,265,000)      (+270,193,000)      (+372,623,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
                      TITLE II                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
     DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
              Public and Indian Housing                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
Housing Certificate Fund............................      9,373,000,000       8,981,187,705      10,013,542,030        +640,542,030      +1,032,354,325 
    Section 8 reserve preservation account                                                                                                              
     (rescission)...................................     -2,347,190,000   ..................  ..................     +2,347,190,000   ..................
    Expiring section 8 contracts....................     (8,180,000,000)     (7,190,645,675)     (9,540,000,000)    (+1,360,000,000)    (+2,349,354,325)
    Section 8 amendments............................       (850,000,000)     (1,337,000,000)  ..................      (-850,000,000)    (-1,337,000,000)
    Section 8 relocation assistance.................       (343,000,000)       (433,542,030)       (433,542,030)       (+90,542,030)  ..................
    Regional opportunity counseling.................  ..................        (20,000,000)  ..................  ..................       (-20,000,000)
    Self-sufficiency incrementals...................  ..................  ..................        (40,000,000)       (+40,000,000)       (+40,000,000)
    Section 8 project-based (rescission)............  ..................  ..................     -1,400,000,000      -1,400,000,000      -1,400,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal......................................     (7,025,810,000)     (8,981,187,705)     (8,613,542,030)    (+1,587,732,030)      (-367,645,675)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Welfare to work housing vouchers....................  ..................        283,000,000   ..................  ..................       -283,000,000 
Annual contributions (rescission)...................       -550,000,000   ..................  ..................       +550,000,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Public housing capital fund.........................      2,500,000,000       2,550,000,000       2,550,000,000         +50,000,000   ..................
Public housing operating fund.......................      2,900,000,000       2,818,000,000       2,818,000,000         -82,000,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal......................................      5,400,000,000       5,368,000,000       5,368,000,000         -32,000,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Drug elimination grants for low-income housing......        310,000,000         310,000,000         310,000,000   ..................  ..................
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing                                                                                                    
 (HOPE VI)..........................................        550,000,000         550,000,000         600,000,000         +50,000,000         +50,000,000 
Indian housing block grants.........................        600,000,000         600,000,000         600,000,000   ..................  ..................
Title VI Indian federal guarantees program account..  ..................          5,000,000   ..................  ..................         -5,000,000 
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account..          5,000,000           6,000,000           6,000,000          +1,000,000   ..................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)................        (73,800,000)        (68,881,000)        (68,881,000)        (-4,919,000)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
  Capital Grants/Capital Loans Preservation Account                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
Capital grants/Capital loans preservation account...         10,000,000   ..................  ..................        -10,000,000   ..................
                                                                                                                                                        
       Rural Housing and Economic Development                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                        
Rural housing and economic development..............  ..................  ..................         35,000,000         +35,000,000         +35,000,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
         Community Planning and Development                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                        
Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS.........        204,000,000         225,000,000         225,000,000         +21,000,000   ..................
Community development block grants..................      4,805,000,000       4,725,000,000       4,750,000,000         -55,000,000         +25,000,000 
Economic development initiative.....................  ..................        400,000,000   ..................  ..................       -400,000,000 
Section 108 loan guarantees:                                                                                                                            
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)................     (1,261,000,000)  ..................     (1,261,000,000)  ..................    (+1,261,000,000)
    Credit subsidy..................................         29,000,000          29,000,000          29,000,000   ..................  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................          1,000,000           1,000,000           1,000,000   ..................  ..................
Brownfields redevelopment...........................         25,000,000          50,000,000          25,000,000   ..................        -25,000,000 
Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities........          5,000,000   ..................  ..................         -5,000,000   ..................
HOME investment partnerships program................      1,500,000,000       1,883,000,000       1,550,000,000         +50,000,000        -333,000,000 
Supportive housing program (rescission).............         -6,000,000   ..................  ..................         +6,000,000   ..................
Shelter plus care (rescission)......................         -4,000,000   ..................  ..................         +4,000,000   ..................
Homeless assistance grants..........................        823,000,000       1,150,000,000       1,000,000,000        +177,000,000        -150,000,000 
Youthbuild program..................................  ..................         45,000,000   ..................  ..................        -45,000,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, Public and Indian Housing (net)........     20,732,810,000      24,611,187,705      23,112,542,030      +2,379,732,030      -1,498,645,675 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
                  Housing Programs                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
Housing for special populations.....................        839,000,000   ..................        870,000,000         +31,000,000        +870,000,000 
    Housing for the elderly.........................       (645,000,000)  ..................       (676,000,000)       (+31,000,000)      (+676,000,000)
    Housing for the disabled........................       (194,000,000)  ..................       (194,000,000)  ..................      (+194,000,000)
Rental housing assistance: Rescission of budget                                                                                                         
 authority, indefinite..............................       -125,000,000   ..................  ..................       +125,000,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
           Federal Housing Administration                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:                                                                                                         
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)................   (110,000,000,000)   (110,000,000,000)   (110,000,000,000)  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................       (200,000,000)        (50,000,000)       (100,000,000)      (-100,000,000)       (+50,000,000)
    Administrative expenses.........................        338,421,000         328,888,000         328,888,000          -9,533,000   ..................
    Offsetting receipts.............................       -333,421,000        -529,000,000        -529,000,000        -195,579,000   ..................
    Non-overhead administrative expenses............  ..................        200,000,000   ..................  ..................       -200,000,000 
FHA--General and special risk program account:                                                                                                          
    Program costs...................................         81,000,000          81,000,000          81,000,000   ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)................    (17,400,000,000)    (18,100,000,000)    (18,100,000,000)      (+700,000,000)  ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................       (120,000,000)        (50,000,000)       (120,000,000)  ..................       (+70,000,000)
    Administrative expenses.........................        222,305,000         211,455,000         211,455,000         -10,850,000   ..................
    Non-overhead administrative expenses............  ..................        104,000,000   ..................  ..................       -104,000,000 
    Subsidy--multifamily............................        -18,000,000   ..................  ..................        +18,000,000   ..................
    Subsidy--single family..........................        -64,000,000   ..................  ..................        +64,000,000   ..................
    Subsidy--Title I................................        -25,000,000   ..................  ..................        +25,000,000   ..................
    Subsidies for fiscal year 1999..................  ..................       -125,000,000        -125,000,000        -125,000,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Housing Administration.........        201,305,000         271,343,000         -32,657,000        -233,962,000        -304,000,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Government National Mortgage Association                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan                                                                                                           
 guarantee program account:                                                                                                                             
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)................   (130,000,000,000)   (150,000,000,000)   (150,000,000,000)   (+20,000,000,000)  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................          9,383,000           9,383,000           9,383,000   ..................  ..................
    Offsetting receipts.............................       -204,000,000        -370,000,000        -370,000,000        -166,000,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
           Policy Development and Research                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
Research and technology.............................         36,500,000          50,000,000          36,500,000   ..................        -13,500,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
         Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                        
Fair housing activities.............................         30,000,000          52,000,000          35,000,000          +5,000,000         -17,000,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
            Office of Lead Hazard Control                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of Lead Hazard Control.......................  ..................         85,000,000   ..................  ..................        -85,000,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
            Management and Administration                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses...............................        446,000,000         471,843,000         471,843,000         +25,843,000   ..................
    (By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds)       (544,443,000)       (518,000,000)       (518,000,000)       (-26,443,000)  ..................
    (By transfer, GNMA).............................         (9,383,000)         (9,383,000)         (9,383,000)  ..................  ..................
    (By transfer, Community Planning and                                                                                                                
     Development)...................................         (1,000,000)         (1,000,000)         (1,000,000)  ..................  ..................
    (By transfer, Title VI).........................  ..................           (200,000)           (200,000)          (+200,000)  ..................
    (By transfer, Indian Housing)...................  ..................           (400,000)           (400,000)          (+400,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and expenses..................     (1,000,826,000)     (1,000,826,000)     (1,000,826,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Office of Inspector General.........................         40,567,000          34,507,000          34,507,000          -6,060,000   ..................
    (By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds)        (16,283,000)        (22,343,000)        (22,343,000)        (+6,060,000)  ..................
    (By transfer from Drug Elimination Grants)......        (10,000,000)        (10,000,000)        (10,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of Inspector General............        (66,850,000)        (66,850,000)        (66,850,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight......         16,000,000          16,551,000          16,000,000   ..................           -551,000 
    Offsetting receipts.............................        -16,000,000         -16,551,000         -16,000,000   ..................           +551,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
              Administrative Provisions                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
Mark to market legislation..........................       -562,000,000   ..................  ..................       +562,000,000   ..................
Sec. 212, calculation of downpayment................  ..................  ..................         15,000,000         +15,000,000         +15,000,000 
FHA increase in loan amounts........................  ..................  ..................        -80,000,000         -80,000,000         -80,000,000 
Section 209, section 236 program reform.............  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of Housing and                                                                                                        
       Urban Development (net)......................     21,444,565,000      25,215,263,705      24,102,118,030      +2,657,553,030      -1,113,145,675 
              Appropriations........................    (24,476,755,000)    (25,215,263,705)    (25,502,118,030)    (+1,025,363,030)      (+286,854,325)
              Rescissions...........................    (-3,032,190,000)  ..................    (-1,400,000,000)    (+1,632,190,000)    (-1,400,000,000)
          (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........   (258,661,000,000)   (278,100,000,000)   (279,361,000,000)   (+20,700,000,000)    (+1,261,000,000)
          (Limitation on corporate funds)...........       (581,109,000)       (561,326,000)       (561,326,000)       (-19,783,000)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
                      TITLE III                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        
                INDEPENDENT AGENCIES                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
            Department of Defense--Civil                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
        American Battle Monuments Commission                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses...............................         26,897,000          23,931,000          26,931,000             +34,000          +3,000,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
   Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses...............................          4,000,000           7,000,000           6,500,000          +2,500,000            -500,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
             Department of the Treasury                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
    Community Development Financial Institutions                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
Community development financial institutions fund                                                                                                       
 program account....................................         80,000,000         125,000,000          55,000,000         -25,000,000         -70,000,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
         Consumer Product Safety Commission                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses...............................         45,000,000          46,500,000          46,500,000          +1,500,000   ..................
                                                                                                                                                        
   Corporation for National and Community Service                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
National and community service programs operating                                                                                                       
 expenses...........................................        425,500,000         499,316,000         425,500,000   ..................        -73,816,000 
Office of Inspector General.........................          3,000,000           3,000,000           3,000,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................        428,500,000         502,316,000         428,500,000   ..................        -73,816,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
              Court of Veterans Appeals                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses...............................          9,319,000          10,195,000          10,000,000            +681,000            -195,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
            Department of Defense--Civil                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
              Cemeterial Expenses, Army                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses...............................         11,815,000          11,666,000          11,666,000            -149,000   ..................
                                                                                                                                                        
           Environmental Protection Agency                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
Science and Technology..............................        631,000,000         633,460,000         643,460,000         +12,460,000         +10,000,000 
    Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund.....         35,000,000          40,200,800          40,200,000          +5,200,000                -800 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science and Technology..............        666,000,000         673,660,800         683,660,000         +17,660,000          +9,999,200 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Environmental Programs and Management...............      1,801,000,000       1,993,780,000       1,840,500,000         +39,500,000        -153,280,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Office of Inspector General.........................         28,501,000          31,154,000          31,154,000          +2,653,000   ..................
    Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund.....         11,641,000          12,237,300          12,237,300            +596,300   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, OIG.................................         40,142,000          43,391,300          43,391,300          +3,249,300   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Buildings and facilities............................        109,420,000          52,948,000          52,948,000         -56,472,000   ..................
    Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2000.........  ..................         40,700,000   ..................  ..................        -40,700,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal......................................        109,420,000          93,648,000          52,948,000         -56,472,000         -40,700,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Hazardous Substance Superfund.......................      1,400,000,000       2,092,745,000       1,400,000,000   ..................       -692,745,000 
    Delay of obligation.............................        100,000,000   ..................        100,000,000   ..................       +100,000,000 
    Transfer to Office of Inspector General.........        -11,641,000         -12,237,300         -12,237,300            -596,300   ..................
    Transfer to Science and Technology..............        -35,000,000         -40,200,800         -40,200,000          -5,200,000                +800 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal......................................      1,453,359,000       2,040,306,900       1,447,562,700          -5,796,300        -592,744,200 
          Advance funding for fiscal year 1999 from                                                                                                     
           Public Law 105-65........................  ..................  ..................        650,000,000        +650,000,000        +650,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Hazardous Substance Superfund.......      1,453,359,000       2,040,306,900       2,097,562,700        +644,203,700         +57,255,800 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.........         65,000,000          71,210,000          75,000,000         +10,000,000          +3,790,000 
    (Limitation on administrative expenses).........         (7,500,000)  ..................  ..................        (-7,500,000)  ..................
Oil spill response..................................         15,000,000          17,321,000          15,000,000   ..................         -2,321,000 
    (Limitation on administrative expenses).........         (9,000,000)  ..................  ..................        (-9,000,000)  ..................
State and Tribal Assistance Grants..................      2,468,125,000       2,028,000,000       2,405,000,000         -63,125,000        +377,000,000 
    Categorical grants..............................        745,000,000         874,657,000         850,000,000        +105,000,000         -24,657,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, STAG................................      3,213,125,000       2,902,657,000       3,255,000,000         +41,875,000        +352,343,000 
Working capital fund................................       (101,000,000)  ..................  ..................      (-101,000,000)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total EPA for fiscal year 1999-2000...........      7,363,046,000       7,795,275,000       7,413,062,000         +50,016,000        -382,213,000 
          Advance funding for fiscal year 1999 from                                                                                                     
           Public Law 105-65........................  ..................  ..................        650,000,000        +650,000,000        +650,000,000 
          Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2000..  ..................         40,700,000   ..................  ..................        -40,700,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
          Executive Office of the President                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of Science and Technology Policy.............          4,932,000           5,026,000           5,026,000             +94,000   ..................
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of                                                                                                          
 Environmental Quality..............................          2,500,000           3,020,000           2,575,000             +75,000            -445,000 
Unanticipated needs.................................          1,000,000   ..................  ..................         -1,000,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................          8,432,000           8,046,000           7,601,000            -831,000            -445,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
        Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of Inspector General (transfer)..............        (34,365,000)        (34,666,000)        (34,666,000)          (+301,000)  ..................
                                                                                                                                                        
         Federal Emergency Management Agency                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
Disaster relief.....................................        320,000,000         307,745,000         846,000,000        +526,000,000        +538,255,000 
    Contingent emergency funding....................      1,600,000,000         658,485,000   ..................     -1,600,000,000        -658,485,000 
Pre-disaster mitigation.............................  ..................         50,000,000   ..................  ..................        -50,000,000 
Disaster assistance direct loan program account:                                                                                                        
    State share loan................................          1,495,000           1,355,000           1,355,000            -140,000   ..................
        (Limitation on direct loans)................        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)  ..................  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................            341,000             440,000             440,000             +99,000   ..................
Salaries and expenses...............................        171,773,000         171,138,000         170,000,000          -1,773,000          -1,138,000 
Office of Inspector General.........................          4,803,000           4,930,000           5,400,000            +597,000            +470,000 
Emergency management planning and assistance........        243,546,000         195,574,000         231,000,000         -12,546,000         +35,426,000 
Radiological emergency preparedness fund............  ..................         12,849,000          12,849,000         +12,849,000   ..................
    Collection of fees..............................  ..................        -12,849,000         -12,849,000         -12,849,000   ..................
Emergency food and shelter program..................        100,000,000         100,000,000         100,000,000   ..................  ..................
National Flood Insurance Fund (limitation on                                                                                                            
 administrative expenses):                                                                                                                              
    Salaries and expenses...........................        (21,610,000)        (22,685,000)        (22,685,000)        (+1,075,000)  ..................
    Flood mitigation................................        (78,464,000)        (78,464,000)        (78,464,000)  ..................  ..................
Administrative provision: REP savings...............        -12,000,000   ..................  ..................        +12,000,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Emergency Management Agency....        829,958,000         831,182,000       1,354,195,000        +524,237,000        +523,013,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Emergency funding.........................      1,600,000,000         658,485,000   ..................     -1,600,000,000        -658,485,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
           General Services Administration                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
Consumer Information Center Fund....................          2,419,000           2,419,000           2,419,000   ..................  ..................
                                                                                                                                                        
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
Human space flight..................................      5,506,500,000       5,511,000,000   ..................     -5,506,500,000      -5,511,000,000 
    (By transfer)...................................        (53,000,000)  ..................  ..................       (-53,000,000)  ..................
    Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2000.........  ..................      2,134,000,000   ..................  ..................     -2,134,000,000 
    Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001.........  ..................      1,933,000,000   ..................  ..................     -1,933,000,000 
    Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2002.........  ..................      1,766,000,000   ..................  ..................     -1,766,000,000 
    Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2003.........  ..................      1,546,000,000   ..................  ..................     -1,546,000,000 
    Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2004.........  ..................        350,000,000   ..................  ..................       -350,000,000 
Science, aeronautics and technology.................      5,690,000,000       5,457,400,000   ..................     -5,690,000,000      -5,457,400,000 
International Space Station.........................  ..................  ..................      2,300,000,000      +2,300,000,000      +2,300,000,000 
Launch vehicles and payload operations..............  ..................  ..................      3,241,000,000      +3,241,000,000      +3,241,000,000 
Science and technology..............................  ..................  ..................      4,257,400,000      +4,257,400,000      +4,257,400,000 
Aeronautics, Space transportation, and technology...  ..................  ..................      1,305,000,000      +1,305,000,000      +1,305,000,000 
Mission support.....................................      2,433,200,000       2,476,600,000       2,491,600,000         +58,400,000         +15,000,000 
Office of Inspector General.........................         18,300,000          20,000,000          20,000,000          +1,700,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NASA for fiscal year 1998/1999.........     13,648,000,000      13,465,000,000      13,615,000,000         -33,000,000        +150,000,000 
          Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2000...  ..................      2,134,000,000   ..................  ..................     -2,134,000,000 
          Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001-                                                                                                      
           2004.....................................  ..................      5,595,000,000   ..................  ..................     -5,595,000,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
        National Credit Union Administration                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
Central liquidity facility:                                                                                                                             
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................       (600,000,000)       (600,000,000)       (600,000,000)  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on administrative expenses,                                                                                                             
     corporate funds)...............................           (203,000)           (176,000)           (176,000)           (-27,000)  ..................
    Revolving loan program..........................          1,000,000   ..................          1,000,000   ..................         +1,000,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
             National Science Foundation                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
Research and related activities.....................      2,545,700,000       2,846,800,000       2,725,000,000        +179,300,000        -121,800,000 
Major research equipment............................         74,000,000          94,000,000          94,000,000         +20,000,000   ..................
    Delay of obligation.............................         35,000,000   ..................  ..................        -35,000,000   ..................
    Large Hadron Collider, advance approp, fiscal                                                                                                       
     year 2000......................................  ..................         15,900,000   ..................  ..................        -15,900,000 
        Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001.....  ..................         16,370,000   ..................  ..................        -16,370,000 
        Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....  ..................         16,860,000   ..................  ..................        -16,860,000 
        Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2003.....  ..................          9,720,000   ..................  ..................         -9,720,000 
    South Pole Station, advance approp, fiscal year                                                                                                     
     2000...........................................  ..................         22,400,000   ..................  ..................        -22,400,000 
        Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001.....  ..................         13,500,000   ..................  ..................        -13,500,000 
Education and human resources.......................        632,500,000         683,000,000         683,000,000         +50,500,000   ..................
Salaries and expenses...............................        136,950,000         144,000,000         136,950,000   ..................         -7,050,000 
Office of Inspector General.........................          4,850,000           5,200,000           5,200,000            +350,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NSF for fiscal year 1998/1999..........      3,429,000,000       3,773,000,000       3,644,150,000        +215,150,000        -128,850,000 
          Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2000...  ..................         38,300,000   ..................  ..................        -38,300,000 
          Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001-                                                                                                      
           2004.....................................  ..................         56,450,000   ..................  ..................        -56,450,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
        Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                        
Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation         60,000,000          90,000,000          60,000,000   ..................        -30,000,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
            Department of Defense--Civil                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
              Selective Service System                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses...............................         23,413,000          24,940,000          24,940,000          +1,527,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total title III, Independent agencies, fiscal                                                                                                     
       year 1999....................................     25,970,799,000      26,716,470,000      26,707,464,000        +736,665,000          -9,006,000 
              Emergency funding.....................      1,600,000,000         658,485,000   ..................     -1,600,000,000        -658,485,000 
              Advance funding for fiscal year 1999                                                                                                      
               from Public Law 105-65...............  ..................  ..................        650,000,000        +650,000,000        +650,000,000 
              Advance appropriation, fiscal year                                                                                                        
               2000.................................  ..................      2,213,000,000   ..................  ..................     -2,213,000,000 
              Advance appropriation, fiscal year                                                                                                        
               2001-2004............................  ..................      5,651,450,000   ..................  ..................     -5,651,450,000 
          (Limitation on administrative expenses)...       (116,574,000)       (101,149,000)       (101,149,000)       (-15,425,000)  ..................
          (Limitation on direct loans)..............       (625,000,000)       (625,000,000)       (625,000,000)  ..................  ..................
          (Limitation on corporate funds)...........           (203,000)           (176,000)           (176,000)           (-27,000)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Grand total for fiscal year 1999/2000.........     88,392,163,000      94,081,470,705      93,331,942,030      +4,939,779,030        -749,528,675 
                  Appropriations....................    (91,424,353,000)    (94,081,470,705)    (94,731,942,030)    (+3,307,589,030)      (+650,471,325)
                  Rescissions.......................    (-3,032,190,000)  ..................    (-1,400,000,000)    (+1,632,190,000)    (-1,400,000,000)
              Emergency funding.....................      1,600,000,000         658,485,000   ..................     -1,600,000,000        -658,485,000 
              Advance funding for fiscal year 1999                                                                                                      
               from Public Law 105-65...............  ..................  ..................        650,000,000        +650,000,000        +650,000,000 
              Advance appropriation, fiscal year                                                                                                        
               2000.................................  ..................      2,213,000,000   ..................  ..................     -2,213,000,000 
              Advance appropriation, fiscal year                                                                                                        
               2001-2004............................  ..................      5,651,450,000   ..................  ..................     -5,651,450,000 
          (By transfer).............................    (-2,944,764,000)        (34,727,000)    (-1,365,273,000)    (+1,579,491,000)    (-1,400,000,000)
          (Limitation on administrative expenses)...       (116,574,000)       (101,149,000)       (101,149,000)       (-15,425,000)  ..................
          (Limitation on direct loans)..............     (1,021,451,000)       (796,655,000)       (916,655,000)      (-104,796,000)      (+120,000,000)
          (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........   (258,661,000,000)   (278,100,000,000)   (279,361,000,000)   (+20,700,000,000)    (+1,261,000,000)
          (Limitation on corporate funds)...........       (581,312,000)       (561,502,000)       (561,502,000)       (-19,810,000)  ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



