[House Report 106-674]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-674

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



 
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001

                                _______
                                

 June 12, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4635]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________


                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs....................     2
                                                                      4
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development......    19
                                                                     21
Title III--Independent Agencies............................    51
                                                                     39
        American Battle Monuments Commission...............    51
                                                                     39
        Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board....    52
                                                                     40
        Community Development Financial Institutions.......    52
                                                                     40
        Consumer Product Safety Commission.................    53
                                                                     41
        Corporation for National and Community Service.....    54
                                                                     42
        U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims..........    54
                                                                     42
        Cemeterial Expenses, Army..........................    55
                                                                     43
        National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences    55
                                                                     44
        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry...    56
                                                                     44
        Environmental Protection Agency....................    57
                                                                     45
        Office of Science and Technology Policy............    64
                                                                     63
        Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
            Environmental Quality..........................    65
                                                                     64
        Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation..............    65
                                                                     64
        Federal Emergency Management Agency................    66
                                                                     65
        Federal Consumer Information Center................    71
                                                                     71
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration......    72
                                                                     72
        National Credit Union Administration...............    75
                                                                     77
        National Science Foundation........................    76
                                                                     79
        Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation..............    78
                                                                     84
        Selective Service System...........................    79
                                                                     84
Title IV--General Provisions...............................    79
                                                                     84

                          Summary of the Bill

    The Committee recommends $101,096,836,000 in new budget 
(obligational) authority for the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 20 independent 
agencies and offices. This is $8,218,918,000 above the 2000 
appropriations level.
    The following table summarizes the amounts recommended in 
the bill in comparison with the appropriations for fiscal year 
2000 and budget estimates for fiscal year 2001.


                                TITLE I


                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS





Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................   $46,849,667,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................    44,255,165,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................    46,948,405,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........    +2,594,502,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -98,738,000


    The Department of Veterans Affairs is the third largest 
Federal agency in terms of employment with an average 
employment of approximately 204,000. It administers benefits 
for more than 25,000,000 veterans, and 45,000,000 family 
members of living veterans and survivors of deceased veterans. 
Thus, close to 70,000,000 people, comprising about 25 percent 
of the total population of the United States, are potential 
recipients of veterans benefits provided by the Federal 
Government.
    A total of $46,849,667,000 in new budget authority is 
recommended by the Committee for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs in fiscal year 2001. The funds recommended 
provide for compensation payments to 2,586,811 veterans and 
survivors of deceased veterans with service-connected 
disabilities; pension payment for 615,958 non-service-connected 
disabled veterans, widows and children in need of financial 
assistance; education training and vocational assistance of 
431,185 veterans, servicepersons, and reservists, and 48,530 
eligible dependents of deceased veterans or seriously disabled 
veterans; housing credit assistance in the form of 250,000 
guaranteed loans provided to veterans and servicepersons; 
administration or supervision of life insurance programs with 
4,353,921 policies for veterans and active duty servicepersons 
providing coverage of $446,997,000,000; inpatient care and 
treatment of beneficiaries in 172 medical centers; 40 
domiciliaries, 134 nursing homes and 829 outpatient clinics 
which includes independent, satellite, community-based, and 
rural outreach clinics involving 41,837,000 visits; and the 
administration of the National Cemetery Administration for 
burial of eligible veterans, servicepersons and their 
survivors.

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


                       compensation and pensions

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................   $22,766,276,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................    21,568,364,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................    22,766,276,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........    +1,197,912,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    This appropriation provides funds for service-connected 
compensation payments to an estimated 2,586,811 beneficiaries 
and pension payments to another 615,958 beneficiaries with non-
service-connected disabilities. The average cost per 
compensation case in 2001 is estimated at $7,600, and pension 
payments are projected at a unit cost of $4,957. The estimated 
caseload and cost by program for 2000 and 2001 are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2000               2001            Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
    Compensation:
        Veterans.......................................         2,290,710          2,285,075             -5,635
        Survivors......................................           302,575            300,872             -1,703
        Children.......................................               864                864                  0
        Clothing allowance (non-add)...................           (75,785)           (75,598)              -187
    Pensions:
        Veterans.......................................           372,635            363,060             -9,575
        Survivors......................................           266,101            252,898            -13,203
        Minimum income for widows (non-add)............              (594)              (562)               -32
        Vocational training (non-add)..................                (7)                (5)                -2
        Burial allowances..............................            95,180             94,050             -1,130
                                                        ========================================================
Funds:
    Compensation:
        Veterans.......................................   $15,421,550,000    $16,010,051,000      +$588,501,000
        Survivors......................................     3,522,325,000      3,600,000,000        +77,675,000
        Children.......................................         9,499,000          9,734,000           +235,000
        Clothing allowance.............................        40,049,000         39,949,000           -100,000
        Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and 102-            1,388,000          1,266,000           -122,000
         568)..........................................
        Medical exams pilot program....................        26,324,000         28,390,000         +2,066,000
    Pensions:
        Veterans.......................................     2,342,253,000      2,366,889,000        +24,636,000
        Survivors......................................       707,003,000        683,070,000        -23,933,000
        Minimum income for widows......................         3,697,000          3,581,000           -116,000
    Vocational training................................            20,000             15,000             -5,000
    Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-568, and           9,343,000          8,521,000           -822,000
     103-446)..........................................
    Payment to medical care (Public Laws 101-508 and            5,018,000          7,632,000         +2,614,000
     102-568)..........................................
    Payment to medical facilities (non-add)............        (2,879,000)        (3,027,000)          +148,000
    Burial benefits....................................       126,293,000        129,681,000         +3,388,000
    Other assistance...................................         3,406,000          3,413,000             +7,000
    Contingency........................................                 0                  0                  0
    Unobligated balance and transfers..................      -649,804,000       -125,916,000       +523,888,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation 1............................    21,568,364,000     22,766,276,000    +1,197,912,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals do not add down due to rounding.

    The Administration has again proposed dividing the 
compensation and pensions appropriation into three separate 
accounts; compensation, pensions, and burial benefits and 
miscellaneous assistance. The Committee has again disapproved 
this proposal and recommends a single compensation and pensions 
appropriation in fiscal year 2001.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee is recommending the 
budget estimate of $22,766,276,000 for compensation and 
pensions. The bill also includes requested language not to 
exceed $17,419,000 of reimbursements of which ($9,787,000) goes 
to the general operating expenses account and ($7,632,000) to 
the medical care account for administrative expenses of 
implementing cost saving provisions required by the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-508, the 
Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992, Public Law 102-568, and the 
Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Public Law 103-
446. These cost savings provisions include verifying pension 
income against Internal Revenue Service and Social Security 
Administration (SSA) data; establishing a match with the SSA to 
obtain verification of Social Security numbers; and the $90 
monthly Department pension cap for Medicaid-eligible single 
veterans and surviving spouses alone in Medicaid-covered 
nursing homes. Also, the bill includes requested language 
permitting this appropriation to reimburse such sums as may be 
earned to the medical facilities revolving fund to help defray 
the operating expenses of individual medical facilities for 
nursing home care provided to pensioners.
    The Administration has proposed language that would provide 
indefinite 2001 supplemental appropriations for compensation 
and pension payments. The Committee believes the current 
funding procedures are adequate and has not included the 
requested language in the bill. The Committee recognizes that 
additional funding may be necessary when the final disposition 
of proposed legislation is known.

                         READJUSTMENT BENEFITS




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $1,664,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     1,469,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     1,634,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........      +195,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       +30,000,000


    This appropriation finances the education and training of 
veterans and servicepersons whose initial entry on active duty 
took place on or after July 1, 1985. These benefits are 
included in the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance 
Program. Eligibility to receive this assistance began in 1987. 
Basic benefits are funded through appropriations made to the 
readjustment benefits appropriation and transfers from the 
Department of Defense. Supplemental benefits are also provided 
to certain veterans through education assistance to certain 
members of the Selected Reserve and is funded through transfers 
from the Departments of Defense and Transportation. In 
addition, certain disabled veterans are provided with 
vocational rehabilitation, specially adapted housing grants, 
and automobile grants with approved adaptive equipment. This 
account also finances educational assistance allowances for 
eligible dependents of those veterans who died from service-
connected causes or have a total and permanent service-
connected disability as well as dependents of servicepersons 
who were captured or missing-in-action.
    The Committee recommends the budget estimates of 
$1,664,000,000 for readjustment benefits in fiscal year 2001. 
The Committee rejects the proposal to move $30,000,000 from 
this appropriation to the ``General operating expenses'' 
appropriation. The estimated number of trainees and costs by 
program for 2000 and 2001 are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2000               2001            Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
    Education and training: dependents.................             46,420             48,530             +2,110
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons....................            279,100            309,300            +30,200
        Reservists.....................................             71,300             70,900               -400
    Vocational rehabilitation..........................             51,630             50,985               -645
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................            448,450            479,715            +31,265
                                                        ========================================================
Funds:
    Education and training: dependents.................       $141,806,000       $148,148,000        +$6,342,000
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons....................        890,736,000      1,118,903,000       +228,167,000
        Reservists.....................................        100,860,000        105,875,000         +5,015,000
        Vocational rehabilitation......................        416,718,000        421,887,000         +5,169,000
        Housing grants.................................         21,065,000         21,065,000                  0
        Automobiles and other conveyances..............          7,589,000          7,589,000                  0
        Adaptive equipment.............................         23,700,000         23,600,000           -100,000
        Work-study.....................................         33,400,000         35,100,000         +1,700,000
        Payment to States..............................         13,000,000         13,000,000                  0
        Reporting fees.................................          3,530,000          3,771,000           +241,000
        Unobligated balance and other adjustments......       -183,404,000       -234,938,000        -51,534,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation..............................      1,469,000,000      1,664,000,000       +195,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $19,850,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        28,670,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        19,850,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        -8,820,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    The veterans insurance and indemnities appropriation is 
made up of the former appropriations for military and naval 
insurance, applicable to World War I veterans; national service 
life insurance (NSLI), applicable to certain World War II 
veterans; servicemen's indemnities, applicable to Korean 
conflict veterans; and the veterans mortgage life insurance, 
applicable to individuals who have received a grant for 
specially adapted housing.
    The budget estimate of $19,850,000 for veterans insurance 
and indemnities in fiscal year 2001 in included in the bill. 
The amount provided will enable Department to transfer more 
than $11,840,000 to the service-disabled veterans insurance 
fund and transfer $8,820,000 in payments for the 3,310 policies 
under the veterans mortgage life insurance program. These 
policies are identified under the veterans insurance and 
indemnity appropriation since they provide insurance to 
service-disabled veterans unable to qualify under basic NSLI.

                 VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation...........................      $165,740,000          $300,000      $161,484,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation............................       282,342,000           300,000       156,958,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request...........................       165,740,000           300,000       166,484,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation............      -116,602,000                 0        +4,526,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request...........                 0                 0        -5,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the VA home loan guaranty program is to 
facilitate the extension of mortgage credit on favorable terms 
by private lenders to eligible veterans. This appropriation 
provides for all costs, with the exception of the native 
American veterans housing loan program, of the Department's 
direct and guaranteed loans programs. The Federal Credit Reform 
Act of 1990 requires budgetary resources to be available prior 
to incurring a direct loan obligation or a loan guarantee 
commitment. In addition, the Act requires all administrative 
expenses of a direct or guaranteed loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    VA loan guaranties are made to servicemembers, veterans, 
reservists and unremarried surviving spouses for the purchase 
of homes, condominiums, manufactured homes and for refinancing 
loans. The Department guarantees part of the total loan, 
permitting the purchaser to obtain a mortgage with a 
competitive interest rate, even without a downpayment if the 
lender agrees. The Department requires that a downpayment be 
made for a manufactured home. With a Department guaranty, the 
lender is protected against loss up to the amount of the 
guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the loan.
    The Committee recommends the budget requests of such sums 
as may be necessary (estimated to total $165,740,000) for 
funding subsidy payments, $300,000 for the limitation on direct 
loans, and $161,484,000 for administrative expenses which is a 
reduction of $5,000,000 below the budget request. The 
appropriation for administrative expenses may be transferred to 
and merged with the general operating expenses account.

                  EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation...........................            $1,000            $3,400          $220,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation............................             1,000             3,000           214,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request...........................             1,000             3,400           220,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation............                 0              +400            +6,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This appropriation covers the cost of direct loans for 
eligible dependents and, in addition, it includes 
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct loan 
program. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires 
budgetary resources to be available prior to incurring a direct 
loan obligation. In addition, the Act requires all 
administrative expenses of a direct loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    The bill includes the budget requests of $1,000 for funding 
subsidy program costs $3,400 as the limitation on direct loans, 
and $220,000 for administrative expenses. The appropriation for 
administrative expenses may be transferred to and merged with 
the general operating expenses account.

            VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation...........................           $52,000        $2,726,000          $432,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation............................            57,000         2,531,000           415,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request...........................            52,000         2,726,000           432,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation............            -5,000          +195,000           +17,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This appropriation covers the funding subsidy cost of 
direct loans for vocational rehabilitation of eligible veterans 
and, in addition, it includes administrative expenses necessary 
to carry out the direct loan program. Loans of up to $841 
(based on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are 
available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in 
vocational rehabilitation programs when the veteran is 
temporarily in need of additional assistance. Repayment is made 
in 10 monthly installments, without interest, through 
deductions from future payments of compensation, pension, 
subsistence allowance, educational assistance allowance, or 
retirement pay. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires 
budgetary resources to be available prior to incurring a direct 
loan obligation. In addition, the Act requires all 
administrative expenses of a direct loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    The bill includes the budget requests of $52,000 for 
funding subsidy program costs and $432,000 for administrative 
expenses. The administrative expenses may be transferred to and 
merged with the general operating expenses account. In 
addition, the bill includes requested language limiting program 
direct loans to $2,726,000. It is estimated that the Department 
will make 4,700 loans in fiscal year 2001, with an average 
amount of $580.

          NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Administrative expenses:
    Fiscal year 2001 recommendation...................          $532,000
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................           520,000
    Fiscal year 2001 budget request...................           532,000
    Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation....           +12,000
    Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request...                 0


    This program is testing the feasibility of authorizing the 
Department to make direct home loans to native American 
veterans who live on U.S. trust land. This is a pilot program 
which began in 1993 and expires on December 31, 2001. The bill 
includes the budget request of $532,000 for administration 
expenses, which may be transferred to and merged with the 
general operating expenses account.

  GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS PROGRAM

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    This program was established by Public Law 105-368, the 
Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. All funds authorized 
for this program were appropriated in fiscal year 2000. 
Therefore, no appropriation request has been included for 2001. 
Bill language is included to use funds in ``Medical care'' and 
``General operating expenses'' to administer this program.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                              MEDICAL CARE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................   $20,281,587,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................    18,926,481,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................    20,281,587,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........    +1,355,106,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    The Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest 
Federal medical care delivery system in the country, with 172 
medical centers, 40 domiciliaries, 134 nursing homes, and 829 
outpatient clinics which includes independent, satellite, 
community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
    This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment 
of eligible beneficiaries in VA medical centers, nursing homes, 
domiciliaries, and outpatient clinic facilities; contract 
hospitals; State domiciliaries, nursing homes and hospitals; 
contract community nursing homes; and outpatient programs on a 
fee basis. Hospital and outpatient care are also provided by 
the private sector for certain dependents and survivors of 
veterans under the civilian health and medical programs for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. Funds are also used to train 
medical residents, interns, and other professional, paramedical 
and administrative personnel in health-science fields to 
support the Department's medical programs.
    The bill includes $20,281,587,000 for medical care in 
fiscal year 2001, an increase of $1,355,106,000 above the 
enacted level and level with the budget request. In addition, 
the Committee estimates $638,000,000 will be collected and 
available from the Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF).
    The bill includes a new limitation on the amount of 
resources in this account that the Department may use for the 
maintenance and operations of its buildings. According to a 
recent GAO report, VA is spending one of every four medical 
care dollars for the upkeep of facilities and needs to better 
address capital asset needs and planning. The Committee directs 
the Department to continue working with GAO to finalize a 
methodology for isolating the cost of maintaining its 
facilities. The Committee applauds the CARES initiative and 
considers this initiative to be a Department priority. The 
Committee further directs the Department to work with GAO to 
create a new methodology for distributing maintenance and 
operations funds based on CARES principles.
    The Committee is again providing two-year spending 
authority for $900,000,000 of the ``Medical care'' 
appropriation, a provision from the administration's budget 
request intended to provide the Department more flexibility for 
planning year to year. The Committee emphasizes that the two-
year funding provision is not meant to create ``emergency 
funds'' and that all resources should be spent in a timely and 
responsible manner addressing veterans health needs.
    The bill includes language delaying the availability of 
$927,000,000 of funds requested for the equipment and land and 
structures object classifications until August 1, 2001. The 
budget requested the delayed availability of $900,000,000 of 
such funds. The bill also includes requested language in the 
compensation and pensions appropriation transferring $7,632,000 
for administrative expenses of implementing cost saving 
provisions required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990, and the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992.
    The bill includes transferring $28,134,000 to the ``General 
operating expenses'' appropriations for the Office of 
Resolution Management and the Office of Employment 
Discrimination Compliant Adjudication. Additional information 
on this transfer is included under the VA's administrative 
provisions section of this report.
    The bill includes a provision prohibiting the Department 
from transferring funds to the Department of Justice for the 
purposes of supporting a lawsuit against tobacco companies. The 
Committee feels resources in this appropriation should remain 
for the purposes of providing medical care to veterans.
    The fiscal year 2001 budget justification included 
estimates of millions of dollars in receipts generated from 
TRICARE agreements with the Department of Defense (DoD), yet 
there is no sign of support for this agreement from DoD. GAO 
reports that both departments could save millions of dollars by 
combining procurement practices for the purchase of 
pharmaceutical drugs and supplies. The Committee directs the 
Department to work with DoD to coordinate service delivery, 
cost collections and procurement and directs the Department of 
Veterans Affairs to include in its fiscal year 2002 budget 
submission (a) the amount of revenue generated from providing 
TRICARE services in 2001 and anticipated revenue in 2002, (b) 
the locations involved in TRICARE delivery with negotiated 
agreements in place, and (c) any procurement-sharing agreements 
with DoD and the amount of resources saved by those contracts.
    The Committee has noted the alarming rise in the percentage 
of veterans infected with the hepatitis C virus, and is 
concerned about the Department's management of this epidemic. 
The Committee directs the GAO to report on the Department's 
activities related to hepatitis C four months after the date of 
enactment. The report should include, by VISN, the amount of 
fiscal year 2000 resources spent on hepatitis C testing and 
treatment, the number of veterans tested and treated for 
hepatitis C, the percentage of tested veterans who are infected 
with hepatitis C, and how fiscal year 2001 funds will be 
allocated for hepatitis C testing and treatment. Further, the 
Committee directs GAO to examine whether the Department's 
allocation methodology provides adequate funding for VISNs with 
statistically higher percentages of veterans testing positive 
for hepatitis C.
    In addition, the Committee directs the Department to 
include hepatitis C as a new patient classification under the 
Complex Care Component and to calculate VISN resources using 
this new methodology.
    The Committee continues to have concerns about the 
Department's national drug formulary, and directs the 
Department to conduct an internal review of each VISN's 
formulary to ensure all VISNs have waiver procedures allowing 
veterans to obtain necessary non-formulary medications and 
supplies and any statistics on the number or percentage of non-
formulary medicines and supplies prescribed and dispensed to 
veterans. The Department is directed to report its findings to 
the Committee within four months after enactment of this bill.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department is unaware 
of how many VA nursing home beds are unoccupied nationally, and 
that VA nursing home beds might be empty while veterans, some 
100 percent service-connected, are waiting for space in state 
veterans nursing homes. The Department is directed to report to 
the Committee by February 1, 2001 the number of unoccupied 
nursing home beds by VISN and to conduct a feasibility study of 
using unoccupied nursing home beds for transitional and respite 
care for veterans awaiting a state nursing home bed.
    The Committee directs the Department to continue providing 
medical care for all upper category veterans and those veterans 
already enrolled with the Department healthcare system.
    The Committee strongly discourages the Department from 
transferring critical care services from areas with a high 
veterans population to an area with a smaller veterans 
population.
    The Committee directs the Department to study the 
feasibility and costs associated with establishing a long-term 
care facility in northwestern Ohio in conjunction with the 
Toledo Clinic and the Riverside Mercy Hospital and submit the 
findings to the Committee within six months of enactment of the 
bill.
    The Committee is aware that the Veterans Health 
Administration is testing automated medication dispensing 
technology to reduce medication errors and improve hospital 
efficiency and patient care. The Department should apply 
evidence-based best practices to reduce medication errors. The 
Committee urges the Department to fully support this test and 
promptly evaluate the technology for potential use throughout 
the health system.
    As the Department consolidates more services, the Committee 
is concerned about the safety of veterans traveling long 
distances. The Committee directs the Department to ensure all 
spinal cord injury buses, especially in areas with a high 
number of veterans with spinal cord injuries, are in safe, 
working order and replace any spinal cord injury buses which 
are in a state of unacceptable disrepair.
    The Committee directs the VA to spend its fiscal year 2001 
medical resources, except where otherwise specified, in the 
same manner as described in the budget justification. This 
includes resources for prosthetics, increases in nurse pay, 
hepatitis C, and long term care.
    The Committee is concerned about the planned FTE reductions 
in the area of psychiatric care. The Committee reminds the 
Department of its obligation to provide quality psychiatric 
care to veterans. The Committee directs the Department to 
submit a report with the fiscal year 2001 operating plan 
detailing how these planned cuts in FTEs will improve mental 
health services and what performance indicators are in place to 
measure an improvement in care.
    The Committee strongly urges the Department to use up to 
$5,000,000 to establish five centers of excellence for motor-
neuron diseases such as Parkinson's disease and multiple 
sclerosis.
    The Committee supports the Department's plan to provide 
primary care services in Alamogordo, New Mexico and directs the 
Department to give strong consideration to using the recently 
vacated Gerald R. Champion Memorial Hospital.
    This year, the Under Secretary for Health's Committee on 
Care of Severely Chronically Mentally Ill Veterans examined 
five VISNs which have experienced unusually large decreases in 
funding and staffing for substance abuse care. The Committee 
directs the Department to routinely examine substance abuse 
care across the entire system to ensure substance abuse 
programs are maintained.
    The Committee recommends the Department establish community 
based outpatient clinics in the Galax area of Virginia, the 
Nantucket area of Massachusetts, and in Yakima, Washington.
    The Committee recommends the Department establish a Class A 
affiliation between the Toledo VA clinic and the Medical 
College of Ohio.
    The Committee recognizes the Department is taking steps to 
provide proper care to veterans who can no longer live 
independently, but do not qualify for permanent hospital or 
nursing home care. The Committee believes veterans deserve the 
opportunity to maintain their dignity and family structure 
during their frail years. In order to develop a comprehensive 
plan that meets the needs of veterans and their families, the 
committee expects the VA to work in conjunction with a not-for-
profit organization with expertise in the developing assisting 
living plans for seniors.
    The Committee expects that funds will be available from the 
National Reserve (not to exceed $2,000,000) to ensure the 
smooth operations of the VAMC during the 2002 Winter Olympics 
and Paralympics.
    The Committee is concerned that many of the antibiotics 
upon which modern medicine relies are becoming ineffective and 
commends the VA for its sensitivity to this issue. VA hospitals 
and clinics can serve as innovators and examples for other 
hospitals on this important public health matter. The Committee 
therefore urges the VA to use its south Florida facilities to 
implement and evaluate innovative antibiotic-use practices, 
including the routine use of vaccinations against streptococcus 
pneumonia among elderly and immunocompromised veterans and 
their dependents.
    The Committee received the report on the telemedicine 
initiative at the Huntsville, Alabama VAMC as requested in last 
year's report and encourages project implementation.
    The statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2000 
conference report urged the VA to partner with existing, 
federally funded Community Health Care Centers to provide 
outpatient primary and preventative health care systems to area 
veterans in their home communities. The Committee understands 
that the VA has begun negotiations with health centers in the 
named counties in Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee, but 
agreements have not been completed. The Committee reiterates 
its support for establishing these partnerships in a manner 
that fully respects the needs of the veteran population in the 
respective communities. The VA is directed to report 30 days 
after enactment of the act on the status of the partnerships.
    The Committee notes with some concerns the Department's 
single, national means test, based on annual income level, 
applies across the board, differing only based upon the number 
of a veterans' dependents. This means test is used to determine 
veterans' copayments for treatment at VA facilities. Given that 
some regions of the country face a higher cost of living than 
others, the Committee requests GAO to examine the Department's 
current system, and to provide recommendations to correct any 
regional disparities that may exist. The report should include 
a comparison of how other federal health care programs 
compensate for regional differences in the cost of living, the 
extent that the current means test standard may potentially 
disadvantage veterans in some regions of the country, an 
analysis of the Department's new proposal for the collection of 
third-party payments, and how the Department's recognition of 
regional costs differences affecting collection of third party 
payments remains inconsistent with the national, uniform means 
test standard.

                    medical and prosthetic research




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $321,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       321,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       321,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    This account includes medical, rehabilitative and health 
services research. Medical research is an important aspect of 
the Department programs, providing complete medical and 
hospital service for veterans. The prosthetic research program 
is also essential in the development and testing of prosthetic, 
orthopedic and sensory aids for the purpose of improving the 
care and rehabilitation of eligible disabled veterans, 
including amputees, paraplegics and the blind. The health 
service research program provides unique opportunities to 
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care 
delivery system. In addition, budgetary resources from a number 
of areas including appropriations from the medical care 
account; reimbursements from the Department of Defense; and 
grants from the National Institutes of Health, private 
proprietary sources, and voluntary agencies provide support for 
the Department's researchers.
    The Committee recommends $321,000,000 for medical and 
prosthetic research in fiscal year 2001. This is the same 
funding level as fiscal year 2000 and the 2001 budget request.
    The Committee applauds a departmental initiative to align 
the VERA research allocation with designated time for 
clinician-investigators to conduct research. The Committee 
directs the Department to extend through fiscal year 2001 
policy that assigns administration of the VERA research 
allocation to medical centers. The Committee also directs the 
Department to implement and evaluate new accounting systems for 
identifying and tracking research salaries, as well as research 
facilities and administrative costs, for their effectiveness in 
ensuring adequate research support.
    The Committee again this year encourages the Department to 
increase funding for prostate cancer research with emphasis on 
clinical trials within the VA. Further, the Committee urges the 
Department to increase its emphasis on research related to 
diabetes treatment.
    The Committee encourages the Department to continue working 
with Garden State Cancer Center on its pending research 
proposal.
    The Committee remains supportive of the Department's 
efforts in technology transfer.

      medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $62,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        59,703,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        64,884,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        +2,297,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......        -2,884,000


    This appropriation provides funds for central office 
executive direction (Under Secretary for Health and staff), 
administration and supervision of all Department medical and 
construction programs, including development and implementation 
of policies, plans, and program objectives.
    The bill provides $62,000,000, an increase of $2,297,000 
over the fiscal year 2000 funding level and $2,884,000 below 
the budget request.

                   General post fund, national homes

                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation...........................                 0                 0                 0
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation............................            $7,000           $70,000           $54,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request...........................                 0                 0                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation............            -7,000           -70,000           -54,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A legislative proposal will be submitted to repeal section 
8 of Public Law 102-54, terminating the Transitional Housing 
Loan Program. No loan activity on this program has occurred 
since its inception in September 1994. The Committee accepts 
the administration's proposal not to request funding for the 
Transitional Housing Loan Program which has never made a loan 
and does not provide funding in this bill. The portion of this 
account which accepts gifts to the department and uses those 
resources to promote comfort and welfare to veterans in 
hospitals, nursing homes and domiciliaries is still operational 
as a trust fund.

                      Departmental Administration


                       general operating expenses




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $1,006,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       912,594,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     1,061,854,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       +93,406,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -55,854,000


    The general operating expenses appropriation provides for 
the administration of non-medical veterans benefits through the 
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and top management 
direction and support. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 
changed the accounting of Federal credit programs and required 
that all administrative costs associated with such programs be 
included within the respective credit accounts. Beginning in 
fiscal year 1992, costs incurred by housing, education, and 
vocational rehabilitation programs for administration of these 
credit programs are reimbursed by those accounts. The bill 
includes the budget requests totalling $162,668,000 in other 
accounts for these credit programs. In addition, $9,787,000 is 
transferred from the compensation and pensions account for 
administrative costs of implementing cost saving provisions 
required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992. Section 107 of the 
administrative provisions provides requested language which 
permits excess revenues in three insurance funds to be used for 
administrative expenses. The Department estimates that 
$36,520,000 will be utilized for such purposes in fiscal year 
2001. Prior to fiscal year 1996, such costs were included in 
the general operating expenses appropriation. Thus, in total, 
$1,297,717,000 is requested in fiscal year 2001 for 
administrative costs of non-medical benefits.
    The Committee recommends $1,006,000,000 for general 
operating expenses in fiscal year 2001. This amount represents 
an increase of $93,406,000 above the current level and 
$55,854,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee rejects the request to transfer $30,000,000 
from the readjustment benefits appropriation to the general 
operating expenses account. In addition, the general operating 
expenses appropriation is $25,854,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee directs the VBA to be funded at not less than 
$782,000,000. The Committee supports VBA's hiring initiative in 
the Compensation and Pension program and expects VBA to achieve 
the FTE increases requested in the budget request. VBA 
reductions should be applied to the various initiatives 
requested based on VBA priorities and actual progress. The 
Committee understands the Virtual VBA project is behind 
schedule and recognizes reductions could be applied to this 
area as the scope and implementation of this initiative 
continues to evolve.
    The Committee is greatly alarmed by the lack of improvement 
in claims processing. The Committee directs VBA to continue 
reporting on its progress in this area as directed by last 
year's report.
    The Committee is aware that under present law, veterans are 
precluded from utilizing their veterans housing benefits to 
purchase residential cooperative units, although these 
guaranteed loans may currently be used to purchase a house, a 
condominium, or a mobile home. In some communities, residential 
cooperative units comprise a significant portion of housing 
currently available for purchase. The Committee therefore 
directs the VA to conduct a study of this problem and the 
feasibility of including cooperative rental units under the 
housing benefit and report back its findings to the Committee 
by February 2001.
    VA is presently occupying space at various locations within 
the District of Columbia for its central office staff. The 
Administration has determined that it would be in the best 
interest of the Department and of the Government if all of the 
VA's Central Office Operations could be consolidated in one or 
two buildings within close proximity of the main VA office 
building at 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W. The Lafayette building is 
located at 811 Vermont Avenue, N.W., directly across the street 
from the main VA building and currently accommodates some of 
the VA operations in approximately 60% of the building. The US 
Export-Import Bank occupies most of the remaining 40% of the 
building.
    While the General Services Administration is responsible 
for the Lafayette building and its operations, it has been 
unable to secure the needed funds to undertake the major 
renovations necessary to replace all of its outdated systems. 
The Department currently has authority to enter into enhanced-
use leases with the private sector where property under VA's 
control or jurisdiction is leased to a private lessee that 
expends private funds to renovate, rehabilitate, or construct 
facilities on such property. The Department has successfully 
used its enhanced-used leasing authority for such purposes. 
This authority, if utilized in this situation, would permit VA 
and other federal tenants, if space were available after VA 
consolidates its operations, to occupy a fully renovated 
facility without the need for major construction 
appropriations.
    The Committee supports consideration of an enhanced-used 
leasing alternative and requests VA, in conjunction with GSA, 
to provide a report by November 1, 2000 on the feasibility of 
this effort.
    The Committee strongly supports VA's initiative to replace 
its core accounting system with a new integrated system. The 
Committee expects the new system, core FLS, will allow the 
Department to strengthen financial information management, 
improve data integrity, and track the costs and workload 
associated with various initiatives, such as those noted in the 
Medical Care section of this report. The Office of Financial 
Management will coordinate the Department's investment in this 
area.
    The current estimate for the core FLS project in 2001 is 
approximately $43 million, which will fund specific tasks for 
the acquisition and the prototyping and implementation phases 
of the project. The Committee has provided these funds and 
expects this project to be implemented as a top priority. These 
funds will be provided through reimbursements from each of the 
VA Administrations and the Supply Fund to General 
Administration in this appropriation. The Committee directs VA 
to submit a report on the milestones for the core FLS project 
through FY 2002 by December 1, 2000.
    The bill includes language redirecting up to $2,022,000 for 
Office of Resolution Management and Office of Employment 
Discrimination Compliant Adjudication.

                        national cemetery system




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $106,889,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        97,256,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       109,889,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        +9,633,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......        -3,000,000


    The National Cemetery Administration was established in 
accordance with the National Cemeteries Act of 1973. It has a 
fourfold mission: to provide for the interment in any national 
cemetery with available grave space the remains of eligible 
deceased servicepersons and discharged veterans, together with 
their spouses and certain dependents, and to permanently 
maintain their graves; to mark graves of eligible persons in 
national and private cemeteries; to administer the grant 
program for aid to States in establishing, expanding, or 
improving State veterans' cemeteries; and to administer the 
Presidential Memorial Certificate Program. This appropriation 
provides for the operation and maintenance of 153 cemeterial 
installations in 39 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico.
    The fiscal year 2000 appropriation increased 5.8 percent 
above the fiscal year 1999 amount. The recommended fiscal year 
2001 level is 9.9 percent higher than fiscal year 2000 
appropriation. These relatively large increases are necessary 
to provide for the operations of new cemeteries, and to cover 
increased workloads at existing cemeteries.
    The Committee recommends $106,889,000 for the national 
cemetery administration in fiscal year 2001. This funding level 
is $9,633,000 over the 2000 level and $3,000,000 below the 
budget request. The Committee is providing funds to meet needs 
associated with new cemeteries opening in 2000 and 2001 and the 
increased workload projected by the Department. The Committee 
is only able to provide $2,000,000 of the requested $5,000,000 
for the national shrine initiative.
    The Committee supports planning efforts for the 2002 
Paralympic Games.

                      office of inspector general




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $46,464,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        43,200,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        46,464,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        +3,264,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    The Office of Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit, 
investigation and inspection of all Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs and operations. The overall operational 
objective is to focus available resources on areas which would 
help improve services to veterans and their beneficiaries, 
assist managers of Department programs to operate economically 
in accomplishing program goals, and prevent and deter recurring 
and potential fraud, waste and inefficiencies.
    The Committee has provided $46,464,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General in fiscal year 2001. This amount is an 
increase of $3,264,000 above the current year appropriation and 
equal to the budget request.

                      Construction, Major Projects




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $62,140,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        65,140,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        62,140,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        -3,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    The construction, major projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
Department, including planning, architectural and engineering 
services, and site acquisition where the estimated cost of a 
project is $4,000,000 or more. Emphasis is placed on correction 
of life/safety code deficiencies in existing Department medical 
facilities.
    The bill provides $62,140,000 for construction, major 
projects, in fiscal year 2001 as requested in the budget 
justification. The Committee again directs that adequate 
planning funds are available for national cemeteries in 
Detroit, Michigan; South Florida; Sacramento, California; 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Atlanta, Georgia. The Committee 
directs the Department to start planning efforts for a national 
cemetery in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
    The specific amounts recommended by the Committee are as 
follows:

                                            DETAIL OF BUDGET REQUEST
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Available                             House
                 Location and description                     through 2000      2001 request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Program:
    Seismic corrections: Palo Alto, CA....................                 0            26,600            26,600
    Advance planning fund: various stations...............                 0            14,500            14,500
    Asbestos abatement: various stations..................                 0             2,025             2,025
    Less: Design fund.....................................                 0            -1,330            -1,330
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, medical programs..........................                 0            41,795            41,795
                                                           =====================================================
Veterans Benefits Administration: Advance planning fund...                 0               250               250
National Cemetery Program:
    Ft. Logan National Cemetery gravesite development.....                 0            16,100            16,100
    Advance planning fund: various stations...............                 0             2,500             2,500
    Design fund...........................................                 0             1,600             1,600
    Less: Design fund.....................................                 0              -805              -805
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, NCA.......................................                 0            19,395            19,395
                                                           =====================================================
Claims Analyses: various stations.........................                 0               700               700
                                                           =====================================================
      Total construction, major projects..................                 0            62,140            62,140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Construction, Minor PRojects




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $100,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       160,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       162,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       -60,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -62,000,000


    The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
Department, including planning, architectural and engineering 
services, and site acquisition, where the estimated cost of a 
project is less than $4,000,000. Program focus is placed on 
outpatient care projects.
    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the construction, 
minor projects appropriation in fiscal year 2001. The amount 
recommended is $62,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee directs that VHA's minor construction 
resources should be utilized in a manner that is consistent 
with the current Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced 
Services (CARES) initiative. Therefore, beginning in fiscal 
year 2001 all VHA minor construction projects must be reviewed 
by a central office work group that will consist of both VHA 
and other Department officials. For evaluation purposes, the 
work group is to utilize criteria that is consistent with those 
developed for CARES. If total costs of projects being initiated 
at any facility exceeds $4 million (the Capital Investment 
Board threshold), the recommendations of the work group must be 
approved by the Deputy Secretary.
    The Committee directs the Department to expeditiously 
expend remaining funds previously appropriated in Public Law 
103-211 to repair the earthquake-damaged gymnasium on the VAMC 
campus in Sepulveda, California.

                         Parking Revolving Fund

    This appropriation provides funds for the construction, 
alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking 
garages at Department medical facilities. The Secretary is 
required under certain circumstances to establish and collect 
fees for the use of such garages and parking facilities. 
Receipts from the parking fees are to be deposited in the 
revolving fund and can be used to fund future parking garage 
initiatives.
    No new budget authority is requested for the parking 
revolving fund in fiscal year 2001. Leases will be funded from 
parking fees collected. The bill includes the requested 
language permitting operation and maintenance costs of parking 
facilities to be funded from the medical care appropriation.

       GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $60,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        90,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        60,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       -30,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    This program provides grants to assist States to construct 
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. A grant may not exceed 65 
percent of the total cost of the project.
    The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for grants for 
construction of State extended care facilities in fiscal year 
2001. This amount represents a decrease of $30,000,000 below 
last year's funding level but is equal to the budget request.

        GRANTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $25,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        25,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        25,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    Public Law 105-368, amended title 38 U.S.C. 2408, which 
established authority to provide aid to States for 
establishment, expansion, and improvement of State veterans' 
cemeteries which are operated and permanently maintained by the 
States. This amendment increased the maximum Federal Share from 
50 percent to 100 percent in order to fund construction cost 
and the initial equipment expenses when the cemetery is 
established. The states remain responsible for providing the 
land and for paying all costs related to the operation and 
maintenance of the state cemeteries, including the costs for 
subsequent equipment purchases.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $25,000,000 
for grants for the construction State veterans cemeteries in 
fiscal year 2001.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

                   (INCLUDING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    The bill continues the existing seven administrative 
provisions as proposed in the budget. The budget proposes bill 
language to fund the new Office of Resolution Management (ORM) 
and Office of Employment Discrimination Compliant Adjudication 
(OEDCA) on a reimbursable basis from other VA appropriations in 
fiscal year 2001. The Committee provides definite levels of 
funding for these offices,as is the case with other 
administrative functions, language transferring the amounts assumed in 
``Medical care'' ($28,134,000--$26,069,000 for ORM and $2,065,000 for 
OEDCA), ``National cemetery administration'' ($125,000--$111,000 for 
ORM and $14,000 for OEDCA), ``Office of Inspector General'' ($28,000--
$28,000 for ORM and no funding for OEDCA) appropriations, has been 
included in the bill. In addition, up to $2,022,000 ($1,847,000 for ORM 
and $175,000 for OEDCA) is assumed in ``General operating expenses'' 
for these activities. All funds for these two offices should be 
requested in the general operating expenses appropriation in fiscal 
year 2001.
    The bill also includes several new provisions. The 
Committee does not accept the administration's request to 
return $350,000,000 to the Department of Treasury. Instead, 
Sec. 108 is included to offset receipts collected under the 
Veterans Millennium Health Care Act in fiscal year 2001 against 
the ``Medical care'' appropriation.
    The Committee included bill language allowing the extension 
of specific resources in the research program to be available 
until 2003.
    Two administrative provisions are included as technical 
adjustments to the budget request. At this time, HR LINK$ is 
not ready for operation in the Franchise Fund as proposed and 
Sec. 110 is included allowing the Department to transfer those 
amounts back to the ``General operating expenses'' 
appropriation for that purpose. In addition, Sec. 111 is 
included to properly fund personnel in the Office of General 
Counsel from the ``General operating expenses'' account instead 
of ``Medical care''
    The Committee included language requested in the budget 
submission moving the compensation and pension pay date back to 
fiscal year 2000 with Sec. 112.
    The Committee also included language directing the 
Department to fully utilize the Capital Investment Board when 
evaluating procurement proposals. The Committee also directs 
the Department to fully utilize the Veterans Affairs Resource 
Board when making policy decisions to ensure the Department is 
consistent with the ``One VA'' policy.

                                TITLE II


              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT





Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................   $29,967,030,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................    25,860,183,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................    32,458,550,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........    +4,106,030,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......    -2,490,167,000


    The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was 
established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-174). HUD is the principal Federal 
agency responsible for administering and regulating programs 
and industries concerned with the Nation's housing needs, 
economic and community development, and fair housing 
opportunities.
    In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and 
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who 
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan 
insurance programs, rental and homeownership subsidy programs 
for low-income families, neighborhood rehabilitation programs, 
and community development programs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$29,967,030,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, a decrease of $2,490,167,000 below the request and 
an increase of $4,106,030,000 above the fiscal year 2000 
appropriation.

                       Public and Indian Housing


                        Housing Certificate Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................   $13,275,388,459
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................    11,376,695,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................    14,127,824,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........    +1,898,693,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......      -852,436,000


    The Housing Certificate Fund (HCF) provides funding for the 
renewal of expiring section 8 contracts, for section 8 enhanced 
vouchers, for the administration of section 8 contracts, and 
for relocation assistance in both Housing and Public Housing 
programs.
    The Committee recommends $13,275,388,459, plus any 
recaptures from the HCF accounts. As requested by the 
Administration, the Committee recommends $4,200,000,000 in 
advance appropriations.
    The appropriated amount provided is sufficient to renew all 
expiring section 8 contracts at a 100% utilization rate, and to 
provide relocation assistance at the requested funding level. 
By adding to the total appropriation the recaptures, which 
historically have amounted to more than $1,000,000,000, and 
combining them with the $1,295,000,000 offset requested by the 
Administration, the total appropriation will adequately fund 
not only renewals, but relocation assistance, amendments, 
shelter plus care renewals, contract administrators, and new 
section 8 incremental assistance as well. Confirming that the 
recommendation is adequate are virtually identical CBO and OMB 
outlay estimates for the HCF account, which both indicate a 93% 
utilization rate. Finally, CBO analysis confirm that the amount 
provided adequately funds the activities included in this 
account.
    In addition to renewals and relocation assistance, 
$37,000,000 is for shelter plus care renewals, $25,000,000 is 
for nonelderly disabled families, $192,000,000 is for section 8 
contract administrators, $66,000,000 is for vouchers that work 
in tandem with the low-income housing tax credit program, 
$60,000,000 is for incremental vouchers to be distributed 
within four months of enactment on a fair share basis to PHAs 
that have a 97 percent utilization rate, and $660,000 is for 
monitoring PHAs that increase the payment standard of a voucher 
through legislation provided in section 206 of the general 
provisions of this Act. Additionally, pursuant to HUD's Budget 
Justifications, $11,000,000 is transferred to the Working 
Capital Fund. Funds are not provided for welfare to work 
vouchers as requested by the Administration, or for the Moving 
To Work program, which is fully funded with fiscal year 2000 
funds. Finally, the Committee recommends a rescission of 
$275,388,459.
    The Committee notes that earmarking recaptures prior to 
their actual receipt is an unusual practice, and should be 
considered a one-time event. Nevertheless, recaptures of this 
magnitude indicate an under-utilization problem of monumental 
proportions. Because $1,432,000,000 was recaptured from PHAs 
last year, more than 237,000 families were not served by funds 
Congress appropriated. HUD and public housing authorities 
should strive to increase utilization rates to levels that more 
closely replicate the conventional rental market. HUD is 
studying this issue and the Committee directs HUD to report to 
the Committees on Appropriations their findings by January 15, 
2001.
    Another problem confounding the HCF account is the slowness 
with which incremental section 8 assistance is awarded. 
Consistently, HUD fails to award assistance within the fiscal 
year in which it is appropriated. This programmatic 
inefficiency is unacceptable; consequently, language is 
included requiring HUD to award incremental assistance on a 
fair share basis within four months of enactment of this 
legislation, or funds are to be returned to the general 
treasury. New incremental assistance shall be provided only to 
those PHAs that have a 97 percent utilization rate. 
Additionally, language is included in the bill that precludes 
HUD from paying increased administrative fee costs in the 
tenant-based section 8 program that result from the enactment 
of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998.
    To increase section 8 utilization rates, the Committee has 
included language in section 206 of the General Provisions of 
Title II authorizing PHAs to increase the payment standard 
under certain conditions. Furthermore, a section 8 
homeownership demonstration program is provided in the 
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) program account.
    Finally, the Committee directs HUD to work closely with 
organizations like the National Apartment Association to 
ameliorate those requirements that are detrimental to creating 
partnerships between section 8 client and apartment owner 
partnerships in meeting our nation's housing needs and to come 
up with solutions to the impediments apartment owners face in 
offering affordable housing to section 8 clients.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $2,800,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     2,900,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     2,955,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........      -100,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......      -155,000,000


    The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for all 
public housing capital programs, like public housing 
development, modernization, and amendments. Examples of capital 
modernization projects include replacing roofs and windows, 
improving common spaces, upgrading electrical and plumbing 
systems, and renovating the interior of an apartment.
    The Committee recommends funding this program at 
$2,800,000,000, which is $100,000,000 below the fiscal year 
2000 level of $2,900,000,000 and $155,000,000 below the 
request. Of the amount provided, no more than $50,000,000 may 
be used for technical assistance, contract expertise, training, 
interventions in troubled authorities, independent physical 
inspections, and management improvements. Additionally, 
pursuant to HUD's Budget Justifications, $43,000,000 is 
transferred to the Working Capital Fund. Finally, rather than 
using the calculation authorized in section 9(k) of the 1937 
Housing Act for repairs required because of natural disasters 
and emergencies, up to $75,000,000 is provided for these 
purposes. Funds are not provided for the following 
Administration requests: $55,000,000 for the Resident 
Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) program--this request 
is funded in the Community Development Fund; $10,000,000 for 
promoting consortia or other consolidations of PHAs; and 
$1,000,000 for the design of a capital financing program.
    Public housing for the elderly serves the poorest, the most 
racially and ethnically diverse, the oldest, and the largest 
number of seniors of the assisted housing programs. The 
Committee is therefore interested in further examining the 
Elderly Plus demonstration to retrofit public housing for 
elderly to efficiently and economically serve their assisted 
living needs.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $3,138,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     3,138,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     3,192,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -54,000,000


    Operating subsidies are provided to public housing 
authorities to supplement tenant rental contributions and other 
income, to pay for the ordinary daily costs of operating a 
public housing authority (PHA). These costs include utility, 
security, insurance bills, and the salaries of public housing 
employees. Operating subsidy amounts are determined by formula 
grants.
    The Committee recommends funding operating subsidies at the 
fiscal year 2000 level of $3,138,000,000, a decrease of 
$54,000,000 below the request. Language is included prohibiting 
HUD from spending any funds on section 9(k) activities.

             DRUG ELIMINATION GRANTS FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING

                     (Including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $300,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       310,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       345,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       -10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -45,000,000


    Drug Elimination grant funds are provided to public housing 
agencies and Indian housing authorities to eliminate drug-
related crime in housing developments. Funds may be used to pay 
for law enforcement personnel and investigators, to provide for 
physical improvements that enhance security, to support tenant 
patrols and initiatives, and to develop drug abuse prevention 
programs.
    The Committee recommends funding this program at 
$300,000,000, which is $10,000,000 below the fiscal year 2000 
level and $45,000,000 below the request. Of the amount 
provided, $5,000,000 is for technical assistance and program 
assessment, $10,000,000 is set-aside for Operation Safe Home 
administered by the HUD Inspector General and $10,000,000 is 
for the Inspector General for other Operation Safe Home 
activities. The request of $20,000,000 for the New Approach 
Anti-Drug Program is not appropriated nor is the request for 
the Community Gun Safety and Violence Reduction Initiative, a 
proposal that is not authorized.

     REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING (HOPE VI)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $565,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       575,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       625,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       -10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -60,000,000


    The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 
program, also known as HOPE VI, provides grants to competing 
public housing authorities enabling them to revitalize entire 
neighborhoods adversely impacted by the presence of badly 
deteriorated public housing projects. In addition to developing 
and constructing new affordable apartments, the programs 
provides PHAs with the authority to demolish obsolete projects 
and to provide self-sufficiency services for families who 
reside in and around the facility.
    The Committee recommends funding HOPE VI at $565,000,000, 
which is $10,000,000 below fiscal year 2000 and $60,000,000 
below the request. Of the amount, $10,000,000 is for technical 
assistance, which is the same level as fiscal year 2000 and is 
a decrease of $5,000,000 below the request. The request to set-
aside $180,000,000 for converting sites to assisted living is 
not provided.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $620,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       620,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       650,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -30,000,000


    The Native American Housing Block Grants program provides 
funds to Indian tribes and their tribally-designated housing 
entities (TDHEs) to help them address housing needs within 
their communities. The block grant is designed to fund a TDHE's 
operating requirements and capital needs.
    The Committee recommends funding this program at the fiscal 
year 2000 level of $620,000,000, which is $30,000,000 below the 
request. Of the amount provided $6,000,000 is set-aside for the 
section 601 Loan Guarantee Program, $6,000,000 is set-aside for 
inspections, training, travel costs, and technical assistance, 
of which $2,000,000, pursuant to HUD's Budget Justifications, 
is transferred to the Working Capital Fund, and $2,000,000 of 
the total appropriation is for the National American Indian 
Housing Council to conduct training programs and to provide 
technical assistance. The Committee has not provided $5,000,000 
for a new initiative called the Indian Homeownership 
Intermediary Initiative, as requested by the Administration.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on
                                     Program account      direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation...         $6,000,000        $71,956,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....          6,000,000         71,956,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request...          6,000,000         71,956,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000                    0                  0
 appropriation....................
Comparison with fiscal year 2001                    0                  0
 budget request...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native Americans 
to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides 
access to sources of private financing for Indian families and 
Indian housing authorities that otherwise cannot acquire 
financing because of the unique legal status of Indian trust 
land. This financing vehicle enables approximately 20,000 
families to construct new homes or to purchase existing 
properties on reservations.
    The Committee recommends funding this program at the 
request of $6,000,000, which is the same level appropriated in 
fiscal year 2000.

                   Community Planning and Development


              HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $232,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       232,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       260,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -28,000,000


    The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 
program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons 
with AIDS Act. The program provides states and localities with 
resources and incentives to devise long term comprehensive 
strategies for meeting the housing needs of persons with HIV/
AIDS and their families. Government recipients must have a HUD-
approved Comprehensive Plan/Comprehensive Housing Affordability 
Strategy (CHAS).
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends 
$232,000,000, which is the same level as fiscal year 2000, and 
$28,000,000 below the request. In addition, the Committee 
recommends that one percent of the funds be used for technical 
assistance and for tracking and monitoring systems.

                 RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $20,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        25,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        27,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        -5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......        -7,000,000


    The Committee has provided $20,000,000, which is $5,000,000 
below fiscal year 2000 and is $7,000,000 below the request.

                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

                     (including transfers of funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $4,505,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     4,800,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     4,900,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........      -295,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......      -395,000,000


    The Community Development Fund provides funding to state 
and local governments, and to other entities that carry out 
community and economic development activities under several 
authorized programs.
    The Committee recommends appropriating $4,505,000,000 for 
the community development fund. The account was modified from 
previous years to show all programs, including the CDBG formula 
grant program, as set-asides within the overall account. 
Presenting the accounts in this manner make it easier to see 
how funding levels change from year to year.
    Set-asides within the CDF account include:
          $4,214,050,000 for Community Development Block 
        grants;
          $67,000,000 for Native Americans;
          $3,000,000 for the Housing Assistance Council;
          $3,000,000 for the National American Indian Housing 
        Council;
          $39,500,000 for section 107 activities;
          $20,000,000 for the Self-Help Housing Opportunity 
        Program (SHOP);
          $23,450,000 for the National Community Development 
        Initiative (NCDI) including set-asides of $3,400,000 
        for Habitat for Humanity for its capacity building 
        activities and of $4,000,000 for rural areas;
          $55,000,000 for the Resident Opportunity and Social 
        Services program;
          $10,000,000 for neighborhood initiatives;
          $45,000,000 for Youthbuild which includes a 
        $3,740,000 set-aside for capacity building activities;
          $10,000,000 for economic development initiatives; and
          $28,000,000 for the cost of guaranteeing loans for 
        the section 108 program.
    Additionally, pursuant to HUD's Budget Justifications, 
$15,000,000 is transferred to the Working Capital Fund.
    Set-asides within the section 107 grant account include:
          $10,000,000 for Historically Black Colleges and 
        Universities;
          $8,000,000 is for Community Outreach Partnership 
        Centers
          $3,000,000 is for Community Development Work Study;
          $6,500,000 is for Hispanic-Serving Institutions 
        Assisting Communities;
          $0 for technical assistance;
          $7,000,000 for Insular Areas; and
          $5,000,000 for Management Information System Support 
        to be transferred to the Working Capital Fund.
    Programs requested by the Administration but for which 
funds are not provided include:
          $5,000,000 for Tribal Colleges and Universities;
          $2,000,000 for the Native American Economic 
        Development Access Center;
          $5,000,000 for New Markets University Partnership 
        pilot grants;
          $22,000,000 for economic revitalization and community 
        development initiatives in the Mississippi Delta 
        Region;
          $2,000,000 to support Alaska Native serving 
        institutions and native Hawaiian serving institutions;
          $100,000,000 for the Economic Development Initiative;
          $125,000,000 for Regional Connections/Smart Growth;
          $15,000,000 for technical assistance; and,
          $20,000,000 for the Center for Community and 
        Interfaith Partnership initiative.
    As requested by the Administration, the commitment level 
for the section 108 Loan Guarantee program is limited to 
$1,217,000,000, which is $44,000,000 below the fiscal year 2000 
limitation.
    Funds for America's Private Investment Companies (APIC) and 
the communities in schools programs are not appropriated 
because the proposal is unauthorized.
    The Committee directs HUD to provide information to all 
state and local jurisdictions that people with disabilities and 
their advocates must be at the table when Consolidated Plans 
are developed. In addition, the Committee directs HUD to 
evaluate Consolidated Plans for this inclusion, as well as to 
determine if the needs reflected in the final plan match the 
proposed uses of federal funds. The Committee also directs HUD, 
when reviewing Consolidated Plans, to take into consideration a 
community's adoption of a building code that complies with the 
Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, and a community's 
efforts to remove ``impediments'' to fair housing.

                       BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $20,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        25,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        50,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        -5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -30,000,000


    The Brownfields Redevelopment program provides competitive 
economic development grants in conjunction with section 108 
loan guarantees for qualified brownfield projects. Grants are 
made in accordance with section 108(q) selection criteria. The 
goal of the program is to return contaminated sites to 
productive and employment-generating uses with an emphasis on 
creating substantial numbers of jobs for lower-income people in 
physically and economically distressed neighborhoods.
    The Committee recommends appropriating $20,000,000, which 
is $5,000,000 below fiscal year 2000, and $30,000,000 below the 
request.

                  home investment partnerships program

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $1,585,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     1,600,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     1,650,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       -15,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -65,000,000


    The HOME investment partnerships program provides grants to 
states, units of local government, Indian tribes and insular 
areas, through formula allocation, for the purpose of expanding 
the supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction. Upon 
receipt, state and local governments develop a comprehensive 
housing affordability strategy that enables them to acquire, 
rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing, or to 
provide rental assistance to eligible families.
    The Committee recommends appropriating $1,585,000,000, 
which is $15,000,000 below fiscal year 2000 and $65,000,000 
below the request. Of the amount appropriated, $15,000,000 is 
for Housing Counseling, which is the same level as fiscal year 
2000 and is $9,000,000 below the President's request and, 
pursuant HUD's Budget Justifications, $17,000,000 is 
transferred to the Working Capital fund for the development and 
operation of integrated community development management 
information systems. Language requested by the Administration 
making three percent of the total funds appropriated available 
for use by Native Americans is not included.
    To address the Committee's concerns about HUD's lack of 
performance data in the Housing Counseling program, several 
organizations have been working to design a system to measure 
the outcomes of counseling services. The Committee reserves the 
right to review this proposal, and to consider its suggestions 
during Conference negotiations with the Senate, and to revise 
the appropriation accordingly.

                       homeless assistance grants

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $1,020,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     1,020,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     1,200,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......      -180,000,000


    The homeless assistance grants account provides funding for 
four homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney Act: (1) 
the emergency shelter grants program; (2) the supportive 
housing program; (3) the section 8 moderate rehabilitation 
(single room occupancy) program; and (4) the shelter plus care 
program. This account also supports activities eligible under 
the innovative homeless initiatives demonstration program.
    The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at 
$1,020,000,000, the same level as fiscal year 2000 and a 
decrease of $180,000,000 below the request. Language is 
included requiring HUD to use not less than 30 percent of the 
funds appropriated for Homeless programs for permanent housing. 
Language requested by the Administration is included that 
requires all homeless programs to coordinate their programs 
with mainstream health, social services and employment programs 
for which homeless populations are eligible. Finally, language 
is included providing that 1.5 percent of the funds is 
available for technical assistance and management information 
systems of which .5 percent is to be transferred to the Working 
Capital Fund. The Committee did not provide $105,000,000 for 
section 8 rental assistance for homeless families from this 
account as requested by the Administration though $37,000,000 
is provided in the HCF account to renew shelter plus care 
vouchers.

                            Housing Programs


                    housing for special populations

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $911,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       911,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       989,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -78,000,000


    The Housing for Special Populations program provides 
eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants 
used to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction 
of housing intended for elderly people or people with 
disabilities. To increase flexibility, twenty-five percent of 
the funding for supportive housing for the disabled is 
available for tenant-based assistance under section 8.
    The Committee recommends funding the Housing for Special 
Populations program at the fiscal year 2000 level of 
$911,000,000, which is $78,000,000 below the request. Of the 
amount provided, the fiscal year 2000 level of $710,000,000 is 
for section 202 housing, which is $69,000,000 below the 
request. For the section 811 disabled housing program, the 
Committee recommends the fiscal year 2000 level of 
$201,000,000, which is $9,000,000 below the request. Language 
is included transferring $1,000,000, to be equally divided 
between section 202 and section 811, to the Working Capital 
Fund pursuant to HUD's Budget Justifications.
    Of the amount provided for section 202, $50,000,000 is to 
renew existing service coordinator and congregate services 
contracts, and $50,000,000 is for the section 202 conversion 
program. Language requested by the Administration is not 
included making elderly persons living in the neighborhood but 
not in assisted projects eligible to receive assistance. 
Language requested by the Administration creating a 
construction and insurance program, and intergenerational 
learning centers, is not included.
    The Committee strongly opposes the Administration's 
proposal to increase the set-aside for section 8 for the 
disabled from at least 25 percent to up to 50 percent. For many 
years, the section 811 program has played a critical role in 
``housing production.'' The program has added to the stock of 
affordable and accessible housing and has been proven to be one 
of HUD's most effective programs, successfully investing 
federal funding through nonprofit disability organization. The 
Committee strongly supports the role of tenant-based rental 
assistance but recognizes that it is not the only component of 
an effective, broad-based housing policy for people with 
disabilities.
    Likewise, the Committee is concerned that HUD's current 
practice of converting section 811 tenant-based rental 
assistance may discourage nonprofit disability organizations 
from applying for and administering tenant-based rental 
assistance. Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to refrain 
from converting section 811 appropriations to section 8 rental 
subsidies.
    Last year, this Committee directed the Secretary to use 
waiver authority and make nonprofit disability organizations 
eligible applicants for the tenant-based rental assistance 
funded through the section 811 program. The Committee is 
pleased that the Secretary did so. Last year, approximately 100 
non-profit disability groups applied to administer these funds. 
Unfortunately, only 14 could be funded with the rest of the 
funds going to PHAs. The Committee, once again, directs the 
Secretary to use his waiver power and continue the eligibility 
of these non-profit disability organizations.

                         flexible subsidy fund

                          (transfer of funds)

    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 
HUD to establish a revolving fund into which rental collections 
in excess of the established basic rents for units in section 
236 subsidized projects are deposited. Subject to approval in 
appropriations acts, the Secretary is authorized under the 
Housing and Community Development Amendment of 1978 to transfer 
excess rent collections received after 1978 to the Troubled 
Projects Operating Subsidy program, renamed the Flexible 
Subsidy Fund.
    The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve 
as a repository of excess rental charges appropriated from the 
Rental Housing Assistance Fund. Although these resources will 
not be used for new reservations, they will continue to offset 
Flexible Subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures.

                     federal housing administration

             fha-mutual mortgage insurance program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Limitation of      Limitation of      Administrative
                                                            direct loans     guaranteed loans       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation........................       $100,000,000   $160,000,000,000       $330,888,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.........................        100,000,000    140,000,000,000        330,888,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request........................        250,000,000    160,000,000,000        330,888,000
Comparison with 2000 Appropriation.....................                  0    +20,000,000,000                  0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request........       -150,000,000                  0                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in 1992, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 
was split into two separate accounts. The first account is the 
FHA-mutual mortgage insurance program account and includes the 
mutual mortgage insurance (MMI) and cooperative management 
housing insurance (CMHI) funds. The second account is the FHA-
general and special risk program account and includes the 
general insurance (GI) and special risk insurance (SRI) funds.
    The mutual mortgage insurance program account covers 
unsubsidized programs, and consists of primarily the single-
family home mortgage program, the largest of all the FHA 
programs. The cooperative housing insurance program provides 
mortgages for cooperative housing projects of more than five 
units that are occupied by members of a cooperative housing 
corporation.
    The Committee recommends limiting commitments in the FHA-
MMI program account to $160,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2001, 
which is $20,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 level, and is 
the same level requested by the Administration through a budget 
amendment. The Committee recommends the request of $330,888,000 
for administrative expenses, which is the same level as fiscal 
year 2000. Furthermore, the Committee recommends the request to 
limit direct loans to $50,000,000, which is the same level as 
the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. Finally, of the 
$160,000,000 provided for administrative contract expenses, 
pursuant to HUD's Budget Justifications request, $96,500,000 is 
transferred to the Working Capital Fund.
    Though requested by the Administration, $2,000,000 is not 
provided for a data warehouse operated by the Federal Housing 
Credit Consortium. Additionally, language increasing the FHA 
limitation on individual mortgages to insure single family 
loans to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac conforming loan limit 
is not included. Finally, legislation to allow FHA to insure a 
new Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) product is not included.
    The Committee encourages HUD to work with training 
organizations with strong community ties and workforce 
development experience to provide low-income residents the 
skills to rebuild their communities and to learn new 
construction trades.

              FHA-General and Special Risk Program Account

                     (Including transfers of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Limitation of      Limitation of      Administrative
                                         direct loans     guaranteed loans       expenses        Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.....        $50,000,000    $21,000,000,000       $211,455,000       $101,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation......         50,000,000     18,100,000,000     \1\ 64,000,000              \2\ 0
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.....         50,000,000     21,000,000,000        211,455,000        101,000,000
Comparison with 2000 Appropriation..                  0      2,900,000,000        147,455,000        101,000,000
Comparison with 2001 budget request.                  0                  0                  0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Actual spending in fiscal year 2000 was $211,000,000 due to $145,000,000 in unobligated balances being used
  for this purpose.
\2\ Actual spending in fiscal year 2000 was $153,000,000 due to $153,000,000 in unobligated balances being used
  for this purpose.

    The general and special risk insurance (GI and SRI) funds 
contain the largest number of program administered by the FHA. 
The GI funds cover a wide variety of special purpose single and 
multi-family programs, including loans for property 
improvements, manufactured housing, multi-family rental 
housing, condominiums, housing for the elderly, hospitals, 
group practice facilities and nursing homes. The SRI fund 
includes insurance programs for mortgages in older, declining 
urban areas which would not be otherwise eligible for 
insurance, mortgages with interest reduction payments, those 
for experimental housing and for high-risk mortgagors who would 
not normally be eligible for mortgage insurance without housing 
counseling.
    As requested, the Committee recommends to limit loan 
guarantee commitments for the FHA-general and special risk 
insurance program account to $21,000,000,000, which is 
$2,900,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 level. The Committee 
recommends the budget request of $101,000,000 for credit 
subsidy purposes, whereas, in fiscal year 2000, $153,000,000 of 
unobligated balances were used to fund credit subsidy. 
Likewise, the Committee recommends the request of $211,455,000 
for administrative expenses. This is the same level as last 
year, however, in fiscal year 2000, $147,000,000 in unobligated 
balances were used to reduce the appropriated level of budget 
authority, an offset that is not available in fiscal year 2001. 
Additionally, the Committee recommends the request on limiting 
direct loans to $50,000,000, which is the same level as the 
fiscal year 2000 appropriation. Finally, as requested, 
$33,500,000 of the $144,000,000 provided for administrative 
contract expenses, is transferred to the Working Capital Fund.

                government national mortgage association

                guarantees of mortgage-backed securities

                     loan guarantee program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Limitation of      Administrative
                                     guaranteed loans       expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation...   $200,000,000,000         $9,383,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....    200,000,000,000          9,383,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request...    200,000,000,000          9,383,000
Comparison with 2000 appropriation                  0                  0
Comparison with 2001 budget                         0                  0
 request..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The guarantee of mortgage-backed securities program 
facilitates the financing of residential mortgage loans insured 
or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Rural Housing 
Services program. The Government National Mortgage Association 
(GNMA) guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest 
on securities issued by private service institutions such as 
mortgage companies, commercial banks, savings banks, and 
savings and loan associations which assemble pools of 
mortgages, and issues securities backed by the pools. In turn, 
investment proceeds are used to finance additional mortgage 
loans. Investors include non-traditional sources of credit in 
the housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life 
insurance companies and individuals.
    As the budget requests, the bill recommends language to 
limit loan guarantee commitments for mortgage-backed securities 
to $200,000,000,000. This is the same level as fiscal year 
2000. In addition, the request of $9,383,000 is provided to 
fund administrative expenses, which is the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
    Language requested by the Administration to provide 
$40,000,000 for administrative contract expenses is not 
provided.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        Research and technology




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $40,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        45,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        62,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        -5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -22,000,000


    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the 
Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing, 
and demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions 
are carried out internally through contracts with industry, 
non-profit research organizations, and educational institutions 
and through agreements with state and local governments and 
other federal agencies.
    The bill includes $40,000,000 for research and technology, 
which is $22,000,000 below the budget request. Of this amount, 
the Committee recommends $30,000,000 for research, technology, 
and policy analysis. Additionally, the Committee recommends the 
fiscal year 2000 level of $10,000,000 for the Partnership for 
Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) initiative, which is 
$2,500,000 below the request.
    Of the amount provided for research, technology, and policy 
development, $3,000,000 to be used exclusively for program 
evaluation and data collection to support strategic planning, 
performance measurement, and budget. In its 1999 report on 
Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) in HUD, the National 
Academy of Public Administration noted that full implementation 
of GPRA--especially for managing to results--requires an 
investment in both the collection of data which might not be 
available as well as in evaluation to determine the links 
between the every-day activities of the Department and the 
ultimate goals specified in the department's strategic and 
annual performance plans.
    The NAPA report states, in connection with one program 
that, ``. . . the department may not be able to measure this 
intermediate outcome using existing data sources; the 
department may need to develop additional data sources, in this 
case through the use of surveys. These new sources may need to 
be developed in cooperation with other federal agencies and 
non-federal service partners.'' The Committee directs HUD to 
establish a process for using these funds that shall be sent to 
the Committee for approval within 60 days after the enactment 
of this bill.
    In fiscal year 1998, this Committee recommended that HUD 
study how new technologies contribute to lowering the costs of 
constructing and operating affordable housing. Based on this 
directive, HUD proposed the PATH program. One of its goals is 
to coordinate the governmental effort to increase Federal 
support for housing research, development, and demonstration 
programs. As a research tool, it would be inappropriate to move 
PATH from the Office of Policy Development and Research (PDR) 
to the Federal Housing Administration, a home loan insurance 
program with little research capacity. Therefore, the Committee 
directs HUD to retain the program, and its administration, in 
the Office of PDR. Furthermore, HUD is directed to cooperate 
fully with the home building industry, and particularly the 
National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) Research Center, 
which coordinates industry participation and research planning 
for PATH. HUD is also directed to recognize the role of 
manufactured homes in providing housing to Americans and 
research through the Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 
(MHRA).

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity


                        Fair housing activities




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $44,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        44,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        50,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......        -6,000,000


    The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 
prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of 
housing and authorizes assistance to state and local agencies 
in administering the provision of the fair housing law.
    The Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) assists state 
and local fair housing enforcement agencies that are certified 
by HUD as ``substantially equivalent'' to HUD with respect to 
enforcement policies and procedures. The FHAP assures prompt 
and effective processing of complaints filed under title VIII 
that are within the jurisdiction of state and local fair 
housing agencies.
    The Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) alleviates 
housing discrimination by providing support to private 
nonprofit organizations, state and local government agencies 
and other nonfederal entities for the purpose of eliminating or 
preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair 
housing opportunities.
    The Committee recommends providing $44,000,000 for this 
account; $22,000,000 for FHAP, and $22,000,000 for FHIP. The 
Administration requested $50,000,000 for the account, with FHIP 
receiving $29,000,000. In the FHIP account, the Committee 
recommends $7,500,000 to fund the final year of a three-year 
audit-based enforcement initiative. The requests of $2,500,000 
for the Project for Accessibility Training and Technical 
Assistance (PATTA), $1,000,000 for a fair housing enforcement 
training academy, and $3,500,000 for the Fair Housing 
Partnership are not provided.
    The Committee is unsatisfied with the large carryover of 
funds in this account and directs HUD to put mechanisms into 
place that will result in funds being dispersed before the end 
of the last quarter of the fiscal year. If HUD is unable to 
comply with this direction, the Department is directed to 
provide a detailed briefing and report to the Committees on 
Appropriations on how the obligation rate in this program can 
be improved.
    Like last year, the Committee continues to be concerned 
with the lack of accessible housing options available to people 
with disabilities in the community. Therefore, the Committee 
directs HUD to inform those who receive federal funds of the 
need for compliance with the Fair Housing Act accessibility 
Guidelines and to closely monitor this compliance.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control


       lead hazard reduction program and healthy homes initiative




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $80,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        80,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       120,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -40,000,000


    The Lead Hazard Reduction Program, authorized under the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550) 
provides grants to state and local governments to perform lead 
hazard reduction activities in housing occupied by low-income 
families. The program also provides technical assistance, 
undertakes research and evaluations of testing and cleanup 
methodologies, and develops technical guidance and regulations 
in cooperation with EPA.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $80,000,000 
for this program, which is the same level appropriated in 
fiscal year 2000 and is $40,000,000 below the request. Of the 
amount appropriated, $1,000,000 is for CLEARCorps, and 
$10,000,000 is for the Healthy Homes Initiative.
    The Committee is concerned about several provisions in the 
proposed Lead-Based Paint rule, and plans to carefully monitor 
ongoing negotiations between HUD and the industry on the impact 
of the rule. While the Committee does not have a recommendation 
at this time, the Committee reserves the right to revisit this 
issue, should it be necessary, in Conference.

                     Management and Administration


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          By transfer
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Indian
                                       Appropriation     FHA funds     GNMA funds      CPD       Title VI   Housing         APIC              Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 recommendation..............    $475,647,000    $518,000,000   $9,383,000   $1,000,000   $150,000   $200,000                $0    $1,004,380,000
FY 2000 appropriation...............     477,000,000     518,000,000    9,383,000    1,000,000    150,000    200,000                 0     1,005,733,000
FY 2001 budget request..............     565,000,000     518,000,000    9,383,000    1,000,000    150,000    200,000         1,000,000     1,094,733,000
Comparison with 2000 appropriation..      -1,353,000               0            0            0          0          0                 0        -1,353,000
Comparison with 2001 budget request.     -89,353,000               0            0            0          0          0        -1,000,000       -90,353,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past, a single appropriation has been provided to 
finance all salaries and related costs associated with 
administering the programs of the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, except the Office of Inspector General and 
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. These 
activities include housing, mortgage credit, and secondary 
market programs, community planning and development programs; 
departmental management, legal services, and field direction 
and administration.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$1,004,380,000, a decrease of $90,353,000 below the request. 
This appropriation is premised on no more than 9,100 employees. 
Funds for object classes are dispersed in the following manner:
    Personal Services--$745,000,000.
    Travel and transportation of persons--$10,000,000.
    Rent, communications, and utilities--$120,000,000.
    Transportation of Things--$800,000.
    Printing and Reproduction--$3,500,000.
    Other Services--$123,480,000.
    Supplies and Materials--$300,000.
    Furniture and Equipment--$1,000,000.
    Indemnities--$300,000.
    The Committee is very concerned that for the last two 
fiscal years, HUD has threatened reductions in force (RIFs) 
claiming insufficient personal services funds for 9,300 FTEs. 
Though the Committee provided funds for 9,300 FTEs, as of 
January 29, 2000, HUD had only 9,040 FTEs, indicating an 
inflated personnel requirement in the budget. Again, in the 
fiscal year 2001 budget, HUD resource estimates are based on 
9,300 FTEs. As a practical matter, this estimate requires that, 
with attrition, HUD hire 748 new staff by the end of fiscal 
year 2000. Hiring to this level is unnecessary, unachieveable, 
and unacceptable to the Committee. Accordingly, the Committee 
has provided funds sufficient for 9,100 FTEs, which is an 
increase over current services.
    Furthermore, according to the National Academy of Public 
Administration (NAPA) October, 1999 report entitled ``Aligning 
Resources and Priorities at HUD: Designing a Resource 
Management System,'' HUD is beginning to implement a resource 
management system. The Committee has long felt that the lack of 
such a system within the Department served as a major detriment 
to the efficient operation of Departmental programs in a period 
of staff downsizing and increasing workload, and has 
contributed to HUD's inclusion on GAO's ``High Risk'' list. 
NAPA has also briefed the Committee on the implementation plan 
it has prepared for HUD. The Committee expects the Department 
to proceed with implementation, as detailed in the NAPA plan, 
and to provide a briefing to the Committees on Appropriations 
as soon as possible on the implementation plan along with a 
proposed implementation schedule. This briefing should also 
discuss how HUD intends to decrease it's FTE cost, which is now 
$78,800 per employee. This cost is exacerbated by 400 community 
builders who make, on average, $91,000 per individual. 
Following this initial briefing, the Committee directs the 
Department to provide the Committee quarterly progress reports 
on the efforts to implement its resource management system.
    Of the funds provided for ``Other Services,'' HUD is 
directed to spend $100,000,000 on ADP systems, for the working 
capital fund in accordance with the Justifications. Remaining 
funds from this account shall first be spent on statutorily 
mandated systems and contracts. If additional funds remain, 
they may be spent on other contracts.
    The Committee is committed to improving HUD's capacity to 
disseminate useful information about program performance. To a 
large extent, Congress' ability to oversee the effectiveness of 
HUD is undermined because data is simply inaccessible. 
Perennially, this deficiency is cited by the Inspector General, 
and is a major reason the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
retains HUD on its high-risk list. In an attempt to resolve 
this problem, the Committee recommends transferring specific 
amounts from various programmatic accounts. In addition, HUD is 
directed to include in its Budget Justifications, a 
comprehensive multi-year budget plan that creates, maintains, 
and refines HUD's information technology systems. This plan 
should prioritize expenditures based on the deficiencies cited 
by GAO and the Inspector General, and should be described on a 
program-by-program basis.
    Finally, language is included that terminates the 
``community builder'' program. The Committee is extremely 
concerned about reports that HUD has retained the community 
builder program and intends to supplement it by hiring at least 
200 personnel, contrary to the spirit of the agreement reached 
during extensive negotiations in the fiscal year 2000 VA, HUD 
Conference report. Therefore, HUD is directed to terminate the 
community builder program by October 1, 2000.

                      office of inspector general

                     (including transfers of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Drug elim.
                                            Appropriation       FHA funds          grants             Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 recommendation..................       $50,657,000       $22,343,000       $10,000,000       $83,000,000
FY 2000 appropriation...................        50,657,000        22,343,000        10,000,000        83,000,000
FY 2001 budget request..................        52,000,000        22,343,000        10,000,000        84,343,000
Comparison with 2000 appropriation......                 0                 0                 0                 0
Comparison with 2001 budget request.....        -1,343,000                 0                 0        -1,343,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office of Inspector General provides agency-wide audit 
and investigative functions to identify and correct management 
and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for 
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and 
mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit, 
contract audit, and inspection services. Contract audits 
provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on 
accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, 
award, administration, re-pricing and settlement of contracts. 
Internal audits evaluate all facets of agency operations. 
Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of 
agency operations. The investigative function provides for the 
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 
involving programs, personnel and operations.
    The Committee recommends the $83,000,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General, which is the same level as fiscal year 2000 
and a $1,343,000 below the request. Of the amount, $10,000,000 
is for Operation Safe Home, which is the request and the same 
as fiscal year 2000. Transfers of $22,343,000 from FHA funds 
and $10,000,000 from Drug Elimination Grants are in addition to 
the appropriation, and are the same levels as the request and 
the fiscal year 2000 appropriation.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $22,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        19,493,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        25,800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        -2,507,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......        -3,800,000


    The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) 
was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and 
soundness of the two housing government-sponsored enterprises 
(GSEs)--the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) 
and the Federal home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). 
The office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprises 
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, and gave the 
regulator enhanced authority to enforce these standards. In 
addition to financial regulation, the OFHEO monitors the GSEs 
compliance with affordable housing goals that were contained in 
the Act.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,000,000 
which is $2,507,000 above fiscal year 2000 and $3,800,000 below 
the budget request. OFHEO requires additional staff to conduct 
safety and soundness work, as well as additional new computer 
equipment to enhance examiner ability.

                       Administrative provisions

    The bill contains a number of administrative provisions.
    Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment 
factors.
    Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to 
investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair 
Housing Act.
    Section 203 corrects an anomaly in the HOPWA formula that 
results in the loss of funds for a state when the incidence of 
AIDS in a large city increases.
    Section 204 extends enhanced disposition authority to 
fiscal year 2001.
    Section 205 amends section 8(t)(1)(B) of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937 to cap enhanced vouchers.
    Section 206 authorizes PHAs, in areas designated by the 
Secretary, to increase the payment standard for section 8 
vouchers.

                               TITLE III


                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                  American Battle Monuments Commission


                         salaries and expenses




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $28,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        28,467,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        26,196,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........          -467,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......        +1,804,000


    The Commission is responsible for the administration, 
operation and maintenance of cemetery and war memorials to 
commemorate the achievements and sacrifices of the American 
Armed Forces where they have served since April 6, 1917. In 
performing these functions, the American Battle Monuments 
Commission maintains twenty-four permanent American military 
cemetery memorials and thirty-one monuments, memorials, markers 
and offices in fifteen foreign countries, the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the British dependency of 
Gibraltar. In addition, five memorials are located in the 
United States: the East Coast Memorial in New York; the West 
Coast Memorial, The Presidio, in San Francisco; the Honolulu 
Memorial in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in 
Honolulu, Hawaii; and the American Expeditionary Forces 
Memorial and the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, 
DC.
    The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 
to administer, operate and maintain the Commission's monuments, 
cemeteries, and memorials throughout the world. This amount 
represents an increase of $1,804,000 above the budget request 
and is the fourth increment provided the Commission to reduce 
the maintenance backlog identified prior to passage of the 
fiscal 1998 appropriation. The Committee notes and commends the 
work performed in this regard so far by the Commission, and 
intends over the next few years that the backlog be further 
reduced. These actions will ensure that the cemeteries and 
memorials under ABMC's jurisdiction are maintained at a high 
standard to reflect the nation's continuing commitment to its 
Honored War Dead and their families.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         salaries and expenses




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................        $8,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................         8,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................         8,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............                 0


    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board was 
authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to 
investigate accidental releases of certain chemical substances 
resulting in serious injury, death, or substantial property 
loss. The Board became operational in fiscal year 1998.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee is recommending 
$8,000,000, the same as the 2000 funding level and the budget 
request.
    Again this year, bill language has been included which 
limits the number of career senior executive service positions 
to three. Bill language has also been included which makes 
$3,000,000 of appropriated funds available for two fiscal 
years.

                       Department of the Treasury


              Community Development Financial Institutions


   Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Program Account




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $105,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        95,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       125,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       +10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............       -20,000,000


    The Community Development Financial Institutions fund 
provides grants, loans and technical assistance to new and 
existing community development financial institutions such as 
community development banks, community development credit 
unions, revolving loan funds and micro-loan funds. Recipients 
must use the funds to support mortgage, small business and 
economic development lending in currently underserved, 
distressed neighborhoods. The CDFI fund also operates as an 
information clearinghouse for community development lenders.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $105,000,000 
for the program in fiscal year 2001. The recommendation is a 
decrease of $20,000,000 below the budget request and is an 
increase of $10,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 
appropriation.
    Like last year, the Committee is very pleased with CDFI's 
significant contributions to communities across the country, 
and has increased funding for the account accordingly. For a 
minimal federal investment of $34,000,000, community 
development loans and investments worth $565,000,000 were made; 
12,412 jobs were created or retained; 8,614 units of affordable 
housing were developed; 98 childcare centers served 7,168 
children; 17 health care facilities served 32,723 clients; and 
10,641 individuals received business training, credit 
counseling, homebuyer training and other redevelopment 
services. Of the beneficiaries, 70% were low-income, 60% were 
minorities, 50% were women, 53% lived in the inner cities, 36% 
lived in suburban areas, and 11% lived in rural areas.
    The Committee acknowledges the efforts that the CDFI Fund 
has made to support credit unions that are CDFIs and/or 
emerging CDFIs. As of June 6, 2000, the Fund has certified 78 
credit unions as CDFIs and invested $19.3 million in credit 
unions and the National Federation of Community Development 
Credit Unions. The Committee recognizes that credit unions are 
excellent vehicles for community development efforts and 
expects that the CDFI Fund will continue its efforts to support 
credit unions that are CDFIs through such means as financial 
assistance, technical assistance, and training programs. In 
addition, the Committee asks the CDFI Fund to strengthen its 
efforts to encourage eligible credit unions, particularly 
community development credit unions to apply to its programs 
through outreach activities and implementing a Small and 
Emerging CDFI Access Program.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $51,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        48,814,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        52,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        +2,186,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............        -1,500,000


    The Consumer Product Safety Act established the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, an independent Federal regulatory 
agency, to reduce unreasonable risk of injury associated with 
consumer products. Its primary responsibilities and overall 
goals are: to protect the public against unreasonable risk of 
injury associated with consumer products; to develop uniform 
safety standards for consumer products, minimizing conflicting 
State and local regulations; and to promote research into 
prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $51,000,000 
for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $2,186,000 over the fiscal 
year 2000 appropriation and a decrease of $1,500,000 from the 
budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of 
$1,500,000 which is to be applied by the Commission in an 
equitable manner rather than applying all of the reduction to 
only one or two programs.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


       National and Community Service Programs Operating Expenses




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................                $0
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       353,153,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       533,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........      -353,153,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......      -533,700,000


    The Corporation for National and Community Service was 
established by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 
1993 to enhance opportunities for national and community 
service and provide national service educational awards. The 
Corporation makes grants to States, institutions of higher 
education, public and private nonprofit organizations, and 
others to create service opportunities for a wide variety of 
individuals such as students, out-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. Funds for the Volunteers in Service to America 
and the National Senior Service Corps are provided in the 
Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill.
    The fiscal year 2001 budget request for program and 
administrative activities of the Corporation for National and 
Community Service is $533,700,000. The Committee recommends no 
funding for this program in fiscal year 2001. Language is 
included in the bill which directs the Corporation to use any 
funds remaining from prior year's appropriations to accomplish 
the orderly closure of the Corporation.

                      Office of Inspector General




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................        $5,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................         3,985,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................         5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        +1,015,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    The Office of Inspector General is authorized by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. This Office provides 
an independent assessment of all Corporation operations and 
programs, including those of the Volunteers in Service to 
America and the National Senior Service Corps, through audits, 
investigations, and other proactive projects.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2001, the same as the budget request and an 
increase of $1,015,000 when compared to the appropriation for 
fiscal year 2000.

               U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims


                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $12,500,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        11,450,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        12,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        +1,050,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    The Veterans Benefits Administration Adjudication Procedure 
and Judiciary Review Act established the Court of Appeals for 
Veterans Claims. The Court reviews appeals from Department of 
Veterans Affairs claimants seeking review of a benefit denial. 
The Court has the authority to overturn findings of fact, 
regulations and interpretations of law.
    The bill includes the budget request of $12,500,000 for the 
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in fiscal year 2001, an 
increase of $1,050,000 above the current year appropriation. 
This increase continues funding for the additional law clerks 
as temporary FTE's to assist the Court with the large number of 
backlogged cases coming from the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Board of Veterans Appeals.
    The bill also fully funds pro bono representation program 
request of $895,000 as an earmark.

                      Department of Defense--Civil


                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army


                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $15,949,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        12,473,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        15,949,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        +3,476,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    The Secretary of the Army is responsible for the 
administration, operation and maintenance of Arlington National 
Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. 
At the close of fiscal year 1999, the remains of 277,932 
persons were interred/inured in these cemeteries. Of this 
total, 237,323 persons were interred and 25,960 remains inured 
in the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery, and 14,649 
remains were interred in the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home 
National Cemetery. There were 3,586 interments and 2,152 
inurnments in fiscal year 1999. It is projected that there will 
be 3,700 interments and 2,200 inurnments in fiscal year 2000; 
and 3,700 interments and 2,300 inurnments in fiscal year 2001. 
In addition to its principal function as a national cemetery, 
Arlington is the site of approximately 2,700 nonfuneral 
ceremonies each year and has approximately 4,000,000 visitors 
annually.
    The Committee shares the concern expressed through the 
budget request that additional funds are necessary and 
appropriate to meet the backlog of long and short-term 
maintenance needs as well as important capital improvement 
projects within Arlington National Cemetery. An additional 
$2,000,000 beyond the budget submission has therefore been 
provided in order to ``jump-start'' the highest priority 
projects as identified in the Cemetary's ten-year plan. The 
Cemetery is requested to provide the Committee an updated 
project priority list on a semi-annual basis, which list should 
include a brief explanation of the plans, timing, and progress 
toward completion of each such project.

                Department of Health and Human Services


                     National Institutes of Health


          National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $60,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation \1\....................        60,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request \1\...................        48,526,700
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       +11,473,300


 \1\ Fiscal year 2000 appropriation and fiscal year 2001 request
  included in the Hazardous Substance Superfund account of the
  Environmental Protection Agency.

    The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an 
agency within the National Institutes of Health, was authorized 
in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to conduct certain 
research and worker training activities associated with the 
nation's Hazardous Substance Superfund program.
    For fiscal year 2001 the Committee has recommended a 
funding level of $60,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2000 
level and an increase of $11,473,300 over the budget request. 
The Committee's recommendation includes $37,000,000 for 
research and $23,000,000 for the worker training program.

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


            toxic substances and environmental public health




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $70,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation \1\....................        70,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request \1\...................        64,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       +6,000,000

\1\ Fiscal year 2000 appropriation and fiscal year 2001 request included
  in the Hazardous Substance Superfund account of the Environmental
  Protection Agency.

    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR), an agency of the Public Health Service, was created in 
section 104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The ATSDR's primary 
mission is to conduct surveys and screening programs to 
determine relationships between exposure to toxic substances 
and illness. Other activities include the maintenance and 
annual update of a list of hazardous substances most commonly 
found at Superfund sites, the preparation of toxicological 
profiles on each such hazardous substance, consultations on 
health issues relating to exposure to hazardous or toxic 
substances, and the development and implementation of certain 
research activities related to ATSDR's mission.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has recommended a 
funding level of $70,000,000, the same as for fiscal year 2000 
and an increase of $6,000,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee encourages ATSDR to continue to provide 
adequate funds for minority health professions, as well as for 
continuation of a health effects study on the consumption of 
Great Lakes fish. Finally, an additional $1,000,000 has been 
provided for ATSDR to complete its work on the Toms River, New 
Jersey cancer evaluation and research project.

                    Environmental Protection Agency





Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $7,148,888,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     7,591,659,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request \1\...................     7,164,072,300
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........      -413,923,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -15,184,300

\1\ Line does not include budget request for NIEHS and ATSDR totalling
  $112,526,700. These requests are noted in the new account structure
  for these two agencies.

    The Environmental Protection Agency was created by 
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which consolidated nine 
programs from five different agencies and departments. Major 
EPA programs include air and water quality, drinking water, 
hazardous waste, research, pesticides, radiation, toxic 
substances, enforcement and compliance assurance, pollution 
prevention, oil spills, Superfund and the Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank (LUST) program. In addition, EPA provides Federal 
assistance for wastewater treatment, drinking water facilities, 
and other water infrastructure projects. The agency is 
responsible for conducting research and development, 
establishing environmental standards through the use of risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis, monitoring pollution 
conditions, seeking compliance through a variety of means, 
managing audits and investigations, and providing technical 
assistance and grant support to states and tribes, which are 
delegated authority for actual program implementation. Finally, 
the Agency participates in some international environmental 
activities.
    Among the statutes for which the Environmental Protection 
Agency has sole or significant oversight responsibilities are:
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
    Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as 
amended.
    Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended.
    Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
    Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended.
    Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 
as amended.
    Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
    Public Health Service Act (Title XIV), as amended.
    Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended.
    Clean Air Act, as amended.
    Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended.
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
    Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986.
    Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has recommended a total 
program and support level of $7,150,888,000, a decrease of 
$411,923,000 below last year's appropriated level and 
$13,184,300 below the budget request. Programmatically, when 
adding the $130,000,000 provided to ATSDR and NIEHS in the 
preceding, new account, rather than in the Hazardous Substances 
Superfund account at EPA as in past years, the Committee's 
recommendation is $3,401,000 above the budget request.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Agency must limit transfers of funds between 
objectives to not more than $500,000, except as specifically 
noted, without prior approval of the Committee. No changes may 
be made to any account or objective except as approved by the 
Committee, if it is construed to be policy or a change in 
policy. Any activity or program cited in the report shall be 
construed as the position of the Committee and should not be 
subject to reductions or reprogramming without prior approval 
of the Committee. It is the intent of the Committee that all 
carryover funds in the various appropriations accounts are 
subject to the normal reprogramming requirements outlined 
above. The Agency is expected to comply with all normal rules 
and regulations in carrying out these directives. Reprogramming 
requests associated with States and Tribes applying for 
Partnership Grants do not need to be submitted to the Committee 
for approval should such grants exceed the normal reprogramming 
limitations. Finally, the Committee wishes to continue to be 
notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, or 
activities prior to the planned implementation of such 
reorganizations.
    The Committee believes it is in the public interest for EPA 
to measure and report its progress under the Government 
Performance and Results Act primarily in terms of environmental 
outcomes, such as healthier people and better habitat. This is 
not the approach currently being taken. The Committee 
recognizes that a precise understanding of the relationship 
between Agency action and each environmental outcome does not 
currently exist and may never be fully established. In 
environmental policy, as in every other area of public policy, 
action must often be taken in the face of scientific 
uncertainty. Nevertheless, the Act calls on the Agency to make 
its best professional judgment of this relationship under the 
assumption that the Agency's effectiveness will improve by 
doing so.
    Therefore, the Committee directs EPA, in its implementation 
of the Act, to define its long-term strategic goals in terms of 
environmental, health, and other appropriate outcome measures. 
Outcome measures are direct measures of the health of humans, 
animals, plants, and ecosystems. (Among examples of such 
measures are those classified as ``Level 6'' on the ``Hierarchy 
of Indicators,'' a framework of indicators created by EPA and 
in current use by EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and a number of 
states.) The Committee directs EPA in reporting its performance 
to present measures of activities and materials that may 
present a hazard to the health of humans, animal, plants, and 
ecosystems, as well as activities intended to prevent or 
control such hazards. Further, it calls on the Agency to 
organize and present performance measures in a manner that 
strengthens agency management, budgeting, performance 
evaluation, and effectiveness, including reporting performance 
by EPA regions and individual states.
    The Committee directs the Agency to make the necessary 
changes to the Strategic Plan by September 2001 and reflect 
such changes in subsequent GPRA plans and reports. The 
Committee realizes that the Agency may not be able to measure 
all the necessary outcomes by September 2001. However, the 
Agency must show significant progress each year, and include 
within its Annual Performance Plans an explanation of when and 
how the agency expects to improve data quality, ensure data 
integration and comparability, and establish sufficient 
publicly available information upon which to base conclusions. 
In addition, the Agency must identify resource constraints and 
legal impediments that may prevent the Agency from achieving 
its mission.
    Finally, the Committee expects the Agency to evaluate and 
measure the effectiveness of all its program activities 
(including, but not limited to, compliance monitoring, 
enforcement, the dissemination of environmental information, 
education, and technical assistance) which are designed to meet 
long-term goals, and to share the results of those evaluations 
with the public and the Committee. These studies shall include 
estimates of program costs in a manner that allows comparison 
of the effectiveness of different intervention strategies. 
Performance reports should also indicate the accuracy, 
sufficiency, and level of certainty regarding performance 
information reported.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation \1\...................      $650,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       645,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       674,348,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        +5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......      -24,348,000

\1\ Total does not include transfer of $35,000,000 from the Hazardous
  Substance Superfund.

    The Science and Technology account funds all Environmental 
Protection Agency research (including Hazardous Substances 
Superfund research activities) carried out through grants, 
contracts, and cooperative agreements with other Federal 
agencies, states, universities, and private business, as well 
as on an in-house basis. This account also funds personnel 
compensation and benefits, travel, supplies and operating 
expenses for all Agency research. Research addresses a wide 
range of environmental and health concerns across all 
environmental media and encompasses both long-term basic and 
near-term applied research to provide the scientific knowledge 
and technologies necessary for preventing, regulating, and 
abating pollution, and to anticipate emerging environmental 
issues.
    The Committee has recommended an appropriation of 
$650,000,000 for Science and Technology for fiscal year 2001, 
an increase of $5,000,000 above last year's spending level, and 
a decrease of $24,348,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee's recommended appropriation includes the 
following increases to the budget request:
    1. +$2,500,000 for EPSCoR.
    2. +$3,000,000 for Water Environmental Research Foundation.
    3. +$4,000,000 for the American Water Works Association 
Research Foundation.
    4. +$2,000,000 for the National Decentralized Water 
Resource Capacity Development Project, in coordination with 
EPA, for continued training and research and development 
program.
    Other Science and Technology program levels include:
    1. CCTI Transportation research is funded at the 2000 level 
of $27,000,000.
    2. Climate Change research is funded at $20,592,200, the 
fiscal 2000 level.
    3. STAR Fellowships are funded at $9,726,400, an increase 
of $773,800 above the fiscal 2000 level.
    4. Project EMPACT is funded $6,000,000.
    5. Mobile sources research is provided $50,000,000, an 
increase $1,943,100 above the fiscal 2000 level.
    For Science and Technology, no general reduction is 
proposed.
    In addition to the funds provided through appropriations 
directly to this account, the Committee has recommended that 
$35,000,000 be transferred to ``Science and Technology'' from 
the ``Hazardous Substance Superfund'' account for ongoing 
research activities consistent with the intent of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
    Again this year, the Committee notes that the Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is designed 
to improve the scientific and technological capacity of states 
with less developed research infrastructure. Developed with 
NASA and the National Science Foundation as partners, the 
Committee has provided EPA with $2,500,000 for its continued 
participation in this program.

                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $1,900,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     1,900,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     2,099,461,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......      -199,461,000


    The Environmental Programs and Management account 
encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, and 
compliance activities, and personnel compensation, benefits, 
travel, and expenses for all programs of the Agency except 
Science and Technology, Hazardous Substance Superfund, Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, Oil Spill Response, and 
the Office of Inspector General.
    Abatement, prevention, and compliance activities include 
setting environmental standards, issuing permits, monitoring 
emissions and ambient conditions and providing technical and 
legal assistance toward enforcement, compliance, and oversight. 
In most cases, the states are directly responsible for actual 
operation of the various environmental programs. In this 
regard, the Agency's activities include oversight and 
assistance in the facilitation of the environmental statutes.
    In addition to program costs, this account funds 
administrative costs associated with the operating programs of 
the Agency, including support for executive direction, policy 
oversight, resources management, general office and building 
services for program operations, and direct implementation of 
all Agency environmental programs--except those previously 
mentioned--for Headquarters, the ten EPA Regional offices, and 
all non-research field operations.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has recommended 
$1,900,000,000 for Environmental Programs and Management, the 
same as last year's level and a decrease from the budget 
request of $199,461,000. This account encompasses most of those 
activities previously conducted through the Abatement, Control 
and Compliance and Program and Research Operations accounts. In 
1996, these accounts, except for certain research operations 
and the state categorical grant program, were merged in order 
to provide greater spending flexibility for the Agency. Bill 
language is included which makes this appropriation available 
for two fiscal years and, for this account only, the Agency may 
transfer funds of not more than $500,000 between programs and 
activities without prior notice to the Committee, and of not 
more than $1,000,000 without prior approval of the Committee. 
But for this difference, all other reprogramming procedures as 
outlined earlier shall apply.
    The Committee's recommended appropriation includes the 
following increases to the budget request:
    1. +$14,500,000 for rural water technical assistance 
activities and groundwater protection with distribution as 
follows: $8,600,000 for the NWRA; $2,600,000 for RCAP; $700,000 
for GWPC; $1,600,000 for Small Flows Clearinghouse; and 
$1,000,000 for the NETC.
    2. +$1,000,000 for implementation of the National Biosolids 
Partnership Program.
    3. +$1,500,000 for source water protection programs.
    4. +$3,000,000 for section 103 grants to the states to 
develop regional haze programs under Title I, Part C of the 
Clean Air Act.
    Other Environmental Programs and Management activities are 
funded at the following levels:
          1. $42,650,000 for CCTI Buildings;
          2. $2,500,000 for CCTI Transportation;
          3. $22,000,000 for CCTI Industry;
          4. $5,500,000 for CCTI International Capacity 
        Building;
          5. $2,500,000 for CCTI State and Local programs;
          6. $1,000,000 for CCTI Carbon Removal;
          7. $7,800,000 for Project EMPACT;
          8. $48,500,000 for compliance monitoring;
          9. $82,500,000 for civil enforcement;
          10. $4,000,000 for enforcement training;
          11. $32,000,000 for planning and resource management;
          12. $23,500,000 for criminal enforcement activities.
          13. $36,610,500 for RCRA Corrective Action; and
          14. $12,000,000 for the Multilateral Fund.
    The Committee has provided no funds for the new 
International Environmental Monitoring program, for Innovative 
Community Partnership Program for the new Integrated 
Information Initiative, and for the GLOBE program. In addition, 
the Committee has reduced the funding available for contracts 
and grants by $23,500,000, has proposed a general reduction of 
$23,500,000, and has directed a reduction in payroll costs of 
$9,444,600. This later reduction will result in no reduction-
in-force requirement and can be achieved through continuation 
of normal attrition. The Committee appreciates the Agency's 
commitment to reduce its personnel level to a maximum of 18,000 
FTEs by the end of fiscal year 2001, and strongly encourages 
the Agency to make every effort to reach and exceed this goal 
as early in the fiscal year as possible.
    Within available funds, EPA is directed to provide the 
fiscal year 2000 funding level for the Environmental Finance 
Centers as well as for the Regional Environmental Enforcement 
Associations. Similarly, the Agency is directed to provide no 
less than the budget request levels for Pesticide Registration 
and Re-registration programs as well as for the Environmental 
Education programs.
    The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for section 103 
grants to the states to develop regional haze programs under 
title I, part C of the Clean Air Act. These funds must be used 
to aid states in the development of emissions inventories, 
quantification of natural visibility conditions, monitoring and 
other data necessary to define reasonable progress and develop 
control strategies, and to support the states' participation in 
regional efforts to coordinate their strategies, where 
necessary, and at the election of the individual states.
    In addition to funds provided to the NRWA, RCAP, the GWPC, 
NETC, and the Small Flows Clearinghouse, the Committee has 
again provided $1,500,000 for source water protection programs. 
The Committee intends that these funds be used to develop local 
source water protection programs within each state utilizing 
the infrastructure and process of an organization now engaged 
in groundwater and wellhead protection programs. These 
resources will provided additional technicians for in-the-field 
work and will virtually guarantee that nearly 1,000 more 
communities will adopt local, country-wide and/or regional 
source water protection programs targeted to the highest risk 
watershed areas in each state.
    The Committee has included bill language which prohibits 
the expenditure of funds by the Administrator to make a final 
determination on or to implement rules relative to the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program and Federal 
Antidegradation Policy, and the Proposed Revisions to the Water 
Quality Planning and Management Regulations Concerning Maximum 
Daily Loads, published in the Federal Register in August 23, 
1999. This action was taken as a result of a multitude of 
concerns with the timing, impact, and cost of the proposed TMDL 
rule registered by numerous States and businesses throughout 
the country. The Committee's action should be interpreted as 
nothing more than a brief holding action on this rule until 
many of these matters get sorted out and further addressed by 
the EPA, Congress, the States, the business community.
    With regard to this TMDL issue, the Committee is aware that 
EPA Region IX, and perhaps others, have recently issued and 
implemented guidance to impose stringent TMDL requirements in 
individuals permits prior to the finalization of the TMDL 
rulemaking. The Committee notes that such guidance may be 
inconsistent with a final rule and, further, that no Region of 
the EPA has the authority to take such actions. The Agency is 
strongly encouraged to direct its Regions to revoke any such 
guidance and to take no further actions in this regard until 
the TMDL rule is finalized.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about the 
Environmental Protection Agency's approach to resolving the 
issue of the Agency's ``Interim Guidance for Investigating 
Title VI Complaints Challenging Permits'' which was released on 
February 5, 1998. This was an effort by the Agency to move 
beyond a case-by-case approach to address state permit program 
compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through the 
administrative petition process. Numerous organizations, State 
and local governments, including the Environmental Council of 
the States, requested that the EPA suspend or withdraw the 
interim guidance because of concerns about Brownfields, urban 
sprawl, empowerment zones, and redevelopment. In addition, 
there was little if any opportunity prior to the release of the 
guidance for any public or stakeholder input. Therefore, the 
Committee provided in the fiscal year 1999 and 2000 
appropriation Acts that no funds be used to implement the 
interim guidance. Identical bill language to continue this 
prohibition has also been included in the fiscal year 2001 Act.
    At this point, there still does not appear to be a clear 
strategy to resolve this issue. Currently, the Agency is in the 
process of implementing a new stakeholder process for input on 
many difficult issues. The Committee nevertheless remains 
concerned that there may be conflicts between the internal and 
external guidance of the Agency that will make it difficult to 
resolve complaints in a fair and efficient manner.
    On January 20, 1999, the General Counsel of the United 
States General Accounting Office issued an opinion (B-281575) 
that EPA's Interim Guidance clearly affects the rights of non-
Agency parties and constitutes a ``rule'' under the Small 
Business Review and Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), which is 
subject to Congressional review. If the Agency intends to 
promulgate guidance rather than a rulemaking, procedural 
requirements of a rulemaking should be followed including input 
from the small business community, sufficient time for notice 
and comment, published response to comments provided to the 
agency, interagency review, and analysis of any unfunded 
mandates on State and local governments. The Committee is very 
concerned that there be sufficient time for review of any new 
guidance given the lack of stakeholder review prior to the 
release of the Interim Guidance last year. In addition, the 
Committee again requests that EPA examine successful State and 
local programs as model programs, and look at the possibility 
of delegating initial review and resolution of Title VI claims 
to States with such established model programs.
    The Committee has again this year included bill language 
which prohibits the use of funds to take certain actions for 
the purpose of implementing or in contemplation of preparing to 
implement, the Kyoto Protocol. Although the Agency may under 
the current prohibition continue to conduct educational 
seminars and activities, it should ensure balance in those 
programs. Balance does not mean merely that there is an 
acknowledgment of viewpoints different from those of the 
Administration, but that qualified representatives of those 
viewpoints are included in the programs and in numbers roughly 
equal to the participants representing the Administration's 
positions. One dissenting voice in what is otherwise an 
obviously stacked or biased program does not constitute 
balance.
    The bill language is intended to prohibit funds provided in 
this bill from being used to implement actions called for under 
the Kyoto Protocol, prior to its ratification. Based on an 
identical provision in the 1999 Appropriations Act, the bill 
language prohibits the proposing or issuing of rules, 
regulations, decrees, or orders, for the purpose of 
implementing, or in preparation of implementing, the Kyoto 
Protocol.
    The Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which passed with a 
vote of 95-0 in July 1997, remains the clearest statement of 
the will of the Senate with regard to the Kyoto Protocol. 
Through the prohibition contained herein, the Committee is 
committed to ensuring that the Administration not implement the 
Kyoto Protocol without prior Congressional consent, including 
approval of any implementing legislation, regulation, programs, 
or initiatives.
    Again this year, bill language has been included in Title 
IV, General Provisions, prohibiting funds for use to promulgate 
a final regulation to implement changes in the payment of 
pesticide tolerance processing fees as proposed at 64 Federal 
Register 31040, or any similar proposal.
    The Committee is aware that the EPA is considering a policy 
to revoke a tolerance under section 408 (1)(2) of the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, when the 
corresponding uses of a pesticide product have been voluntarily 
withdrawn or canceled by the registrant. This policy may have 
the unintended effect of unnecessarily undermining consumer 
confidence and jeopardizing foreign and domestic commerce 
without enhancing food safety. The Committee expects EPA to 
allow sufficient time for food that may contain residues of a 
voluntarily canceled use to clear the channels of trade before 
revoking the associated tolerances unless the Agency determines 
the dietary risk associated with such residues is unacceptable 
based upon a notice of intent to cancel issued by the 
Administrator.
    The Committee is aware of bipartisan efforts in the 
Congress to introduce legislation to provide better public 
health protection from the threat of radon than the proposed 
Radon in Drinking Water Rule. The Committee strongly encourages 
EPA to work closely with the Congress in crafting this 
legislation and directs that final promulgation of a drinking 
water standard for radon be postponed until such legislation 
can be fully considered.
    Similarly, the Committee is concerned with the Agency's 
efforts to force a number of communities to mitigate for 
naturally occurring arsenic in their drinking water in excess 
of EPA's interim maximum containment level at the same time the 
Agency is pursuing new regulatory requirements to reduce the 
current standard to 5 parts per billion. The costs associated 
with having to mitigate this natural occurring substance twice 
is more than many of these communities can afford, and is not 
justified by any definitive health studies associated with the 
citizens located in any of these communities. The Committee 
therefore strongly urges the Agency to focus its efforts on 
developing its new rule and cease all actions relative to the 
enforcement on these communities of its interim requirements.
    The Committee is aware that a number of organizations 
including the National Academy of Sciences sponsored 
Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR), the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) have recognized that allowing certain 
flexibility within the academic laboratory research environment 
can potentially yield superior compliance while reducing 
regulatory burden. The Committee is also aware of a new 
collaborative initiative involving environmental health 
professionals and academic research scientists from 10 major 
academic research institutions and authorized state regulatory 
officials from each of the EPA regions in the country to 
establish consensus best practices for laboratory waste 
management. The Committee supports this approach for 
development of consensus best practices for the academic 
research laboratory and applauds the initiative's commitment to 
minimize the potential for harm to human health and the 
environment and to promote excellence in environmental 
stewardship, the basis of RCRA.
    The Committee strongly encourages the Administrator to 
participate in the initiative and to provide the maximum 
flexibility permissible under the regulatory provisions of 
RCRA, as appropriate, in support of the initiative. In 
addition, the Committee strongly encourages the Administrator 
to allow state agencies which have been delegated authority 
under RCRA to provide such regulatory flexibility, as 
appropriate, under the regulatory provisions of RCRA in support 
of the initiative.
    The Committee expects to receive within 12 months a report 
from the Administrator evaluating the consensus best practices 
developed through the initiative and the need for regulatory 
changes, if any, to carry out the recommendations of the 
initiative.
    In addition, the Committee encourages the Administrator to 
consider proposing regulatory changes within the statutory 
requirements of RCRA based on the consensus approach to best 
practices for academic research laboratory waste management 
developed under this initiative.
    The Committee has become aware of an effort being 
undertaken by the major state environmental and energy 
organizations to attempt to integrate energy and environmental 
policies, programs, and regulations. State and local groups 
have been meeting in an effort to develop strategies to reduce 
multiple pollutants, improve energy efficiency, and enhance 
reliability. Participants include the Environmental Council of 
the States, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Prevention 
Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control 
Officials, the National; Association of State Energy Officials, 
and the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
Commissioners. The Committee also understands that other state 
and local organizations have been involved in this effort. A 
meeting of state and local representatives was held on March 
23-24, 2000, with a larger meeting planned for September 24-27, 
2000. Such exercises are strongly supported by the Committee, 
and it is hoped that this effort will be an important step in 
harmonizing this country's energy and environment activities, 
including avoiding contradictory programs, duplicative 
activities, and related problems. The Committee encourages EPA 
as well as the Department of Energy to continue to cooperate 
with this important effort.
    Finally, the Committee notes that with the coming of the 
2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, many 
requirements for participation and financial support have and 
will continue to fall to the Committee. Several projects 
necessary to the success of the Games relative to programs of 
the Environmental Protection Agency are currently being 
considered by the Committee and have thus not been included in 
the bill presented for the consideration of the House. However, 
the Committee remains committed to fulfilling its obligations 
in this regard and expects to address the issue in conference 
with the Senate.
    The Committee recognizes the environmental benefits of 
robotic technology capable of inspecting for internal 
structural integrity and strongly encourages investment in the 
research necessary to allow for even greater environmental 
benefits through application of the technology to above-ground 
storage tanks, underground storage tanks, pipelines and other 
potential applications. The Committee also encourages 
development of the technology to permit its safety-certified 
application to not only tank inspection, but also tank 
cleaning, repair, maintenance and other potential applications.
    EPA's Office of Environmental Information is urged to 
develop a plan of action to facilitate federal and state 
efforts to develop and implement integrated information systems 
to improve environmental decisionmaking, reduce the burden on 
regulated entities and improve the reliability of information 
available to the public. Such systems should provide the 
capability to implement standard environment management 
functions such as permitting, compliance and enforcement. The 
Agency should develop an integrated information system for 
federal use that is compatible with the integrated State 
systems.
    The Committee recognizes that voluntary efforts to use non-
ozone depleting substances prior to the Clean Air Act mandate 
provides benefit to stratospheric ozone recovery. The Committee 
encourages EPA to develop a more comprehensive strategy to 
promote the benefits of ozone protection. In developing this 
strategy, EPA should consider increased public awareness, 
education, and outreach on the importance of ozone protection 
beyond those activities employed by EPA today and should design 
and support voluntary incentives that encourage the use of non-
ozone depleting substances.
    The Committee encourages the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to work more closely with the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of the 
Interior, and the Forest Service to develop a plan to mitigate 
environment degradation caused by illegal immigrants crossing 
into southeastern Arizona. This mitigation plan must be 
provided to the Committee by October 1, 2001.
    The Committee is concerned about the potential lack of 
sound environmental insurance coverage at solid waste 
landfills. Currently, federal guidelines require landfill 
operators to assume all costs of closing a landfill and 30 
years of post-closure care. A number of questions, however, 
have been raised about the adequacy and structure of existing 
financial assurance agreements covering landfill closure 
obligations, raising the possibility that the public could 
ultimately become liable for post-closure costs. The Committee, 
therefore, directs the Administrator to conduct a study of 
existing financial assurance agreements to determine if 
sufficient safeguards have been properly maintained and future 
liabilities minimized. The results of this study should be 
completed expeditiously and shared with the Committee as well 
as the public.
    The VA-HUD Conference Report for fiscal year 2000 expressed 
the Conferee's concern over EPA's NOx reduction program and the 
apparent inequities created by two conflicting actions: EPA's 
final rule on the 126 petitions and the D.C. Circuit Court 
issuing a stay of the NOx SIP Call Rule. The Conferees 
encouraged ``EPA to retain the linkage and refrain from 
implementing the Section 126 regulation until the NOx SIP Call 
litigation is complete.'' Unfortunately, EPA did not follow 
this recommendation and now individual businesses are faced 
with a Section 126 compliance deadline of May 2003 while both 
the NOx SIP Call Rule and the 126 Rule are still in litigation.
    The Committee would like to see these actions harmonized so 
that both state regulators and affected businesses would have 
input into the process and the air quality enhancements that 
should move forward on a businesslike basis. The Committee 
urges EPA to find an equitable way to work this out and to 
recognize that states should be the primary entities to control 
air pollution. States and businesses need and deserve a 
reasonable and harmonized amount of time in which to implement 
the NOx reduction requirements of each state.
    To that end, should the NOx SIP Call Rule and the 126 Rule 
be finally adjudicated and the court uphold these rules, the 
Committee strongly suggests that EPA conduct a rulemaking on 
the appropriate deadlines for the states to submit their SIPs 
and the appropriate deadlines for businesses to comply with 
both the SIP and the Section 126 Rule.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation \1\...................       $34,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        32,409,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        34,094,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        +1,591,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......           -94,000

\1\ Total does not include transfer of $11,500,000 from the Hazardous
  Substance Superfund account.

    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides EPA audit 
and investigative functions to identify and recommend 
corrective actions of management, program, and administrative 
deficiencies which create conditions for existing and potential 
instances of fraud, waste, or mismanagement. This account funds 
personnel compensation and benefits, travel, and expenses 
(excluding rent, utilities, and security costs) for the Office 
of Inspector General. The appropriation for the OIG is funded 
from two separate accounts: Office of Inspector General and 
Hazardous Substance Superfund.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends a total 
appropriation of $45,500,000 for the Office of Inspector 
General, an increase of $2,091,000 above last year's funding 
level and a decrease of $246,000 below the budget request. Of 
the amount provided, $11,500,000 shall be derived by transfer 
from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account.




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $23,931,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        62,600,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        23,931,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       -38,669,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    This activity provides for the design and construction of 
EPA-owned facilities as well as for the operations, 
maintenance, repair, extension, alteration, and improvement of 
facilities utilized by the agency. The funds are to be used to 
pay nationwide FTS charges, correct unsafe conditions, protect 
health and safety of employees and Agency visitors, and prevent 
serious deterioration of structures and equipment.
    The Committee is recommending $23,931,000, the budget 
request, for Buildings and Facilities. This funding level 
represents a decrease of $38,669,000 below the fiscal year 2000 
funding level. This recommendation provides for necessary 
maintenance and repair costs at Agency facilities and the 
ongoing renovation of EPA's new headquarters.

                     HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation \1\...................    $1,270,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     1,400,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request \2\...................     1,337,473,300
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........      -130,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -67,473,300

\1\ Appropriation does not include $130,000,000, the same as provided in
  FY2000, proposed in FY2001 for NIEHS and ATSDR in new, separate
  accounts.
\2\ Request does not include $112,526,700 for ATSDR and NIEHS, provided
  in a new, separate account in this bill.

    The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) program was 
established in 1980 by the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to clean up emergency 
hazardous materials, spills, and dangerous, uncontrolled, and/
or abandoned hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Amendments 
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) expanded the program 
substantially in 1986, authorizing approximately $8,500,000,000 
in revenues over five years. In 1990, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act extended the program's authorization through 
1994 for $5,100,000,000 with taxing authority through calendar 
year 1995.
    The Superfund program is operated by EPA subject to annual 
appropriations from a dedicated trust fund and from general 
revenues. Enforcement activities are used to identify and 
induce parties responsible for hazardous waste problems to 
undertake clean-up actions and pay for EPA oversight of those 
actions. In addition, responsible parties have been required to 
cover the cost of fund-financed removal and remedial actions 
undertaken at spills and waste sites by Federal and state 
agencies. Through transfers to the Office of Inspector General 
(OIG) and Science and Technology accounts, the OIG and the 
Office of Research and Development also receive funding from 
this account.
    For fiscal year 2001, $1,270,000,000 has been recommended 
by the Committee, a decrease of $130,000,000 below last year's 
funding level, and a decrease of $67,473,300 from the amount 
included in the budget request. However, the decrease below the 
fiscal 2000 level is due to the transfer of $130,000,000 from 
this account to create new, separate accounts for the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the National 
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Both agencies of 
the Department of Health and Human Services had previously been 
funded in the Hazardous Substance Superfund account.
    Bill language has been included which transfers $11,500,000 
from this account to the Office of Inspector General and 
$35,000,000 to the Science and Technology account. The 
Committee expects EPA to prioritize resources to the actual 
cleanup of sites on the National Priority List and, to the 
greatest extent possible, limit resources directed to 
administration, oversight, support, studies, design, 
investigations, monitoring, assessment, and evaluation.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
program level:
    $915,000,000 for Superfund response/cleanup actions. This 
level of funding includes $91,600,000, the budget request, for 
continued Brownfields activities.
    $140,000,000 for enforcement activities.
    $141,500,000 for management and support. This 
recommendation includes a transfer of $11,500,000 to the Office 
of Inspector General. Bill language is included which provides 
for this transfer.
    $35,000,000 for research and development activities, to be 
transferred to Science and Technology as proposed in the budget 
request.
    $28,500,000 for the Department of Justice.
    $10,000,000 for all other necessary, reimbursable 
interagency activities, including $650,000 for OSHA, $1,100,000 
for FEMA, $2,450,000 for NOAA, $4,800,000 for the Coast Guard, 
and $1,000,000 for the Department of the Interior.
    As noted above, funds previously provided through this 
account for the ATSDR and NIEHS programs have been provided 
through new, separate accounts created for these two programs 
of the Department of Health and Human Services.
    The Committee supports the national pilot worker training 
program which recruits and trains young persons who live near 
hazardous waste sites or in the communities at risk of exposure 
to contaminated properties for work in the environmental field. 
The Committee directs EPA to continue funding this effort in 
cooperation and collaboration with NIEHS. The research 
activities of NIEHS can compliment the training and operational 
activities of EPA in carrying out this program. Moreover, an 
expanded focus to Brownfield communities--identified as the 
growing number of contaminated or potentially contaminated 
vacant or abandoned industrial sites--is critical in order to 
actively engage and train the under-served populations that are 
the focus of this effort. While the number of National 
Priorities List sites is remaining fairly static, there is a 
growing need for continued assessment activities at Brownfield 
sites across the country.
    The Committee directs that the Agency continue to fund the 
hazardous substance research centers at a level of no less than 
$4,500,000. Similarly, the Committee continues to recognize the 
positive contributions of the SITE program and directs that no 
less than $6,500,000 be provided for this activity.
    The Committee supports efforts to identify cost-effective, 
innovative technology solutions for contamination problems such 
as Brownfields, sediments, and fuel oxygenates.
    In the conference reports accompanying the Appropriations 
Acts for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the conferees directed EPA 
not to initiate or order dredging or other invasive sediment 
remediation technologies currently under study by the National 
Academy of Sciences until the NAS study is complete and the 
results are appropriately considered by the Agency. The pending 
NAS study is addressing dredging, capping, source control, 
natural recovery, and disposal of contaminated sediments, and 
comparing the risks of each technology. The NAS expects to 
submit its report of this study at the end of September 2000. 
Accordingly, the Committee continues to direct that the Agency 
take no action to order the use of invasive remedial 
technologies until the NAS report has been completed and its 
findings incorporated into EPA decision-making processes. 
Exceptions are provided for voluntary agreements and for urgent 
cases where contaminated sediment poses a significant threat to 
public health.
    The Committee reaffirms that dredging and other sediment 
remediation actions should only be initiated where a 
comprehensive analysis of long and short-term health and 
environment impacts has been conducted as required by EPA's 
Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy, published in April 
1998.
    Once again the Committee believes that any reversal of the 
long-standing policy of the EPA to defer to the NRC for cleanup 
of NRC licensed sites is not a good use of public or private 
funds. The interaction of the EPA with the NRC, NRC licensees, 
and others with regard to sites being remediated under NRC 
regulatory requirements--when not specifically requested by the 
NRC--has created stakeholder concerns regarding the authority 
and finally of NRC licensing decisions, the duration and costs 
of site cleanup, and the potential future liability of parties 
associated with affected sites. However, the Committee 
recognizes that there may be circumstances at specific NRC 
licensed sites where the Agency's expertise may be of critical 
use of the NRC. In the interest of ensuring that sites do not 
face dual regulations, the Committee, in its previous report, 
strongly encouraged both agencies to enter into an MOU which 
clarifies the circumstances for EPA's involvement at NRC sites 
when requested by the NRC. The EPA and NRC were directed to 
report to the Committees on Appropriations no later than May 1, 
2000 on the status of the development of such an MOU. The 
Committee received notice from both agencies that there is no 
status in the development of a MOU as of May 1, 2000. The 
Committee believes that both agencies have not worked in good 
faith to resolve the problem of dual regulation by the federal 
government in NRC licensed site decomissioning. As this area is 
of interest to the Committee, to other agencies, and state 
governments, the Committee directs the Administrator undertake 
a review of EPA action on the MOU, the costs to the NRC 
licensees associated with duel regulation by EPA and NRC on 
site cleanup, the potential costs associated with listing these 
facilities on the NPL, and options for resolving this issue by 
regulation, litigation or legislation. The Administrator will 
submit this review prior to March 31, 2001.

              Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $79,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        70,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        72,096,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        +9,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......        +6,904,000


    Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by 
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, authorized 
the establishment of a response program for clean-up of 
releases from leaking underground storage tanks. Owners and 
operators of facilities with underground tanks must demonstrate 
financial responsibility and bear initial responsibility for 
clean-up. The Federal trust fund is funded through the 
imposition of a motor fuel tax of one-tenth of a cent per 
gallon, which generates approximately $170,000,000 per year. 
Most states also have their own leaking underground storage 
tank programs, including a separate trust fund or other funding 
mechanism, in place.
    The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund provides 
additional clean-up resources and may also be used to enforce 
necessary corrective actions and to recover costs expended from 
the Fund for clean-up activities. The underground storage tank 
response program is designed to operate primarily through 
cooperative agreements with states. However, funds are also 
used for grants to non-state entities including Indian tribes 
under Section 8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act. Per the budget request again this year, the Office of 
Inspector General will receive no funding by transfer from the 
trust fund through this appropriation.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has provided 
$79,000,000, an increase of $9,000,000 above last year's 
appropriated level and an increase of $6,904,000 above the 
budget request. The Committee intends that these additional 
funds be made available for efforts to mitigate leaking 
underground storage tank problems associated with the presence 
of MTBE.
    The Committee is aware of concerns expressed by several 
states that LUST funds not be used in a disproportionate manner 
for federal projects instead of state projects as anticipated 
by the authorizing statutes. The Committee concurs in this 
position of predominate use in the states and tribes and notes 
that its recommendation will allow for approximately 85% of the 
total appropriation to be used in the states and tribes.

                           Oil Spill Response

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $15,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        15,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        15,712,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......          -712,000


    This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act 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 clean-up and removal 
activities posing a threat to public health and the 
environment; conducting site inspections; providing for a means 
to achieve cleanup activities by private parties; reviewing 
containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency 
plans; and pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed clean-ups. 
Funds are provided through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 
which is composed of fees and collections made through 
provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the Comprehensive 
Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act, the Deepwater 
Port Act of 1974, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
Amendments of 1978, and the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act. Pursuant to law, the fund is managed by the United States 
Coast Guard.
    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
the same as that provided last fiscal year and a decrease of 
$712,000 from the budget request.

                   State and Tribal Assistance Grants




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $3,178,957,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     3,466,650,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     2,906,957,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........      -287,683,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......      +272,000,000


    The State and Tribal Assistance Grant account was created 
in fiscal year 1996 in an effort to consolidate programs, and 
provide grant funds for those programs, which are operated 
primarily by the states. This budget structure includes the 
Water Infrastructure/SRF account, which was intended to help 
eliminate municipal discharge of untreated or inadequately 
treated pollutants and thereby maintain or help restore this 
country's water to a swimmable and/or fishable quality, and 
miscellaneous categorical grant programs formerly included 
within the Abatement, Control and Compliance account.
    The largest portion of the STAG account is the State 
Revolving Funds (SRF). The Clean Water SRF funds water 
infrastructure grants, which for more than a decade have been 
made to municipal, inter-municipal, state, interstate agencies, 
and tribal governments to assist in financing the planning, 
design, and construction of wastewater facilities. This account 
also funds the Safe Drinking Water SRF as well as various grant 
programs to improve both air and water quality. Among these are 
non-point source grants under Section 319 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, Public Water System Supervision grants, 
Section 106 water quality grants, and Clean Air Act Section 
105/103 air and monitoring grants to the states, and other such 
grants utilized by the states, tribes, and others to meet 
Federal environmental statutory and regulatory requirements.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends a total of 
$3,176,957,000, a decrease of $289,683,000 below the current 
fiscal year spending level, and $270,000,000 above the level 
proposed in the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
program level:
    $1,200,000,000 for Clean Water State Revolving Funds.
    $825,000,000 for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
    $1,068,957,000, the budget request, for state and tribal 
program/categorical grants.
    $75,000,000 for high priority U.S./Mexico border projects.
    $8,000,000 for Alaska rural and Native Villages.
    The Committee has provided the full budget request for 
state and tribal program assistance/categorical grants; 
however, the Committee's recommendation includes an allocation 
different than that proposed in the budget submission for five 
specific programs. This recommendation includes categorical 
grants for the following programs: (1) air resource assistance 
to State, local and tribal governments under section 103 and 
105 of the Clean Air Act, as amended; (2) pesticides program 
implementation; (3) pesticides enforcement; (4) hazardous waste 
financial assistance; (5) lead grants; (6) pollution 
prevention; (7) toxic substances compliance; (8) underground 
storage tanks; (9) public water system supervision; (10) 
underground injection control; (11) wetlands program; (12) 
section 319 of FWPCA non-point source pollution grants, 
including programs formerly eligible under the section 314 
Clean Lakes program; (13) water pollution control agency 
resource supplementation under section 106 of FWPCA; (14) water 
quality cooperative agreements under section 104(b)(3) of FWPCA 
and; (15) Indians general assistance; (16) radon grants; and 
(17) enforcement and compliance assurance.
    For State and local air assistance grants, the Committee 
has provided $214,690,000, an increase of $11,000,000 above the 
budget request and $16,000,000 above the fiscal 2000 level.
    Section 106 pollution control grants have been provided 
$245,529,300, an increase of $85,000,000 above the budget 
request and $130,000,000 above last year's funding level. The 
Committee believes that an adequately funded section 106 
program is necessary for the states to meet the long-term needs 
of the TMDL program. The Committee has not included a 
legislative ``Rider'' proposed by the Administration to require 
a 40% cost share for this important grant program. Section 319 
non-point source pollution grants would receive $220,000,000, 
an increase of $20,000,000 above the 2000 funding level but a 
decrease of $30,000,000 below the budget request.
    No funds have been provided for the newly proposed matching 
grant program for the Great Lakes or for the information 
integration initiative. Similarly, severe budget restrictions 
have forced the Committee to recommend, without prejudice, that 
no fiscal year 2001 funding be made available at this time for 
the new Clean Air Partnership program.
    State and local air pollution control agencies have been 
facing a significant budget shortfall for many years. 
Accordingly, the Committee has increased grants to state and 
local air quality agencies under Section 105 of the Clean Air 
Act by $11,000,000 over the Administration's request for fiscal 
2001.
    The Subcommittee is concerned that EPA has been 
inappropriately setting aside and spending portions of Section 
105 air grants to support activities that were historically 
funded and should continue to be funded through EPA's own 
budget (i.e., not federal grant funds intended for state and 
local air agencies). In the fiscal 2001 budget, EPA was 
intending to use Section 105 grants to support training 
activities, an emission inventory improvement program and a 
heavy-duty truck and bus idling study, for example. These are 
very important activities that should be funded; however, the 
resources to support them should not be taken from state and 
local air grants.
    EPA's practice of setting aside and spending Section 105 
grants, rather than distributing them to state and local air 
agencies, is particularly troublesome because the Agency has 
decided to make these expenditures unilaterally. There are 
certainly instances in which it is expeditious for EPA to 
withhold grant funds from state and local agencies to be spent 
at the national level, including making equipment purchases on 
behalf of state and local air agencies or to pay for projects 
or activities that state and local agencies have decided to 
support collectively and for which it is administratively more 
advantageous to have EPA fund directly. However, the decision 
to withhold state and local grant funds for expenditure 
directly by EPA should only be made after conferring with state 
and local air agencies and obtaining their concurrence. This 
should be done only for activities that are the responsibility 
of state and local air agencies.
    In this fiscal year and in the future, the Committee 
directs EPA to fund activities such as those identified above 
(i.e., training, the emission inventory project, the heavy-duty 
bus and truck idling study), and similar activities that are 
federal responsibilities, from within the agency's own budget 
and to allow state and local agencies to use the funds that 
Congress has earmarked for the many important responsibilities 
facing them. Additionally, in fiscal 2001 and in the future, 
EPA should withhold state and local grant funds at the national 
level to pay for activities or programs only if such activities 
are efforts that will benefit state and local air agencies, if 
the activities are the responsibility of state and local air 
agencies and if state and local air agencies have provided 
their concurrence.
    Once again this year, bill language has been included to 
settle administrative actions taken against two communities 
relative to audits of construction grants which were issued and 
approved during the mid-1970's. In this regard, the Committee 
is aware that problems remain in the close-down of the title II 
Clean Water Act construction grant program, particularly in the 
final resolution of audits and grantee requests for review or 
waiver. In the interest of minimizing the need for additional 
administrative appeals, judicial review, and further 
legislative remedies, EPA is directed to resolve, equitably and 
as expeditiously as its resources will allow, grantee requests 
for review or waiver, audit resolutions, and appeals in 
accordance with the following guidelines:
          1. Once a grantee has made a prima facie case 
        establishing its entitlement to grant funding, the 
        burden of proof should be on EPA to deny such 
        entitlement;
          2. A prior affirmative determination favoring a 
        grantee made by the Corps of Engineers, a State agency, 
        or the EPA, should be accepted unless it is manifestly 
        contrary to applicable law. Upon request of a grantee, 
        any prior negative determination should be reviewed de 
        novo;
          3. All project costs should be reviewed, without 
        regard to whether such costs were previously claimed, 
        and shall be deemed eligible if based upon statute, 
        regulation, EPA or state program guidance, prior 
        decisions, or practice of EPA or a state agency or is 
        otherwise established according to law, when the 
        provision or practice relied upon by the grantee is 
        reasonably clear or adequately established;
          4. The Agency should not assess interest against, nor 
        seek payment from, a grantee until final resolution of 
        all administrative or judicial reviews or requests for 
        waiver, and should assess interest only if justified 
        under the principles set forth in Baltimore v. Browner; 
        and
          5. EPA should take all necessary actions to preserve 
        the availability of funds previously appropriated under 
        title II of the Clean Water Act, including section 206, 
        in an amount adequate to compensate grantees for their 
        grant funding entitlements upon final administrative or 
        judicial resolution of grantee requests for review or 
        grant entitlements as otherwise determined by a state 
        agency, the EPA, or the Congress.
    As was the case in the past three fiscal years, no 
reprogramming requests associated with States and Tribes 
applying for Partnership grants need to be submitted to the 
Committee for approval should such grants exceed the normal 
reprogramming limitations.
    The Committee remains concerned with EPA's chosen preferred 
alternative for constructing secondary treatment facilities at 
the USIWTP near San Diego. The Committee is aware of requests 
from EPA to raise the existing cap on construction spending at 
the IWTP in order to build 25 mdg of secondary ponds at the 
IWTP with previously appropriated monies in the Border 
Environmental Infrastructure Fund.
    The Committee is aware that significant concerns exist 
regarding the limited capacity of EPA's preferred alternative, 
the lack of available land on which future capacity could be 
constructed, and its inadequacy in addressing increasing future 
cross-border sewage flows in the region. The Committee is also 
aware of at least one private sector proposal to construct in 
Mexico similar secondary facilities which would also reclaim 
the water for use in Mexico, and would have considerably 
greater potential capacity more suited to the long term sewage 
treatment needs of the rapidly growing border region.
    The Committee believes that it would be in appropriate to 
lift the cap at this time, or to permit construction of a 
limited capacity secondary treatment facility at the IWTP which 
would not meet long term sewage treatment needs. The Committee 
urges EPA to continue working with the IBWC, the State 
Department, and its counterparts in Mexico to ascertain whether 
such a Mexico-based facility could become viable in a timely 
manner.
    The Committee acknowledges the need to resolve this 
situation and recognizes construction of a secondary treatment 
facility on United States soil may be necessary in the future. 
The Committee therefore will continue to monitor closely 
progress made in negotiations with all interested parties.

                   Executive Office of the President


                OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................        $5,150,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................         5,108,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................         5,201,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........           +42,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............           -51,000


    The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was 
created by the National Science and Technology Policy, 
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP advises the 
President and other agencies within the Executive Office on 
science and technology policies and coordinates research and 
development programs for the Federal Government.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,150,000 for 
fiscal year 2001, an increase of $42,000 above the fiscal year 
2000 appropriation and a decrease of $51,000 from the 
President's budget request.
    Public Law 105-261 transferred responsibility for satellite 
technology export licensing from the Department of Commerce to 
the Department of State as part of the International Traffic in 
Arms Regulations (ITAR). An unfortunate and unintended 
consequence of that move has been that university-based 
fundamental science and engineering research, widely 
disseminated and unclassified, has become subject to overly 
restrictive and inconsistent ITAR direction. The result has 
been critical delays in NASA-funded research projects and has 
forced some universities to forego participation in such 
projects. Such research traditionally has been excluded from 
export controls under the fundamental research exception. The 
Committee finds the current situation to be unacceptable and 
directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy Director, 
in consultation with the NASA Administrator and the Secretary 
of State, to expeditiously issue clarification of ITAR that 
ensures that university collaborations and exchanges vital to 
the continued success of federally-funded research are allowed 
to continue in a manner consistent with the long-standing 
fundamental research exception.

  COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................        $2,911,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................         2,816,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................         3,020,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........           +95,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......          -109,000


    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established 
by Congress under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA). The Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ), which 
provides professional and administrative staff for the Council, 
was established in the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 
1970. The Council on Environmental Policy has statutory 
responsibility under NEPA for environmental oversight of all 
Federal agencies and is to lead interagency decision-making of 
all environmental matters.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has recommended 
$2,911,000 for the CEQ and OEQ, an increase of $95,000 above 
last year's spending level and a decrease of $109,000 from the 
budget request. The Committee's proposed funding for CEQ will 
allow full cost of living increases for the current staff of 20 
FTEs as well as other necessary expense adjustments. The 
Committee directs that CEQs total staffing level not exceed 22 
FTEs at any time during the fiscal year.
    As in previous years, bill language is included which 
stipulates that, notwithstanding the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the CEQ can operate with one council member and 
that member shall be considered the chairman for purposes of 
conducting the business of the CEQ and OEQ.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation


                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $33,661,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        33,666,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        33,660,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........            -5,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......            +1,000


    Funding for the Office of the Inspector General at the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is provided pursuant to 
31 U.S.C. 1105(a)(25), which requires a separate appropriation 
account for appropriations for each Office of Inspector General 
of an establishment defined under section 11(2) of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978.
    The Committee recommendation, the same as the budget 
request, provides for the transfer of $33,661,000 from the Bank 
Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and the 
FSLIC Resolution Fund to finance the Office of Inspector 
General for fiscal year 2001.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency





Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $876,730,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     3,338,421,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     3,580,477,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........    -2,461,691,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......    -2,703,747,000


    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created 
by reorganization plan number 3 of 1978. The Agency carries out 
a wide range of program responsibilities for emergency planning 
and preparedness, disaster response and recovery, and hazard 
mitigation.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $876,730,000 
which represents a decrease of $2,461,691,000 from the fiscal 
year 2000 appropriation and a decrease of $2,703,747,000 from 
the 2001 budget request.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Agency must limit transfers of funds between 
programs and activities to not more than $500,000 without prior 
approval of the Committee. Further, no changes may be made to 
any account or program element if it is construed to be a 
change in policy. Any program or activity mentioned in this 
report shall be construed as the position of the Committee and 
should not be subject to any reductions or reprogrammings 
without prior approval of the Committee.

                            DISASTER RELIEF

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $300,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     2,768,009,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     2,909,220,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........    -2,468,009,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......    -2,609,220,000


    The Federal Emergency Management Agency has responsibility 
for administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating 
the Federal response in Presidentially declared disasters. 
Major activities under the disaster assistance program are 
human services which provides aid to families and individuals; 
infrastructure which supports the efforts of State and local 
governments to take emergency protective measures, clear debris 
and repair infrastructure damage; hazard mitigation which 
sponsors projects to diminish effects of future disasters; and 
disaster management, such as disaster field office staff and 
automated data processing support.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $300,000,000 
for disaster relief, a decrease of $2,609,220,000 from the 
budget request and a decrease of $2,468,009,000 compared to the 
fiscal year 2000 level. The amount recommended includes 
$300,000,000 in contingent emergency funding.
    The Committee recommendation includes provision for the 
transfer of $5,500,000 to ``Emergency Management Planning and 
Assistance'' for the consolidated emergency performance grant 
program and the Project Impact program. Also included is a 
transfer of $30,000,000 to the ``Flood Map Modernization Fund'' 
for flood map modernization activities. In addition, language 
is included which provides that up to $50,000,000 may be 
obligated for pre-disaster mitigation activities and repetitive 
loss buyouts following disaster declarations.

                        PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................                 0
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       $30,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -30,000,000


    The budget request for fiscal year 2001 proposes a new 
account for Pre-disaster Mitigation programs. In the past, this 
activity has been funded within the Emergency Management 
Planning and Assistance account. The Committee recommends no 
funding in this new account in fiscal year 2001. As in the 
past, the Committee believes this program should be administer 
as part of the Emergency Management and Planning Assistance 
account. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has also included 
authority within the ``Disaster Relief'' account to use 
disaster relief funding for pre-disaster mitigation activities.

            Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account

                            State Share Loan




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................        $1,295,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................         1,295,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................         1,678,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......          -383,000


                       Limitation on direct loans

                        Administrative expenses




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation...      ($19,000,000)           $420,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....       (25,000,000)            420,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request...       (25,000,000)            427,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000                  (0)                  0
 appropriation....................
Comparison with fiscal year 2001                  (0)             -7,000
 request..........................


    Beginning in 1992, loans made to States under the cost 
sharing provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act were funded in accordance with the 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The Disaster Assistance 
Direct Loan Program Account, which was established as a result 
of the Federal Credit Reform Act, records the subsidy costs 
associated with the direct loans obligated beginning in 1992 to 
the present, as well as administrative expenses of this 
program.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $1,295,000 
for the cost of State Share Loans, a decrease of $383,000 from 
the President's request and the same as provided in fiscal year 
2000. In addition, the Committee has provided $19,000,000 for 
the limitation on direct loans pursuant to Section 319 of the 
Stafford Act, as well $420,000 for administrative expenses of 
the program.

                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $190,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       179,950,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       221,024,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       +10,050,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -31,024,000


    This activity encompasses the salaries and expenses 
required to provided executive direction and administrative 
staff support for all agency programs in both the headquarters 
and field offices. The account funds both program support and 
executive direction activities.
    The bill includes $190,000,000 for salaries and expenses, a 
decrease of $31,024,000 from the budget request and an increase 
of $10,050,000 when compared to fiscal year 2000. The amount 
recommended by the Committee should be sufficient to fund all 
current employees with some modest growth for those areas where 
the agency's mission has been expanded.

                      Office of Inspector General




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................        $8,015,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................         7,965,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................         8,476,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........           +50,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......          -461,000


    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established 
administratively within FEMA at the time of the Agency's 
creation in 1979. Through a program of audits, investigations 
and inspections, the OIG seeks to prevent and detect fraud and 
abuse and promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the 
Agency's programs and operations. Although not originally 
established by law, FEMA's OIG was formed and designed to 
operate in accordance with the intent and purpose of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978. The Inspector General Act 
Amendments of 1988 created a statutory Inspector General within 
FEMA.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $8,015,000 for the Office of Inspector 
General, an increase of $50,000 above the fiscal year 2000 
appropriation and a decrease of $461,000 from the fiscal year 
2001 budget request.

              Emergency Management Planning and Assistance




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $267,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       266,782,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       269,652,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........          +218,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......        -2,652,000


    This appropriation provides program resources for the 
majority of FEMA's ``core'' activities, including, response and 
recovery; preparedness, training and exercises; mitigation 
programs, fire prevention and training; information technology 
services; operations support; and executive direction. Costs 
for the floodplain management component are borne by 
policyholders and reimbursed from the National Flood Insurance 
Fund.
    The Committee recommends a fiscal year 2001 appropriation 
of $267,000,000, an increase of $218,000 to the fiscal year 
2000 level and a decrease of $2,652,000 to the fiscal year 2001 
budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends a 
transfer of $5,500,000 from the Disaster Relief account to 
consist of $2,900,000 for the consolidated emergency 
performance grants program and $2,600,000 for administration of 
Project Impact programs.
    The budget request included a new account for pre-disaster 
mitigation at a value of $30,000,000. The Committee does not 
agree that the new account is required and instead believes the 
program should be administered as part of the EMPA account. The 
Committee has included authority for FEMA to use funds from the 
Disaster Relief account for pre-disaster mitigation purposes. 
This funding will continue the Project Impact program which 
leverages local government and private funding to encourage 
communities across the country to become disaster resistant. 
The Committee encourages FEMA's continued support to those 
communities which have received support in the past to ensure 
the initiative has a long term effect on reducing disaster 
costs.
    The Committee is pleased that the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency has worked closely with the International 
Hurricane Center at Florida International University in the 
development of a Windstorm Simulation and Modeling Program. The 
Committee urges FEMA to continue this effort, including such 
activities as improved flood and surge models, significantly 
more accurate flood mapping using airborne laser technology, 
the development of improved emergency management and mitigation 
tools and other measures. The ultimate benefit of this effort 
will be to reduce property damage and threats to human life 
from hurricanes and other severe windstorms.
    The Committee notes that FEMA has published an Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on insurance requirements for 
public assistance. The Committee remains concerned that 
requiring insurance as a condition of receiving public 
assistance exceeds FEMA's statutory authority, discourages 
attempts to mitigate damage before it occurs, assumes a 
fundamental misunderstanding of the insurance market, and 
merely shifts the costs of disasters from the federal 
government to states, municipalities, and private non-profit 
hospitals and universities. In addition, the Committee notes 
that denying disaster assistance to underinsured or uninsured 
entities that suffer catastrophic losses as a result of a 
disaster could result in significant consequential losses of 
public services, medical care, and education. The Committee 
urges FEMA to complete a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the 
proposed rule and conduct extensive outreach with potentially 
affected entities.

                Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fund

    The fiscal year 1999 bill included language establishing 
the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fund. The Committee 
recommendation includes continuation of this Fund in fiscal 
year 2001.

                   Emergency Food and Shelter Program




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $110,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       110,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       140,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       -30,000,000


    The Emergency Food and Shelter Program within the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency originated in the 1983 Emergency 
Jobs legislation. Minor modifications were incorporated in the 
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. The program is 
designed to help address the problems of the hungry and 
homeless. Appropriated funds are awarded to a National Board to 
carry out programs for sheltering and feeding the needy. This 
program is nationwide in scope and provides such assistance 
through local private voluntary organizations and units of 
government selected by local boards in areas designated by the 
National Board as being in highest need.
    The Committee has recommended $110,000,000 for the 
Emergency Food and Shelter Program, the same as provided in 
fiscal year 2000 and $30,000,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee continues to believe this is a well run and very 
worthwhile program and acknowledges and appreciates the support 
and commitment to the program by many religious and charity 
organizations.
    Once again this year, bill language is included which 
limits administrative costs to 3.5% for fiscal year 2001.

                      FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND

                          (Transfer of Funds)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $30,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................         5,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       +25,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......       +30,000,000


    In fiscal year 2000 FEMA proposed and the Congress 
established a Flood Map Modernization Fund through which 
appropriations and contributions from State and local 
governments would flow. The objective of the Fund is to 
establish a mechanism through which a comprehensive flood map 
modernization program can be financed. The Committee notes that 
the proposal to replenish the Fund through the establishment of 
a flood map license fee has not yet been enacted. In 
recognition of the need to update flood map, the Committee 
recommends using a portion of disaster relief funding for this 
purpose, with the expected result being the long term reduction 
in losses caused by structures being placed in flood-prone 
areas.
    The Committee believes FEMA should prioritize its Flood Map 
Modernization activities to achieve the highest payoff for the 
investment. To this end, the Committee recommends that emphasis 
first be placed on initiating flood studies leading to map 
panels for communities with unstudied and unmapped flood 
hazards. Likewise, the Committee believes that the process of 
converting existing map panels to a digital format for use by 
the general population should be a lower priority since the 
payoff for this investment would be marginal at best. Due to 
their extensive experience in similar areas, FEMA is encouraged 
to work with multi-jurisdictional regional planning and 
development organizations that serve general units of local 
government.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

                          (TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

    The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires the 
purchase of insurance in communities where it is available as a 
condition for receiving various forms of Federal financial 
assistance for acquisition and construction of buildings or 
projects within special flood hazard areas identified by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. All existing buildings and 
their contents in communities where flood insurance is 
available, through either the emergency or regular program, are 
eligible for a first layer of coverage of subsidized premium 
rates.
    Full risk actuarial rates are charged for new construction 
or substantial improvements commenced in identified special 
flood hazard areas after December 31, 1974, or after the 
effective date of the flood insurance rate map issued to the 
community, whichever is later. For communities in the regular 
program, a second layer of flood insurance coverage is 
available at actuarial rates on all properties, and actuarial 
rates for both layers apply to all new construction or 
substantial improvements located in special flood hazard areas. 
The program operations are financed with premium income 
augmented by Treasury borrowings.
    The Committee has included bill language proposed in the 
budget request for salaries and expenses to administer the 
fund, not to exceed $25,736,000, and for mitigation activities, 
not to exceed $77,307,000. Also included is a limitation of 
$20,000,000 for expenses under Section 1366 of the National 
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, which shall be 
available for transfer to the National Flood Mitigation Fund.
    The Committee is aware that authorization to write new 
policies during fiscal year 2001 does not currently exist. The 
Committee has included bill language which extends this 
authority for fiscal year 2001.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND

                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $20,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        20,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        20,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriations.......                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    The budget request includes a program to address the issue 
of repetitive loss properties within the National Flood 
Insurance Program. This program targets properties with a high 
incidence of repetitive losses, and offer removal or elevation 
of structures with the goal of significantly reducing the 
future costs of the National Flood Insurance Fund. The 
Committee recommends $20,000,000 for this effort in fiscal year 
2001, to be derived by transfer from the National Flood 
Insurance Program.

                    General Services Administration


                  FEDERAL CONSUMER INFORMATION CENTER




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................        $7,122,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................         2,622,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................         6,822,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        +4,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............          +300,000


    The Consumer Information Center (CIC) was established 
within the General Services Administration (GSA) by Executive 
Order on October 26, 1970, to help Federal departments and 
agencies promote and distribute consumer information collected 
as a byproduct of the Government's program activities.
    On January 28, 2000, the Consumer Information Center 
assumed responsibility for the operations of the Federal 
Information Center (FIC) program with the resulting 
organization being officially named the Federal Consumer 
Information Center (FCIC). The FIC program was established 
within the General Services Administration in 1966, and was 
formalized by Public Law 95-491 in 1980. The program's purpose 
is to provide the public with direct information about all 
aspects of Federal programs, regulations, and services. To 
accomplish this mission, the FIC uses contractual services to 
respond to public inquiries via a nationwide toll-free 
telephone call center. The FIC was previously funded by the 
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act.
    The new Federal Consumer Information Center combines the 
nationwide toll-free telephone assistance program and the 
database of the FIC with the CIC website and publications 
distribution programs. The FCIC is a one-stop source for 
citizens to get information about government programs and 
everyday consumer issues.
    In fiscal year 2001, the FCIC program expects to respond to 
2.7 million phone calls, distribute approximately 5,600,000 
publications, and receive 13.5 million web accesses. This 
represents delivery of a total of 21.8 million information 
products to the public.
    Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a 
revolving fund for the FCIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities 
are financed from the following: annual appropriations from the 
general revenues of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies 
for distribution of publications, user fees collected from the 
public, and any other income incident to FCIC activities. All 
are available as authorized in appropriation acts without 
regard to fiscal year limitations.
    The Committee recommends $7,122,000 for the Federal 
Consumer Information Center. This reflects an increase of 
$300,000 from the fiscal year 2001 budget request and is 
necessary to bring FCIC's annual income more in balance with 
its administrative expenses and to shore up the FCIC Fund 
balance.
    The bill includes a limitation of $12,000,000 on the 
availability of the revolving fund. Any revenues accruing to 
this fund during fiscal year 2001 in excess of this amount 
shall remain in the fund and are not available for expenditure 
except as authorized in appropriations Acts. Despite FCIC's 
actions to reduce costs, fixed expenses have continued to 
increase while the appropriation has remained stable and other 
funding sources, such as users fees, have declined due to the 
reduction in the public's demand for printed publications. This 
has resulted in a projected Fund balance of $291,000 at the end 
of fiscal year 2001, an amount insufficient to offset 
administrative expenses in future years.
    The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, 
user fees from the public, and other income. FCIC's anticipated 
obligations for fiscal year 2001 will total approximately 
$10,927,000.
    The Committee supports the recommendation by the General 
Services Administration (GSA) that the Director of the Federal 
Consumer Information Center is of executive level and deserves 
the SES designation. The additional responsibilities added as a 
result of the merger of FIC and CIC make the SES position even 
more imperative. Therefore, the Committee directs GSA to 
allocate one SES position from its allotment immediately for 
the Director of the Federal Consumer Information Center 
regardless of whether OPM provides an additional slot to GSA 
for this purpose. The Committee is aware that GSA currently has 
vacancies within the current allocation of SES slots and could 
request an additional SES slot from OPM for its next allocation 
if all SES positions are filled in the future.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration





Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................   $13,713,600,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................    13,600,819,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................    14,035,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........      +112,781,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............      -321,700,000


    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was 
created by the National Space Act of 1958. NASA conducts space 
and aeronautics research, development, and flight activity 
designed to ensure and maintain U.S. preeminence in space and 
aeronautical endeavors.
    The Committee has recommended a total program level of 
$13,713,600,000 in fiscal year 2001, which is a decrease of 
$321,700,000 from the budget request and an increase of 
$112,781,000 compared to the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
appropriation.
    The Committee has included a general provision in the bill 
which prohibits the expenditure of funds for joint NASA and Air 
Force research programs. The Committee directs NASA to 
terminate all joint aeronautics and space related research 
programs with the United States Air Force. In addition, the 
Committee directs NASA to terminate participation with the AF-
NASA Council on Aeronautics and the AFSPC-NRO-NASA Partnership 
Council.
    The Committee is aware of continuing concerns within the 
research community about NASA support for Research and Analysis 
(R&A) activities.
    The Research and Analysis program contributes directly to 
NASA's mandate to engage in effective science and provides the 
clear scientific goals and questions which define our nation's 
space exploration missions. The Committee is concerned that 
shortfalls in R&A degrade the public return from more visible 
and expensive flight programs, while diminishing science 
capability, flexibility and overall competitiveness within 
space science and technology fields Program support costs and 
internal ``taxes'' are also eroding the very marginal increases 
in these accounts.
    The 1998 National Research Council Report ``supporting 
Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs,'' 
offered significant new findings and important recommendations 
for strengthening this activity as well as Data Analysis (DA) 
programs. These recommendations have not been enthusiastically 
embraced by NASA despite their clear potential for improving 
the effectiveness of NASA's flight programs, and for supporting 
and exploiting the innovative strengths in science and 
technology found in academia and industry. These activities are 
the least costly phase of space exploration.
    Therefore, the Committee directs NASA to conduct a joint 
study with the National Research Council and the National 
Academy of Public Administration on the health and resilience 
of R&A and DA. The study shall include: a review of the status 
in implementing all six recommendations contained in the 1998 
NRC report, barriers to implementation, and specific guidance 
on optimal funding levels for R&A and DA. The Committee 
believes a review of the 1998 study will benefit from NAPA's 
involvement. In particular, NAPA will have a beneficial role in 
guiding a cost-benefit review of the optimal balance between 
flight programs and the R&A and DA programs, and measuring the 
effectiveness of management and strategic planning for R&A and 
DA activities. Preliminary findings from the study be submitted 
to the Committees on Appropriations no later than March 30, 
2001.

                           HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $5,499,900,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     5,487,900,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     5,499,900,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       +12,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............                 0


    This appropriation provides for human space flight 
activities, including development of the international space 
station andoperation of the space shuttle. This account also 
includes support of planned cooperative activities with Russia, 
upgrades to the performance and safety of the space shuttle, and 
required construction projects in direct support of the space station 
and space shuttle programs.
    The Committee recommends a total of $5,499,900,000 for the 
human space flight account in fiscal year 2001. The 
recommendation is the same as the budget request and 
$12,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
appropriation.
    The conference report accompanying the FY 2000 
appropriations bill for NASA included a requirement that NASA 
develop and deliver to the Committees on Appropriations a 
comprehensive plan for Space Shuttle upgrades. The Committee is 
pleased that NASA completed the report and provided it to the 
Committee in a timely manner and that NASA has supported the 
recommendations of the plan by requesting a total of $256 
million in the budget for fiscal year 2001. The Committee 
recommendation includes full funding of the budget request for 
Shuttle Upgrades and encourages NASA to move forward in an 
expeditious manner to accomplish the goals outlined in the 
report.

                  SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $5,606,700,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     5,580,895,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     5,929,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       +25,805,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............      -322,700,000


    This appropriation provides for the research and 
development activities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. These activities include: space science, life 
and microgravity science, earth sciences, aero-space 
technology, advanced concepts and technology, space operations, 
and academic programs. Funds are also included for the 
construction, maintenance, and operation of programmatic 
facilities.
    The Committee recommends $5,606,700,000 for Science, 
Aeronautics and Technology in fiscal year 2001. The amount 
recommended is $322,700,000 below the budget request and 
$25,805,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2000.
    The budget request for Space Science is $2,398,800,000. The 
Committee recommends a funding level of $2,378,800,000, a 
reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
notes that the ``Living with a Star'' program is a new start in 
fiscal year 2001, and while the cost is initially quite low, 
the costs escalate rapidly to $64,000,000 in 2002 and balloon 
to $177,000,000 by 2005. The Committee is concerned with the 
manner in which NASA is administering the program and believes 
the NASA Inspector General should review the program at this 
time to ensure that contract awards are made only after full 
and open competition. Pending completion of this review, the 
Committee recommends no funding for the program in fiscal year 
2001.
    The budget request for Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
Applications is $304,000,000. The Committee recommends a 
funding level of $329,000,000, an increase of $25,000,000 to 
the budget request. The increase is for NASA to fund ground-
based investigators to prepare for space flight opportunities, 
particularly in the area of life sciences. The Committee has 
previously expressed concern for a lack of dedicated life and 
microgravity research missions being flown on shuttle during 
assembly of the International Space Station. The lack of 
manifested flight opportunities, along with schedule delays in 
station assembly, is making research flight opportunities both 
unpredictable and unreliable. The lack of flight opportunities 
is not only leading to a backlog of critical research, but is 
also having harmful effects on the long-term health of the 
academic and commercial communities who are intended to be the 
primary users of the space station.
    The Committee therefore directs NASA to submit a report to 
Congress by January 15, 2001, detailing the planned life and 
microgravity research opportunities in the shuttle manifest, 
beginning after the flight of STS-107 and extending until the 
space station reaches its full research capability. The 
Committee directs NASA to include as part of this report (1) 
any changes in the original schedule for development of 
research capabilities onboard the station, including the 
expected date for attaining full research capability, and (2) a 
plan for manifesting dedicated Shuttle research missions in 
order to increase and stabilize life and microgravity research 
flight opportunities during ISS assembly.
    The Committee also encourages NASA to work closely with the 
academic and commercial sectors to further reduce the lead-time 
necessary for scheduling a research experiment for a shuttle 
flight opportunity, while maintaining mission safety 
requirements.
    The Committee recommendation for Earth Sciences is 
$1,405,800,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee 
is aware of the need for NASA to obtain global wind profile 
data to improve the understanding of the climate. The Committee 
encourages NASA to obtain this data through purchase from 
commercial sources.
    The budget request for Aero-Space Technology is 
$1,193,000,000. The Committee recommends a funding level of 
$859,000,000, a net reduction of $333,100,000 from the budget 
request. The Committee is concerned about NASA's commitment to 
long-term aeronautics research and development programs and the 
effect the declining funding will have on NASA's ability to 
provide high-risk technology advances for safer, cleaner, 
quieter, and more affordable air travel. In order to help 
reverse the trend of the last three years, during which funding 
for civil aircraft programs has been substantially reduced, the 
Committee recommendation includes an increase of $15,000,000 
for the Ultra Efficient Engine Technology program, resulting in 
a total funding level of $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. The 
Committee recommendation does not include the budget request of 
$9,000,000 for the Small Air Transport System initiative, a new 
start for fiscal year 2001. However, the Committee recognizes 
the validity of the program and will evaluate the merits of 
this program should further funding become available. Likewise, 
the Committee is concerned that NASA has taken on the mantel of 
building more efficient airports which is more appropriately 
the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration. For this 
reason, the Committee recommends a reduction of $49,100,000 to 
the budget request for the Aviation System Capacity program. 
Finally, the Committee is unable to fund the entire Space 
Launch Initiative, a new start in fiscal year 2001, and 
recommends a reduction of $290,000,000. The Committee is 
supportive of NASA's efforts to reduce the cost of access to 
space for the government, academic, and commercial sectors. In 
particular, the Committee feels the Alternative Access 
proposals hold promise for decreasing dependence on the limited 
means currently available to resupply the International Space 
Station. The Committee commends NASA for developing this 
program and the entire Space Launch Initiative as a way to 
reduce space access cost and bring new participants into the 
space launch business. However, the Committee is unable to 
accommodate funding for the initiatives at this time. The 
Committee will continue to monitor the proposals and may be 
able to address the issue prior to final enactment of the 
bill.The Committee commends the collaboration between Wright 
Patterson Air Force Base and NASA Glenn on polymer battery 
technology research and recommends continued funding for the 
Polymer Energy Rechargeable System in fiscal year 2001.
    The Committee recommends $529,400,000 for Space Operations, 
the same as the budget request.
    The budget request for Academic Programs is $100,000,000. 
The Committee recommends $105,400,000 for fiscal year 2001, an 
increase of $5,400,000 for the EPSCoR program to raise the 
level to $10,000,000, the same as provided in fiscal years 1999 
and 2000.
    The committee is aware that the NASA Sounding Rocket 
Operations Contract (NSROC) competitive subcontract procurement 
for rocket systems now underway requires any new rocket system 
to be privately developed, and that at least one such new 
rocket system has been formally proposed in response to this 
procurement solicitation. The committee has supported private 
development of U.S. launch capabilities as a way to strengthen 
the U.S. launch industry and help introduce increased 
efficiency into NASA's suborbital rocket program. The committee 
is disturbed to learn that the NSROC contractor, with NASA 
approval and with the planned use of appropriated funding, may 
now be considering funding development of a new, non-U.S. 
sounding rocket system when it has been demonstrated there is 
interest in a suitable privately developed rocket system by one 
or more companies in the United States. Further, government 
funding for development of any new rocket system is 
inconsistent with current U.S. commercial launch policy, which 
clearly states that the government must purchase transportation 
services from U.S. commercial providers when they are 
available. Given the Committee's interest and progress to date 
in pursuing privately funded sounding rockets, NASA is directed 
to utilize a privately developed rocket system and may not 
expend any appropriated funds for development or improvement of 
any other competing rocket system on a ``cost reimbursable'' 
basis when a privately developed rocket system is available and 
meets government requirements.

                            MISSION SUPPORT




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $2,584,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     2,512,024,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     2,584,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       +71,976,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............                 0


    The appropriation provides for mission support, including: 
safety, reliability, and quality assurance activities 
supporting agency programs; space communication 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 
operational activities supporting the conduct of agency 
programs.
    The Committee recommends a total of $2,584,000,000 for the 
mission support account. The recommended amount is $71,976,000 
above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation and the same as the 
budget request.
    The Committee continues its prohibition on the use of funds 
appropriated or otherwise made available to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration by this Act, or any other 
Act enacted before the date of enactment of this Act, by the 
Administrator of NASA to relocate aircraft of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration based east of the 
Mississippi River to the Dryden Flight Research Center in 
California.
    The Committee is aware of the significant cost savings, 
flexibility, and increased efficiency which have accrued in the 
private corporate sector through the utilization of fractional 
ownership of business aircraft. Fractional ownership provides 
access to an entire fleet of aircraft, as well as the 
availability of a mix of aircraft types and sizes, all on very 
short notice. The Committee believes that fractional ownership 
of administrative aircraft could prove extremely beneficial for 
NASA in reducing costs and overcoming the inefficiencies of the 
administrative support aircraft currently owned and operated by 
NASA. Therefore, the Committee directs NASA to establish a two-
year test program of fractional ownership for aircraft it uses 
for administrative support requirements to determine the 
flexibility, efficiency, and cost benefits for the government.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $23,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        20,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        22,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +3,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............        +1,000,000


    The Office of the Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for audit and 
investigation of all agency programs.
    The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for the Office of the 
Inspector General in fiscal year 2001, an increase of 
$3,000,000 to the amount provided in fiscal year 2000 and an 
increase of $1,000,000 to the budget request for fiscal year 
2001.

                       Administrative Provisions

    The bill includes three administrative provisions as 
proposed in the budget, and carried in prior appropriations 
acts.

                  National Credit Union Administration


                       CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Limitation on
                                                         Limitation on      administrative      Revolving loan
                                                         direct loans          expenses             program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.....................      $3,000,000,000            $296,303          $1,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation......................      18,600,000,000             257,000           1,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.....................      20,700,000,000             257,000           1,000,000
Comparison with 2000 appropriation..................     -15,600,000,000             +39,303                   0
Comparison with 2001 request........................     -17,100,000,000                   0                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act 
established the National Credit Union Administration Central 
Liquidity Facility (CLF) on October 1, 1979, as a mixed-
ownership government corporation within the National Credit 
Union Administration. It is managed by the National Credit 
Union Administration and is owned by its member credit unions. 
Loans may not be used to expand a loan portfolio, but are 
authorized to meet short-term requirements such as emergency 
outflows from managerial difficulties, seasonal credit, and 
protracted adjustment credit for long-term needs caused by 
disintermediation or regional economic decline.
    In the fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriation Act, the Committee increased the limitation on 
new loans to $18,600,000,000 in order to address concerns about 
Y2K liquidity demands. Preliminary findings by GAO suggest that 
although the CLF was used to address liquidity demands in 
preparation for Y2K, these demands were not necessarily 
``emergency demands''. The Committee is concerned that the use 
of CLF funds has expanded beyond Congressional intent and 
beyond the scope explicitly stated in budget material and 
hearing testimony. Moreover, daily demand for loans from CLF 
never exceeded $159,000,000. Most CLF lending was funded from 
CLF's own resources and credit unions also borrowed funds from 
the Federal Reserve discount window. CLF used $49,200,000 in 
borrowed funds from the Federal Financing Bank only once, for a 
three-day period. While data provided by GAO does not recommend 
or suggest an alternative limitation level, the Committee finds 
that the $600,000,000 borrowing limitation, which has remained 
unchanged since 1980, may prove inadequate to address and 
emergency liquidity need. The Committee also recognizes that 
there is no precise formula available to determine how much 
liquidity might be required by credit unions in the event of an 
unanticipated economic downturn. The current state of the 
credit union industry is strong and continues to grow making it 
more difficult to prepare for an emergency situation. The 
Committee recommends a limitation of $2,000,000,000 on CLF 
lending activity to member credit unions from borrowed funds.
    While the limitation has been raised to address concerns 
about the adequacy of funds available during an emergency 
liquidity drain, the Committee does not support the use of CLF 
funds to indirectly enhance a member credit union portfolio. 
The CLF was originally created to serve as a lender of last 
resort for credit unions as these institutions did not have 
access to the Federal Reserve's discount window prior to the 
creation of the CLF. The current function of the CLF is to 
serve as an intermediary lender and should be utilized when all 
other sources of liquidity have been exhausted with the 
exception of the Federal Reserve discount window.
    Since 1980, credit unions that maintain transaction 
accounts or accept certain other specified types of deposits 
qualify for the Federal Reserve discount window. Currently, 62% 
of credit unions meet the criteria for accessing the Federal 
Reserve discount window. Because of the large growth and 
changes within the credit union industry, the CLF may require 
changes to its authorizing statute. For this reasons, the 
Committee strongly urges the authorizing committee to 
investigate the current purpose for the CLF and make changes to 
the authorizing statute as appropriate. The Committee looks 
forward to working with the authorizing committee toward this 
end.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $296,303 for 
administrative expenses, and increase of $39,303 above the 
fiscal year 2000 appropriation. Additionally the Committee 
recommends that $1,000,000 be transferred to the Community 
Development Revolving Loan Fund of which $650,000 is provided 
for loans to community development credit unions and $350,000 
is provided specifically to fund the technical assistance grant 
program. The technical assistance grant program provides 
assistance to credit unions serving low-income and undeserved 
communities. Technical assistance grants would be available to 
low-income designated credit unions and those credit unions 
that expand service to low-income communities or investment 
areas. The purpose of these awards is to strengthen these 
credit unions by funding the following activities; improved 
technology and service delivery systems; economic development; 
consumer and entrepreneurial education; microenterprise 
business development; employment opportunities through 
community business development; and credit union infrastructure 
and staff development.
    The Committee recognizes that the Community Development 
Revolving Loan Fund was originally established to stimulate 
economic development in low-income communities. The total Fund 
balance is currently $11,700,000, and technical assistance 
grants are currently funded from interest accrued from Fund 
loans. The demand for technical assistance has greatly 
surpassed available funding.
    The National Credit Union Administration is required to 
provide the Committees on Appropriations a detailed budget 
estimate of the costs associated with each activity of the 
community Development Revolving Loan Fund as part of the Budget 
Justifications. For fiscal year 2001, NCUA shall transmit this 
information to the Committee by November 1, 2000 for 30 days of 
review.

                      National Science Foundation





Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $4,064,300,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     3,897,184,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     4,572,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........      +167,116,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............      -508,100,000


    Established in 1950 and receiving its first appropriation 
of $225,000 in 1951, the National Science Foundation celebrates 
its 50th anniversary as an important, highly regarded federal 
agency during fiscal year 2001. The primary purpose behind its 
creation was to develop a national policy on science, and 
support and promote basic research and education in the 
sciences filling the void left after World War II. Since its 
first appropriation in 1951, NSF has grown to what in fiscal 
2001 will be a multi-billion dollar agency.
    The Committee recommends a total of $4,064,300,000 for 
fiscal year 2001. This recommendation is an increase of 
$167,116,000 above last year's appropriation and a decrease of 
$508,100,000 below the President's budget request.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Foundation must limit transfers of funds between 
programs and activities to not more than $500,000 without prior 
approval of the Committee. Further, no changes may be made to 
any account or program element if it is construed to be policy 
or a change in policy. Any activity or program cited in this 
report shall be construed as the position of the Committee and 
should not besubject to reductions or reprogramming without 
prior approval of the Committee. Finally, it is the intent of the 
Committee that all carryover funds in the various appropriations 
accounts are subject to the normal reprogramming requirements outlined 
above.

                    Research and Related Activities




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................    $3,135,690,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................     2,966,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................     3,540,680,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........      +169,690,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............      -404,990,000


    The appropriation for Research and Related Activities 
covers all programs in the Foundation except Education and 
Human Resources, Salaries and Expenses, NSF Headquarters 
Relocation, Major Research Equipment, and the Office of 
Inspector General. These are funded in other accounts in the 
bill. The Research and Related Activities appropriation 
includes United States Polar Research Programs and Antarctic 
Logistical Support Activities and the Critical Technologies 
Institute, which were previously funded through separate 
appropriations. Beginning with fiscal year 1997, the 
President's budget provided funding for the instrumentation 
portion of Academic Research Infrastructure in this account.
    The Committee recommends a total of $3,135,690,000 for 
Research and Related Activities in fiscal year 2001, an 
increase of $169,690,000 above last year's funding level and a 
decrease of $404,990,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee's recommendation includes the following program 
levels: (1) Biological Sciences, $449,930,000; (2) Computer and 
Information Science and Engineering, $439,420,000; (3) 
Engineering, $411,040,000; (4) Geosciences, $523,800,000; (5) 
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, $802,130,000; (6) Social 
Behavioral and Economic Sciences, $157,640,000; (7) U.S. Polar 
Research Programs, $201,900,000; (8) U.S. Antarctic Logistical 
Support Activities, $62,600,000; and (9) Integrative 
Activities, $87,230,000.
    The Committee's recommendation has been developed using the 
same percentage increase for each directorate as that proposed 
in the budget submission. In its distribution of funds within 
each directorate, the Foundation is directed to provide each 
program, project, and activity the same percentage as that 
proposed in the budget request.
    Although acknowledging the funding flexibility afforded the 
Foundation through its use of the Opportunity Fund, budget 
constraints have forced the Committee to again this year 
recommend no funding for this activity within the Integrative 
Activities funding line. Should the NSF find it necessary to 
pursue funds for ``emergency'' research needs at any time 
during the fiscal year, the Committee will make every effort to 
respond to appropriate reprogramming requests as quickly as 
possible.
    The NSF is commended on the NSB report, ``Environmental 
Science and Engineering for the 21st Century: the Role of the 
National Science Foundation,'' and encourages the Foundation to 
consider incorporating the recommendations of that report in 
its fiscal 2002 budget submission.
    The Committee is concerned with the lack of research 
addressing linkages between human health and the world's 
oceans. Marine systems and processes impact public health in a 
variety of ways included natural disasters, waterbone diseases, 
and toxic algal blooms. The report by the National Research 
Council, ``Monsoons to Microbes: Understanding the Oceans Role 
in Human Health,'' describes a broad spectrum of 
interdisciplinary research that would lead to a better 
understanding of the role of oceans in human health. The 
Committee urges the NSF to work with the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences and other relevant agencies and 
research institutions to examine this report and identify 
specific areas of cooperation that should be jointly pursued to 
more fully understand and mitigate the impacts of the oceans on 
public health, particularly in the areas of lessening the human 
consequences of natural disasters, minimizing the outbreak and 
spread of epidemics and toxic algal blooms, keeping 
recreational beaches and seafood safe, and extracting life-
savings products from the sea.
    The Foundation is urged to provide up to $5,000,000 for an 
independently competed Children's Research Initiative within 
the funds made available for social and behavioral sciences. 
The Committee recognizes that previous funds provided for this 
purpose have funded some research on children's issues. The 
Committee believes, however, that NSF should more appropriately 
implement the National Science and Technology's Council's 
recommendation that this should be a separate and dedicated 
initiative. While the NSF should employ its normal peer 
reviewed approach for determining grants for the Children's 
Research Initiative, funding priority should be given to 
institutions of higher education that have both an 
interdisciplinary base of knowledge in child and human sciences 
and an existing delivery system for outreach to bring the 
benefits of this research to the majority of residents in any 
given state. A strong emphasis should also be placed on theory-
driven, applied policy-related research on health and behavior, 
children and environmental hazards, cognition and development, 
influence of families and communities on development, and 
longitudinal studies.
    Similarly, the Committee recognizes that as information 
technologies become increasingly prevalent in children's and 
adolescents' lives, vital questions arise regarding their 
impact on behavioral, social, emotional, cognitive and physical 
development. The Committee, therefore, encourages NSF to make 
research on the impact of emerging media on children's and 
adolescents' development a funding priority within both NSF's 
Information Technology Research Initiative and the agency's 
core disciplinary research programs.
    The Committee recognizes that the proposed funding 
allocations within the astronomical sciences are governed by an 
overall concern and priority for individual investigator 
awards. However, the facilities component of the proposed 
allocation is slated for an increase that is marginally above 
zero and is less than inflation. Noting that these outstanding 
facilities serve the research programs of individual 
investigator programs nationwide and should thus be maintained 
at a level necessary to enhance operations, morale, and 
momentum within each facility program, the NSF is strongly 
encouraged to provide a more appropriate balance between the 
individual investigator awards and facilities operations.

                        Major Research Equipment




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $76,600,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        95,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       138,540,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........       -18,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............       -61,940,000


    This account provides funding for the construction of major 
research facilities that provide unique capabilities at the 
cutting edge of science and engineering.
    The Committee recommends a total of $76,600,000 for the 
major research equipment account for fiscal year 2001. This 
appropriation reflects the budget request levels of $6,000,000 
for the Millimeter Array, $16,400,000 for the Large Hadron 
Collider, $13,500,000 for continued construction of the new 
South Pole Station, and $28,200,000 for the Network for 
Earthquake Engineering Simulation. The Committee has also 
included $12,500,000 to continue production of the High-
Performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental 
Research (HIAPER). The Committee recognizes the atmospheric 
science community's need for such a new high-altitude research 
aircraft, and notes that this aircraft went through a multiple-
year review and selection process prior to its approval and 
endorsement by the National Science Board. The Congress 
provided $10,000,000 for this important project in the fiscal 
2000 appropriation, which amount was subsequently reduced 
disproportionately by the Foundation in an across-the-board 
reduction.
    Because of budget constraints, the Committee determined not 
to begin funding on two new research facilities proposed in the 
budget submission, the USArray and San Andreas Fault 
Observatory at Depth (SAFOD), and the National Ecological 
Observatory Network (NEON). The Committee believes both 
projects have great merit and notes that its action was taken 
without prejudice.
    The Committee has also not included $45,000,000 for a 
second Terascale Computing System as requested in the budget 
submission. The Committee is not prepared to commit resources 
to the construction of this additional five teraflop computing 
facility until the first such facility is constructed and has 
become operational. Once such construction is complete and 
operations have commenced, the Committee expects the Foundation 
to provide a report detailing all aspects of this activity, 
including pertinent and up-to-date cost data, so that an 
informed decision can be made on moving forward with one or 
more additional such facilities.

                     Education and Human Resources




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $694,310,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       696,600,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       729,010,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        -2,290,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............       -34,700,000


    The Foundation's Education and Human Resources activities 
are designed to encourage the entrance of talented students 
into science and technology careers, to improve the 
undergraduate science and engineering education environment, to 
assist in providing all pre-college students with a level of 
education in mathematics, science, and technology that reflects 
the needs of the nation and is the highest quality attained 
anywhere in the world, and extend greater research 
opportunities to underrepresented segment of the scientific and 
engineering communities.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends 
$694,310,000, a decrease of $2,290,000 belowe last year's 
appropriated level and a decrease of $34,700,000 below the 
budget request. The Committee's proposal includes the following 
program funding levels: (1) Educational System Reform, 
$109,510,000; (2) Innovative Partnerships/ Experimental Program 
to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), $48,410,000; (3) 
Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education, $191,500,000; (4) 
Undergraduate Education, $110,860,000; (5) Graduate Education, 
$84,450,000; (6) Human Resource Development, $81,880,000; and 
(7) Research, Evaluation and Communication, $67,700,000.
    Within the amount provided for Undergraduate Education, 
$34,250,000 has been provided for Advanced Technological 
Education, an increase of $5,000,000 over the fiscal 2000 
level, and $13,000,000, the same as in fiscal 2000, has been 
recommended for the National SMETE Digital Library. No funding 
has been provided for the Distinguished Teaching Scholars 
program or for the new Scholarships for Service (SFS) program. 
The Committee recognizes the potential long-term value of this 
newly proposed SFS program. However, before financial resources 
are provided, the Committee is aware of several, significant 
operational details which must first be worked out among all 
interested parties.
    Within the Graduate Education programs, Graduate Teaching 
Fellowships in K-12 Education has been provided $19,750,000, a 
$10,750,000 increase over the fiscal 2000 spending level.

                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................      $152,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       149,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................       157,890,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        +3,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............        -5,890,000


    The Salaries and Expenses activity provides for the 
operation, support and management, and direction of all 
Foundation programs and activities and includes necessary funds 
that develop, manage, and coordinate Foundation programs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $152,000,000 
for salaries and expenses, a decrease of $5,890,000 from the 
President's budget request and an increase of $3,000,000 over 
last year's appropriated level.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................        $5,700,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................         5,450,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................         6,280,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........          +250,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request..............          -580,000


    This account provides National Science Foundation audit and 
investigation functions to identify and correct management and 
administrative deficiencies which could lead to fraud, waste, 
or abuse.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has recommended 
$5,700,000 for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is 
$250,000 above last year's funding level and is a decrease of 
$580,000 below the budget request.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION




Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $90,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        75,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        90,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        15,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......                 0


    The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, established by 
title VI of Public Law 95-557 in October 1978, is committed to 
promoting reinvestment in older neighborhoods by local 
financial institutions working cooperatively with community 
people and local government. This is primarily accomplished by 
assisting community-based partnerships (NeighborWorks 
organizations) in a range of local revitalization efforts. 
Increase in homeownership among lower-income families is a key 
revitalization tool. Neighborhood Housing Services of America 
(NHSA) supports lending activities of the NeighborWorks 
organizations through a national secondary market that 
leverages its capital with private sector investment.
    The Committee recommends the request of $90,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2001, an increase of $15,000,000 above the fiscal 
year 2000 level. A set-aside of $5,000,000 is included for an 
innovative initiative that combines a conventional mortgage, 
section 8 assistance, and the NRC revolving loan fund, with 
pre-and post-purchase counseling thereby enabling low-income 
families, some of whom are on welfare, to attain the goal of 
homeownship.

                        Selective Service System


                         Salaries and Expenses





Fiscal year 2001 recommendation.......................       $23,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        24,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request.......................        24,480,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........        -1,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request.......        -1,480,000


    The Selective Service System was reestablished by the 
Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System 
is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces 
adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a 
time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have 
relied on volunteers to fill military manpower requirements. 
However, the Selective Service System remains the primary 
vehicle by which men will be brought into military if Congress 
and the President should authorize a return to the draft.
    For fiscal year 2001, the bill includes $23,000,000 for the 
Selective Service System, $1,000,000 below the fiscal year 2000 
funding level and a decrease of $1,480,000 below the budget 
request.

                                TITLE IV


                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends inclusion of twenty-five general 
provisions, twenty of which were requested in the fiscal year 
2001 budget and were carried in the fiscal year 2000 
Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-76). The Committee 
recommendation does not include the proposed provision 
pertaining to the United States/Mexico Foundation. The 
Committee recommendation does include a provision pertaining to 
reporting requirements of the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs 
prior to entering into leases of real property, which was 
carried in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act. The 
Committee also recommends new general provisions.
    A new section 421 has been added this year which limits the 
use of funds for technical assistance, training, or management 
improvements until reporting requirements are completed by HUD. 
A new section 424 has been included in the bill which directs 
the General Services Administration to allocate one of its 
senior executive service positions to the Federal Consumer 
Information Center. A new section 425 has been included which 
prohibits the expenditure of funds for joint NASA and Air Force 
research programs.

              House of Representatives Report Requirements

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
require of the rules of the House of Representatives.

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states: ``Each report of a committee on bill or 
joint resolution of a public character, shall include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 
resolution.''
    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *''
    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statements are made 
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill.
    The Committee has included language transferring not to 
exceed $17,419,000 from compensation and pensions to general 
operating expenses and medical care. These funds are for the 
administrative costs of implementing cost-savings proposals 
required by the omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992. Language is also included 
permitting necessary sums to be transferred to the medical 
facilities revolving fund to augment funding of medical centers 
for nursing home care provided to pensioners as authorized by 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992.
    The Committee recommends transferring the following amounts 
to the VA's general operating expenses appropriation pursuant 
to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990: the veterans housing 
benefit program fund program account ($161,484,000), the 
education loan fund program account ($220,000), the vocational 
rehabilitation loans program account ($432,000) and the Native 
American veteran housing loan program account ($532,000). In 
addition, the bill provides up to $750,000 in general operating 
expenses and medical care for administration of the guaranteed 
transitional housing loans for homeless veterans program 
account.
    The Committee has included language transferring the 
following amounts to the VA's general operating expenses 
appropriation for services provided by the Office of Resolution 
Management and the Office of Employment Discrimination 
Compliant Adjudication: medical care ($28,134,000), office or 
inspector general ($28,000), and national cemetery 
administration ($125,000).
    The Committee recommends transferring the following amounts 
to the VA's general operating expenses appropriation for HR 
LINK$ services if that function is not a part of the Franchise 
Fund in fiscal year 2001: the office of inspector general 
($78,000), national cemetery administration ($358,000), medical 
care ($1,106,000), and medical administration and miscellaneous 
operating expenses ($84,000).
    The Committee included language allowing the transfer of 
funds up to $1,600,000 from medical care to general operating 
expenses to fund personnel services costs of employees 
providing legal services and administrative support for the 
Office of General Counsel.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Veterans Affairs which would transfer funds from the medical 
collections fund to medical care.
    The Committee recommends providing authority under 
administrative provisions for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs for any funds appropriated in 2001 for compensation and 
pensions, readjustment benefits, and veterans insurance and 
indemnities to be transferred between those three accounts. 
This will provide the Department of Veterans Affairs 
flexibility in administering its entitlement programs. Language 
is also included permitting the funds from three life insurance 
funds to be transferred to general operating expenses for the 
costs of administering such programs.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring all uncommitted 
prior balances of excess rental charges as of fiscal year 2000 
and all collections made during fiscal year 2001 to the 
flexible subsidy fund.
    The Committe has included language transferring unobligated 
funds from the housing certificate fund to the public housing 
capital fund.
    The Committee recommends a transfer of $10,000,000 from the 
Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing to the Office of 
Inspector General for Operation Safe Home.
    The Committe has included language transferring $200,000 
from the Native American housing block grant account to HUD's 
salaries and expenses account.
    The Committee recommends a transfer of $150,000 from the 
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account to HUD's 
salaries and expense account.
    The Committee has included language transferring $1,000,000 
of funds appropriated for administrative expenses to carry out 
the section 108 loan guarantee program to HUD's salaries and 
expenses.
    The Committee recommends transferring a total of 
$518,000,000 from the various funds of the Federal Housing 
Administration to HUD's salaries and expense account.
    The Committee has included language transferring a total of 
$22,343,000 from the various funds of the Federal Housing 
Administration to the Office of Inspector General.
    The Committee has included language transferring $9,383,000 
from the Government National Mortgage Association's guarantees 
of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account to 
HUD's salaries and expense account.
    The Committee has included language transferring 
$11,000,000 from the housing certificate fund to the working 
capital fund of HUD's salaries and expense account.
    The Committee has included language transferring 
$43,000,000 from the public housing capital fund to the working 
capital fund of HUD's salaries and expense account.
    The Committee has included language transferring 
$15,000,000 from the community development fund to the working 
capital fund of HUD's salaries and expense account.
    The Committee has included language transferring 
$17,000,000 from the HOME Investment partnerships program to 
the working capital fund of HUD's salaries and expense account.
    The Committee has included language transferring up to 1.5 
per cent of the funds appropriated for homeless assistance 
grants to the working capital fund of HUD's salaries and 
expense account.
    The Committee has included language transferring $1,000,000 
from housing for special populations to the working capital 
fund of HUD's salaries and expense account.
    The Committee has included language transferring 
$96,500,000 from HFA's mutual mortgage insurance program 
account to the working capital fund of HUD's salaries and 
expense account.
    The Committee has included language transferring 
$33,500,000 from FHA's general and special risk insurance 
program account to the working capital fund of HUD's salaries 
and expense account.
    The Committee recommends language allowing a transfer of 
$22,000,000 from the federal housing enterprise oversight fund 
to the office of federal housing enterprise oversight account.
    The Committee has included language transferring $200,000 
from the Native American housing block grants account to HUD's 
salaries and expense account and $2,000,000 to the Working 
Capital Fund.
    The Committee has included language under the Environmental 
Protection Agency transferring funds from the hazardous 
substance superfund trust fund ($11,500,000) to the Office of 
Inspector General. In addition, $35,000,000 is transferred from 
the hazardous substance superfund trust fund to the science and 
technology account.
    The Committee recommends transferring $15,000,000 from the 
oil spill liability trust fund to the oil spill response 
account.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation transferring up to $33,661,000 
from the Bank Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance 
Fund, and the FSLIC Resolution Fund to the Office of Inspector 
General.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency transferring $5,500,000 from the 
disaster relief account to the emergency management planning 
and assistance account.
    The Committee has included language under Federal Emergency 
Management Agency transferring $30,000,000 from the disaster 
relief account to the flood map modernization fund account.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency transferring up to $20,000,000 from 
the National Flood Insurance Fund to the National Flood 
Mitigation Fund.
    The Committee has included language under National Credit 
Union Administration transferring $1,000,000 to the Community 
Development Revolving Loan Fund.

           Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                   UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937


TITLE I--GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    lower income housing assistance

  Sec. 8. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (o) Voucher Program.--
          (1) Authority.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Establishment of payment standard.--
                Except as provided under [subparagraph (D)] 
                subparagraphs (D) and (E), the payment standard 
                for each size of dwelling unit in a market area 
                shall not exceed 110 percent of the fair market 
                rental established under subsection (c) for the 
                same size of dwelling unit in the same market 
                area and shall be not less than 90 percent of 
                that fair market rental.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (E) Difficult utilization areas.--
                          (i) Criteria.--The Secretary shall 
                        establish criteria setting forth 
                        requirements for treatment of areas as 
                        difficult utilization areas with 
                        respect to the voucher program under 
                        this subsection, which may include 
                        criteria specifying a low vacancy rate 
                        for rental housing, a particular rate 
                        of inflation in rental housing costs, 
                        failure to lease units by more than 30 
                        percent of families issued vouchers 
                        having an applicable payment standard 
                        of 110 percent of the fair market 
                        rental or higher, and any other 
                        criteria the Secretary considers 
                        appropriate.
                          (B) Use of assistance.--Any public 
                        housing agency that serves a difficult 
                        utilization area may--
                                  (I) increase the payment 
                                standard applicable to all or 
                                part of such area for any size 
                                of dwelling unit to not more 
                                than 150 percent of the fair 
                                market rental established under 
                                subsection (c) for the same 
                                size of dwelling unit in the 
                                same market area; and
                                  (II) use amounts provided for 
                                assistance under this section 
                                to make payments or provide 
                                services to assist families 
                                issued vouchers under this 
                                subsection to lease suitable 
                                housing, except that the cost 
                                of any such payments or 
                                services for a family may not 
                                exceed the agency's average 
                                cost per family of 6 months of 
                                monthly assistance payments.
                  [(E)] (F) Review.--The Secretary--
                          (i) shall monitor rent burdens and 
                        review any payment standard that 
                        results in a significant percentage of 
                        the families occupying units of any 
                        size paying more than 30 percent of 
                        adjusted income for rent; and
                          (ii) may require a public housing 
                        agency to modify the payment standard 
                        of the public housing agency based on 
                        the results of that review.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (t) Enhanced Vouchers.--
          (1) In general.--Enhanced voucher assistance under 
        this subsection for a family shall be voucher 
        assistance under subsection (o), except that under such 
        enhanced voucher assistance--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) during any period that the assisted 
                family continues residing in the same project 
                in which the family was residing on the date of 
                the eligibility event for the project, if the 
                rent for the dwelling unit of the family in 
                such project exceeds the applicable payment 
                standard established pursuant to subsection (o) 
                for the unit, the amount of rental assistance 
                provided on behalf of the family shall be 
                determined using a payment standard that is 
                equal to the rent for the dwelling unit (as 
                such rent may be increased from time-to-time), 
                subject to paragraph (10)(A) of subsection (o) 
                and any other reasonable limit prescribed by 
                the Secretary;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


            SECTION 856 OF THE AIDS HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ACT

SEC. 856. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRANTEES.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) Environmental Review.--For purposes of environmental 
review, a grant under this subtitle shall be treated as 
assistance for a special project that is subject to section 
305(c) of the Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform 
Act of 1994, and shall be subject to the regulations issued by 
the Secretary to implement such section.
                              ----------                              


  SECTION 204 OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND 
  URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  Sec. 204. Flexible Authority.--During fiscal year 1997 and 
fiscal years thereafter, the Secretary may manage and dispose 
of multifamily properties owned by the Secretary, including, 
for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, [and 2000] 2000, and 
thereafter, the provision of grants and loans from the General 
Insurace Fund (12 U.S.C. 1735(c)) for the necessary costs of 
rehabilitation, demolition, or construction on the properties 
(which shall be eligible whether vacant or occupied) and 
multifamily mortgages held by the Secretary on such terms and 
conditions as the Secretary may determine, notwithstanding any 
other provision of law.
                              ----------                              


                  NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968

TITLE XIII--NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 1309. (a) All authority which was vested in the Housing 
and Home Finance Administrator by virtue of section 15(e) of 
the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1084) 
(pertaining to the issue of notes or other obligations or the 
Secretary of the Treasury), as amended by subsections (a) and 
(b) of section 1303 of this Act, shall be available to the 
Director for the purpose of carrying out the flood insurance 
program under this title; except that the total amount of notes 
and obligations which may be issued by the Director pursuant to 
such authority (1) without the approval of the President, may 
not exceed $500,000,000, and (2) with the approval of the 
President, may not exceed $1,500,000,000 through September 30, 
[2000] 2001, and $1,000,000,000 thereafter. The Director shall 
report to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate at any time when he 
requests the approval of the President in accordance with the 
preceding sentence.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             appropriations

  Sec. 1376. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
be necessary through September 30, [2000] 2001, for studies 
under this title.

     SECTION 312 OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

        Sec. 312. (a) Appropriations for the Administration for fiscal 
year 2002 and thereafter shall be made in three accounts, ``Human space 
flight'', ``Science, aeronautics and technology,'' and an account for 
amounts appropriated for the necessary expenses of the Office of 
Inspector General. Appropriations shall remain available for two fiscal 
years. Each account shall include the planned full costs of the 
Administration's related activities.
        (b) To ensure the safe, timely, and successful accomplishment 
of Administration missions, the Administration may transfer amounts for 
Federal salaries and benefits; training, travel and awards; facility 
and related costs; information technology services; publishing 
services; science, engineering, fabricating and testing services; and 
other administrative services among accounts, as necessary.
        (c) The Administrator, in consultation with the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, shall determine what balances from the 
``Mission support'' account are to be transferred to the ``Human space 
flight'' and ``Science, aeronautics and technology'' accounts. Such 
balances shall be transferred and merged with the ``Human space 
flight'' and ``Science, aeronautics and technology'' accounts, and 
remain available for the period of which originally appropriated.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    The Committee submits the following statements in 
compliance with clause 3, rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, describing the effects of provisions proposed 
in the accompanying bill which may be considered, under certain 
circumstances, to change the application of existing law, 
either directly or indirectly.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing activities and programs where authorizations 
have not been enacted to date.
    In some cases, the Committee has recommended appropriations 
which are less than the maximum amounts authorized for the 
various programs funded in the bill. Whether these actions 
constitute a change in the application of existing law is 
subject to interpretation, but the Committee felt that this 
should be mentioned.
    The Committee has included limitations for official 
reception and representation expenses for selected agencies in 
the bill.
    Sections 401 through 420, 422 and 423 of title IV of the 
bill, all of which are carried in the fiscal year 2000 
Appropriations Act, are general provisions which place 
limitations or restrictions on the use of funds in the bill and 
which might, under certain circumstances, be construed as 
changing the application of existing law. A new section 421 has 
been added this year which limits the use of funds for 
technical assistance, training, or management improvements 
until reporting requirements are completed by HUD. A new 
section 424 has been included in the bill which directs the 
General Services Administration to allocate one of its senior 
executive service positions to the Federal Consumer Information 
Center. A new section 425 has been included which prohibits the 
expenditure of certain NASA funds for joint research with the 
Air Force.
    The bill includes, in certain instances, limitations on the 
obligation of funds for particular functions or programs. These 
limitations include restrictions on the obligation of funds for 
administrative expenses, the use of consultants, and 
programmatic areas within the overall jurisdiction of a 
particular agency.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, readjustment benefits, allowing the use of funds for 
payments arising from litigation involving the vocational 
training program.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, medical care, earmarking and delaying the availability 
of certain equipment and land and structures funds, and 
limiting funds available for the operations and maintenance of 
facilities.
    Language is included under Department of Veterans Affairs, 
medical care prohibiting the transfer of funds to the 
Department of Justice for the purposes for supporting tobacco 
legislation.
    Language is included under Department of Veterans Affairs 
providing for the deposit of receipts collected under the 
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Improvements Act of 1999 in 
the medical care collections fund.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, general operating expenses, providing for the 
reimbursement to the Department of Defense for the costs of 
overseas employee mail. This language has been carried 
previously and permits free mailing privileges for VA personnel 
stationed in the Philippines. Language is included which 
permits this appropriation to be used for administration of the 
Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act in 
1997.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, construction, major projects, establishing time 
limitations and reporting requirements concerning the 
obligation of major construction funds, limiting the use of 
funds, and allowing the use of funds for program costs.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, construction, minor projects, providing that 
unobligated balances of previous appropriations may be used for 
any project with an estimated cost of less than $4,000,000, 
allowing the use of funds for program costs, and making funds 
available for damage caused by natural disasters.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, parking revolving fund, providing for parking 
operations and maintenance costs out of medical care funds.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions, permitting transfers 
between mandatory accounts, limiting and providing for the use 
of certain funds, and funding administrative expenses 
associated with VA life insurance programs from excess program 
revenues. Seven provisions have been carried in previous 
Appropriations Acts. Six new provisions have been added.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, drug elimination grants for low-income housing, 
which specifies the use of certain funds, and transfers funds 
for the Operation Safe Home program.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, revitalization of severely distressed public 
housing (HOPE VI), which prohibits the use of funds for awards 
to settle litigation or pay judgments and provides funds for 
technical assistance.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, native American housing block grants, which 
provides for the use of certain funds and places a limitation 
on the principal amounts of notes issued.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, housing opportunities for persons with AIDS, which 
provides for use of funds for technical assistance.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, home investment partnerships program, earmarking 
funds for a counseling program.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, homeless assistance grants, requiring grantees to 
integrate homeless programs with other social service 
providers, and which provides for use of funds for technical 
assistance.
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, housing for special populations: elderly and 
disabled, which earmarks funds for tenant-based rental 
assistance for the disabled, and which permits waivers of 
certain program provisions under the disabled and elderly 
programs.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, flexible subsidy fund, which permits the use of 
excess rental charges.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, FHA-general and special risk program account, 
which earmarks funds for various purposes.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, fair housing and equal opportunity, which places 
restrictions on the use of funds for lobbying activities.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, office of lead hazard control, lead hazard 
reduction, which sets-aside funds for certain programs.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, salaries and expenses, which earmarks funds for 
various purposes.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, office of federal housing enterprise oversight, 
which limits net appropriations for the General Fund of the 
Treasury.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, administrative provisions, which maintains and 
reduces annual adjustment factors, revises allocations for 
housing opportunities for people with AIDS recipients, allows 
for a cap on the value of enhanced housing vouchers, and 
rescinds balances in prior Appropriations Acts.
    Language is included under Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board, salaries and expenses, which limits the 
size of the Board.
    Language is included under Department of the Treasury, 
Community Development Financial Institutions, community 
development financial institution program account, which sets 
aside funds for various purposes, and defines training program 
costs as administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the Court of Appeals for 
Veterans Claims, salaries and expenses, permitting the use of 
funds for a pro bono program.
    Language is included under the Department of Health and 
Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry, toxic substances and environmental public health, 
limiting availability of funds for toxicological profiles.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, environmental programs and management, which limits use 
of funds, and expands the use of funds awarded for certain 
programs.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, administrative provision, which extends the 
availability of funds for liquidating obligations.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, state and tribal assistance grants, which provides 
grants to states and local tribal governments, and which 
eliminates certain construction grant disputes.
    Language is included under the Council on Environmental 
Quality, which limits the size of the Council.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, disaster relief, which makes funds available only upon 
an emergency declaration by the President.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, emergency management planning and assistance, which 
authorizes the director of FEMA to provide consolidated 
emergency management performance grants.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, emergency food and shelter, limiting administrative 
expenses.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, flood map modernization fund allowing for the 
acceptance of contributions from state and local governments 
and retention of receipts.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, national flood insurance fund, which limits 
administrative expenses, program costs, and the amount 
available for repayment of debt.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, national flood mitigation fund, which establishes a 
fund for flood mitigation activities.
    Language is included under the General Services 
Administration, Federal Consumer Information Center, limiting 
certain fund and administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, administrative provision, extending the 
availability of construction of facility funds, permitting 
funds for contracts for various services in the next fiscal 
year, and transferring of prior year appropriations to the 
appropriate new appropriations accounts.
    Language is included under the National Credit Union 
Administration, central liquidity facility, limiting new loans, 
technical assistance, and administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
research and related activities, providing for the use of 
receipts from other research facilities, requiring under 
certain circumstances proportional reductions in legislative 
earmarkings, and use of funds.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
education and human resources activities, requiring under 
certain circumstances proportional reductions in legislative 
earmarkings.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
salaries and expenses, permitting funds for contracts for 
various services in the next fiscal year and permitting the 
reimbursement of funds to the General Services Administration.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following lists the agencies in 
the accompanying bill which contain appropriations that are not 
authorized by law:
    Department of Veterans Affairs.
          Construction, Major projects.
    Department of Housing and Urban Development: all programs 
except Public and Indian Housing programs.
    Community Development Financial Institutions.
    Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    Corporation for National and Community Service.
    Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
Environmental Quality (not authorized above $1,000,000).
    Environmental Protection Agency.
          Science and Technology (except Clean Air Act and Safe 
        Drinking Water Act).
          Hazardous Substance Superfund.
          State and Tribal Assistance Grants.
    Office of Science and Technology Policy.
    Federal Emergency Management Agency:
          Emergency Food and Shelter Program.
          Emergency Management Planning and Assistance (with 
        respect to the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act 
        of 1974, Defense Production Act of 1950 and the Urban 
        Property Protection and Reinsurance Act).
    General Services Administration--Federal Consumer 
Information Center.
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    National Credit Union Administration Revolving Loan Fund.
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporations.

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) requires 
that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget 
authority contain a statement detailing how the authority 
compares with the reports submitted under section 302(b) of the 
Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution of 
then budget for the fiscal year. This information follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 302(b) allocation--           This bill*
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Budget                    Budget
                                                               authority     Outlays     authority     Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...............................................       76,194       84,154       76,494       84,166
Mandatory...................................................       24,330       24,089       24,612      24,035
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Including scoring from the House-passed FY 2000 supplemental appropriations bill.
Note.--The amounts in this bill are technically in excess of the subcommittee section 302(b) suballocation.
  However, pursuant to section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, increases to the
  Committee's section 302(a) allocation are authorized for funding in the reported bill for spending designated
  as emergency. After the bill is reported to the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget will
  provide an increased section 302(a) allocation consistent with the funding provided in the bill. That new
  allocation will eliminate the technical difference prior to floor consideration.

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following information was 
provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                                                Millions
Budget Authority in bill......................................  $101,097
Outlays:
    2001......................................................    60,308
    2002......................................................    24,176
    2003......................................................     9,199
    2004......................................................     3,669
    2005......................................................     3,752

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the Congressional Budget 
Office has provided the following estimate of new budget 
authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for 
financial assistance to state and local governments:

                                                                Millions
Budget Authority..............................................    25,471
Fiscal year 2001 outlays resulting therefrom..................     5,133

           Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

    During fiscal year 2001 for purposed of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), 
the following information provides the definition of the term 
``program, project, and activity'' for departments and agencies 
carried in the accompanying bill. The term ``program, project, 
and activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the 2001 Departments of Veterans Affairs 
and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act, the accompanying House and Senate reports, 
the conference report of the joint explanatory statement of the 
managers of the committee of conference.
    In applying any sequestration reductions, departments and 
agencies shall apply the percentage of reduction required for 
fiscal year 2001 pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 99-
177 to each program, project, activity, and subactivity 
contained in the budget justification documents submitted to 
the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in 
support of the fiscal year 2001 budget estimates, as amended, 
for such departments and agencies, as subsequently altered, 
modified, or changed by Congressional action identified by the 
aforementioned Act, resolutions and reports. Further, it is 
intended that in implementing any Presidential sequestration 
order, (1) no program, project, or activity should be 
eliminated, (2) no reordering of funds or priorities occur, and 
(3) no unfunded program execution, it is not intended that 
normal reprogramming between programs, projects, and activities 
be precluded after reductions required under the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act are implemented.
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll 
call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and those voting against, 
are printed below:

                             rollcall no. 1

    Date: June 7, 2000.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Price.
    Description of Motion: To terminate funding for the 
Selective Service system and transfer savings from this 
reduction to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical and 
Prosthetic Research account.
    Results: Rejected 19 yeas to 36 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Aderholt                        Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Cramer
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Cunningham
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Dickey
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Dicks
Mr. Knollenberg                     Mr. Edwards
Mrs. Lowey                          Mrs. Emerson
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Forbes
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Goode
Mr. Olver                           Ms. Granger
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Hinchey
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Price                           Mr. Hoyer
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Kingston
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Latham
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Lewis
                                    Mr. Miller
                                    Mr. Moran
                                    Mr. Murtha
                                    Mr. Nethercutt
                                    Mrs. Northup
                                    Mr. Packard
                                    Mr. Peterson
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll 
call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and those voting against, 
are printed below:

                             rollcall no. 2

    Date: June 7, 2000.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2001.
    Motion by: Mrs. Meek.
    Description of Motion: To increase funds for the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development's fair Housing Initiatives 
Program from $22,000,000 to $24,000,0000, and decrease the 
Department's Fair Housing Assistance Program from $22,000,000 
to $20,000,0000.
    Results: Rejected 26 yeas to 27 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderbolt
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Bonilla
Ms. Deluro                          Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Dickey
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Goode
Mr. Farr                            Ms. Granger
Mr. Frobes                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Kingston
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Knolleberg
Mr. Kaptur                          Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Latham
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Lewis
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Miller
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Moran                           Mrs. Northup
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Packard
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Peterson
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Regula
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Rogers
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Skeen
Mr. Price                           Mr. Tiahrt
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Walsh
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Wamp
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Wicker
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll 
call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and those voting against, 
are printed below:

                             rollcall no. 3

    Date: June 7, 2000.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.
    Description of Motion: To strike report language in the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Hazardous Substance Superfund 
account regarding dredging as a remediation tool for toxic 
substances.
    Results: Rejected 20 yeas to 30 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Goode
Ms. Kaptur                          Ms. Granger
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Latham
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Miller
Mr. Price                           Mr. Nethercutt
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mrs. Northup
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Packard
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Peterson
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll 
call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and those voting against, 
are printed below:

                             rollcall no. 4

    Date: June 7, 2000.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Mollohan.
    Description of Motion: To strike report language in the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Programs and 
Management account regarding a prohibition on spending for 
certain activities relating to the Kyoto Protocol, and insert 
new language in lieu thereof.
    Results: Rejected 19 yeas to 31 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hoyer                           Mrs. Emerson
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Goode
Mrs. Meek                           Ms. Granger
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Hobson
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Kingston
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Latham
Mr. Price                           Mr. Lewis
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Miller
Mr. Sabo                            Mrs. Northup
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Packard
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Peterson
                                    Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll 
call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and those voting against, 
are printed below:

                             Rollcall No. 5

    Date: June 7, 2000.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Mollohan.
    Description of Motion: To increase funding for ten housing 
and community programs by $1,834,000,000.
    Results: Rejected 20 yeas to 29 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Dickey
Mr. Farr                            Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Goode
Ms. Kaptur                          Ms. Granger
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Istook
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Kingston
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Latham
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Lewis
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Miller
Mr. Price                           Mrs. Northup
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Packard
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Peterson
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll 
call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and those voting against, 
are printed below:

                             Rollcall No. 6

    Date: June 7, 2000.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Obey.
    Description of Motion: To increase funding for four 
specific housing programs by $107,000,000.
    Results: Rejected 20 yeas to 27 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Dickey
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Goode
Mr. Hoyer                           Ms. Granger
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Istook
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Kingston
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Latham
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Lewis
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Miller
Mr. Price                           Mrs. Northup
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Packard
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Porter
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Regula
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each 
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and those voting 
against, are printed below:

                             rollcall no. 7

    Date: June 7, 2000.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Mollohan.
    Description of Motion: To strike bill and report language 
regarding the Community Builders program within the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development.
    Results: Rejected 22 yeas to 23 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Goode
Ms. Kaptur                          Ms. Granger
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Istook
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Kingston
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Latham
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Lewis
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Miller
Mr. Price                           Mrs. Northup
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Packard
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Porter
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Regula
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each 
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and those voting 
against, are printed below:

                             rollcall no. 8

    Date: June 7, 2000.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Mollohan.
    Description of Motion: To increase funding for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Science, Aeronautics and 
Technology account by $322,700,000.
    Results: Rejected 22 yeas to 23 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Dickey
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Goode
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Hobson
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Kingston
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Latham
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Lewis
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Miller
Mrs. Meek                           Mrs. Northup
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Packard
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Petersen
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Porter
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Regula
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Rogers
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Sununu
Mr. Price                           Mr. Taylor
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Walsh
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Wamp
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Wicker
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll 
call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and those voting against, 
are printed below:

                             rollcall No. 9

    Date: June 7, 2000.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Obey.
    Description of Motion: To increase funding for each of the 
National Science Foundation's five appropriations accounts by a 
total of $508,100,000.
    Results: Rejected 21 yeas to 25 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Cunningham
Ms. DeLauro                         Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Goode
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Kingston
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Kolbe
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Latham
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Miller
Mr. Moran                           Mrs. Northup
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Packard
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Peterson
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Porter
Mr. Price                           Mr. Regula
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Rogers
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Sununu
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Taylor
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll 
call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and those voting against, 
are printed below:

                            rollcall No. 10

    Date: June 7, 2000.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2001.
    Motion by: Mr. Boyd.
    Description of Motion: To increase funding for disaster 
relief under the Federal Emergency Management Agency by 
$2,609,220,000, to be designatged as an emergency appropriation 
under the Budget Act.
    Results: Rejected 22 yeas to 29 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Dickey
Mr. Farr                            Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Goode
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Granger
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Hobson
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Latham
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Miller
Mr. Olver                           Mrs. Northup
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Packard
Mr. Price                           Mr. Peterson
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Porter
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Regula
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Rogers
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Young
                                    
                                    

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    While the VA-HUD subcommittee and its Chairman have done 
the best they could within the budget limits imposed on the 
subcommittee, the resulting bill falls far short of what is 
needed to address national needs in most areas that it covers. 
As with other domestic appropriations bills considered this 
year, the Majority's insistence on using budget surpluses 
primarily to cut taxes for the well off have left this bill and 
its programs shortchanged.
    The VA-HUD subcommittee made a number of laudable efforts 
to deal with various critical needs as best they could, given 
the inadequate resources available for this bill. However, that 
lack of resources has produced serious shortcomings in the 
bill:
    The bill includes a substantial and welcome increase for 
veterans medical care, but fails to adequately provide for 
several other priorities for veterans. In particular, it 
freezes funding for veterans medical research, cuts grants for 
construction of state veterans homes $30 million below the 
current year level, and provides $56 million less than 
requested to improve processing of applications for benefits.
    The bill once again seeks to completely eliminate the 
AmeriCorps national service program.
    It appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing 
assistance vouchers proposed by the Administration. Rather, it 
allows no more than 20,000 new vouchers, to be provided only if 
extra recaptured funds become available in that program.
    The bill cuts Community Development Block Grants $276 
million below the current year level, and $395 million below 
the President's request. It also cuts public housing programs 
(including capital and operating grants and anti-drug programs) 
$120 million below the current year and $314 million below the 
request, and freezes funding for homeless assistance.
    It completely rejects the President's proposal for $50 
million for EPA to begin a major effort to clean up the Great 
Lakes.
    While the measure provides an increase for research at the 
National Science Foundation, it falls short of the President's 
request in this area by $508 million.
    The bill also underfunds the President's request for NASA 
science and technology programs by $323 million.
    Finally, it appropriates only $300 million of the $2.9 
billion requested by the Administration for FEMA's Disaster 
Relief Fund, thereby jeopardizing FEMA's ability to respond 
quickly and adequately to natural disasters.
    Although the official tables suggest that this bill 
contains a $4.9 billion increase over the current fiscal year, 
that increase is illusory. Of the increase, $4.2 billion 
results from an ``advance appropriation'' for FY 2001 made last 
year--a device that simply shifted $4.2 billion of FY 2000 
costs to FY 2001. The advance appropriation helped fit last 
year's bill into that year's artificial budget constraints, but 
it leaves this year's bill with an automatic $4.2 billion 
increase.
    In fact, disregarding all of the offsets, timing shifts, 
and other budget gimmicks done this year or last, the actual 
programmatic increase provided by the FY 2001 bill totals just 
$256 million--an increase of three-tenths of one percent. In 
the same programmatic terms, the bill is $6.4 billion below the 
President's proposal for FY 2001.
    Considering the very important needs covered by the VA-HUD 
bill--veterans health care, environmental protection, 
scientific research, housing assistance, and emergency 
preparedness and disaster relief--it is most unfortunate that 
all the Majority's budget plan could provide was a 0.3 percent 
increase for programs over the prior year. It is particularly 
ironic that this anemic funding comes not at a time of budget 
deficits and economic crisis, but rather at a time of rising 
budget surpluses and the strongest economy we've seen in 
decades. If at this time of great prosperity the Majority still 
insists that we cannot afford to increase our investment 
inresearch or reduce unmet housing needs, when--if ever--do they 
believe we will be able to afford these things?
    Despite rising surpluses, the Majority's budget plan does 
not allow any significant increases for domestic appropriations 
because the Majority's highest budget priority is tax cuts--
targeted to the high end of the income scale. The shortcomings 
of this VA-HUD appropriations bill are one of the many direct 
consequences of those tax cuts. The alternative budget offered 
by Democrats in the House, like the President's budget, calls 
for considerably smaller tax cuts. With its smaller tax cuts, 
the Democratic budget would have allowed an additional $20 
billion in domestic appropriations for FY 2001. Had that budget 
been adopted, this would be a far better bill.
    During committee consideration of this legislation, 
Democrats offered several amendments to alleviate its 
shortcomings in areas like veterans medical research, housing 
assistance, and science. All were defeated on party line votes, 
with the Majority insisting that, while increases might be 
desirable, those increases simply could not be fit within 
Majority's budget plan. The debate graphically illustrates the 
fundamental problems with that budget plan and the upper-income 
tax cuts that drive it. All of the amendments offered to this 
bill by Democrats could readily be accommodated within the 
Democratic budget alternative with its smaller tax cuts, or 
within the President's budget totals.
    Following are additional details regarding the shortcomings 
of this VA-HUD appropriations bill and Democratic efforts to 
improve the bill.

                     department of veterans affairs

    The Chairman is to be commended for making veterans 
programs a priority within a budget allocation which many 
members on both sides of the aisle find inadequate. In 
particular, approval of the President's $1.4 billion increase 
for the Medical Care account is a significant move towards 
addressing the essential health care needs of the growing 
population of older, disabled and indigent veterans. This 
includes fully funding the expanded long term care and 
emergency services authorized last year under the Veterans 
Millenium Health Care Act. Beyond providing for medical care, 
however, we believe there are several weaknesses that Congress 
still must address before this bill can be described as 
adequate in terms of providing for veterans.
    First, we believe that failing to increase funding for 
medical research, which is frozen in the bill at $321 million, 
is a missed opportunity to invest in high quality research at a 
time when Congress appears to recognize the potential of such 
investments in other agencies such as the National Institutes 
of Health. This research encourages top medical schools to work 
with the VA and attracts leading physicians to VA hospitals to 
help care for veterans with state-of-the-art medical science. 
Research at these institutions, whether on diseases of great 
urgency for veterans such as Alzheimer's disease, diabetes or 
substance abuse, or on health outcomes/services improvements 
such as its medical errors initiative, benefit not only 
veterans but the general public. Unfortunately the amendment 
offered by Rep. Price to increase funding for VA medical 
research was not adopted (see roll call number 1).
    Second, we believe that the reduction of $30 million in 
grants to States for construction of extended care facilities 
is short sighted and ignores the high demand for such services, 
especially among the WW II generation of veterans. As a minimum 
$90 million, the same amount as provided this year, should be 
allocated in fiscal year 2001.
    Third, we regret that funding for general operations 
expenses was reduced by $56 million below the request. The 
increase requested by the Administration is targeted at 
reducing the unacceptable delays in processing initial benefit 
applications as well as in resolving appeals. Currently it 
takes approximately 160 days to process an initial claim and 
close to two years for an appeal. These delays are not 
acceptable. While the Majority attempted to partially fund 
these initiatives, we believe the full amount requested by the 
President should have been approved.

              department of housing and urban development

    In this bill most HUD programs are either frozen at the FY 
2000 level, with no increases for inflation or anything else, 
or are actually cut below FY 2000. Shortages of affordable 
housing are reaching crisis proportions in some areas of the 
country, but the bill makes no new commitments and provides no 
additional resources toward addressing those problems. Compared 
to the President's request, the bill makes cuts totaling 
between $2.2 and 2.5 billion (with the exact figure depending 
on whether offsets are counted or disregarded).
    While the bill appears to provide a $4.1 billion increase 
for HUD programs, as with the bill as a whole the increases are 
largely illusory. The illusion of increases results from 
peculiarities of accounting for the cost of the section 8 
housing assistance program, and from the subcommittee's 
inability to repeat some one-time offsets used to reduce the 
apparent cost of last year's bill. The ``increases'' in the 
bill do not translate into housing assistance for more families 
or more resources for housing providers. In programmatic terms, 
the bill mainly produces small cuts, not increases.
    One reason for the apparent year-to-year increase is that 
last year's bill rescinded $2.3 billion in balances of budget 
authority at HUD that were not expected to be needed in FY 
2000. For FY 2001, however, the subcommittee was able to 
identify only about $275 million to rescind. Because 
rescissions are counted as offsets to the appropriations made 
by the bill (i.e., they count as ``negative spending''), this 
$2 billion decrease in rescissions makes it appear that 
appropriations have gone up by the same amount. However, these 
rescissions have no effect on actual spending for HUD 
programs--at least not in the year they are made.
    The second major reason for the apparent increase in HUD 
appropriations is the $2.5 billion increase provided for the 
section 8 housing assistance program (which provides subsidies 
to landlords or vouchers to tenants to help low-income people 
afford to rent housing on the private market). During the 1970s 
and 1980s, section 8 housing assistance was provided under 
long-term contracts (often 20 or 30 years in duration), funded 
in advance through appropriations made before the contracts 
were entered into. While these long-term contracts are in 
effect, no additional appropriations are usually needed. 
However, the old long-term contracts have been expiring, and 
new appropriations are needed to renew them. (Budget 
constraints have recently limited these renewals to one year at 
a time). Thus, as old long-term contracts expire and more units 
are added to the annual renewal pool each year, the amount of 
appropriations needed for section 8 assistance goes up. 
However, these renewals just provide the same assistance under 
essentially the same terms to roughly the same number of 
people.
    These two factors more than account for the entire increase 
provided for HUD under this bill. Leaving aside the decrease in 
rescissions and the increased appropriations needed for section 
8 contract renewals, everything else in HUD is either flat or 
reduced below FY 2000. In several cases, appropriations are 
actually lower than they were six years ago.
    This is unfortunate, because needs for federal housing 
assistance are growing, not shrinking. While the economy may be 
booming and employment and incomes rising, in many areas rents 
are rising even faster. Finding a place to live is a growing 
problem for many working families with modest incomes or 
elderly people trying to live on Social Security and small 
pensions. HUD's latest report on housing conditions tells us 
that there are 5.4 million very low-income households with 
``worst case'' housing needs--that is, households with incomes 
below 50 percent of the local median who are paying more than 
half of their income for rent and receiving no housing 
assistance whatsoever. The fastest growing segment of that 
group is people working full time.
    One thing that would help meet affordable housing needs is 
to increase the number of families and individuals receiving 
section 8 housing assistance vouchers. Last year, 60,000 
``incremental'' (i.e., additional) vouchers were funded. This 
year, the Administration proposed 120,000 incremental vouchers. 
The bill, however, provides no appropriation at all for 
additional vouchers. All it does is allow HUD to provide up to 
20,000 new vouchers from any extra amounts that become 
available from recaptures of previously awarded funds. However, 
HUD does not believe there will be any recaptures beyond those 
already built into their budget request.
    There is also an urgent need for further assistance to help 
foster production of housing that can be afforded by low-income 
families. In fact, in some areas people are having real 
difficulty using vouchers because they can't find any 
apartments to rent that are affordable even with a voucher. 
However, the Federal Government currently does relatively 
little to assist with production of new low income housing, and 
this bill reduces that commitment a little further.
    For example, the bill freezes appropriations for 
development of housing for low-income elderly and disabled 
people (the section 202 and 811 programs), providing no 
increases to cover rising costs or to increase the number of 
units produced. The FY 2001 appropriation of $911 million 
represents a 45 percent cut from the $1.7 billion appropriated 
for FY 1995 (the last appropriation enacted while Democrats 
held a majority in Congress). A second example is the HOME 
program, which is a flexible block grant program used by local 
governments to expand the supply of low-income housing. Instead 
of an increase for HOME to at least cover rising costs, the 
bill actually cuts HOME $15 million below FY 2000 (and $65 
million below the President's request). To give another 
example, this year the Administration proposed to combine 
10,000 new vouchers with the low-income housing tax credit 
program, in order to provide a subsidy sufficient to produce 
housing affordable at low income levels. As already noted, this 
bill fails to provide appropriations for new vouchers, 
including these ``housing production'' vouchers.
    Another major element of the federal housing strategy is 
public housing--that is, financial support for low-income 
housing owned and operated by local housing authorities. This 
bill cuts capital grants for public housing $100 million below 
the current year level, freezes operating assistance (thus 
providing no increases to cover higher costs for salaries, 
utilities, or anything else), and cuts drug elimination grants 
and ``HOPE VI'' grants for revitalization of severely 
distressed public housing by $10 million each below FY 2000. 
Appropriations for these four accounts together are #314 
million below the President's request.
    The bill also cuts Community Development Block Grants by 
$276 million below the current year's level and $395 million 
below the request. The bill's $4.505 billion appropriation for 
CDBG is actually $95 million less than the dollar level 
appropriated for FY 1995. In terms of purchasing power, CDBG 
will have lost roughly 15 percent since that time.
    For Homeless Assistance Grants, the bill freezes 
appropriations at the FY 2000 level of $1.02 billion, rejecting 
the $120 million increase proposed by the President. This is 
yet another area where appropriations have declined in actual 
dollar terms over the past six years--the bill's level for 
homeless assistance is $100 million less than appropriated in 
FY 1995.
    There are several other areas of concern in the HUD title 
of the bill. For example, the bill freezes funding for Housing 
Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA), rather than 
providing the $28 million increase proposed by the President. 
It cuts the HUD rural housing program $5 million below last 
year and also cuts brownfields redevelopment $5 million. It 
provides no funding for the America's Private Investment 
Companies (APIC) initiative, despite the agreement between 
President Clinton and Speaker Hastert to fund this item. And it 
provides none of the increases requested by the President for 
fair housing programs, and in fact actually cuts one of these 
programs--the Fair Housing Initiatives Program--$2 million 
below FY 2000.
    During consideration of the bill by the Appropriations 
Committee, Rep. Mollohan offered an amendment to increase 
funding for ten housing programs by a total of $1.834 billion. 
The Mollohan amendment would have funded 102,000 incremental 
section 8 housing vouchers, and provided increases (relative to 
amounts in the bill) for public housing capital grants (+$200 
million), public housing operating subsidies (+$127 million), 
Native American Housing Block Grants (+$30 million), Housing 
Opportunities for People with AIDS (+$43 million), CDBG (+$395 
million), HOME (+$215 million), Homeless Assistance Grants 
(+$80 million), and Housing for the Elderly and Disabled (+$114 
million). Finally, it would have funded APIC at the President's 
request of $37 million. The amendment was defeated on a party-
line vote, however (roll call number 5).
    After defeat of the Mollohan amendment, Rep. Obey offered a 
more limited amendment in which the proposed additions were 
fully offset by other savings (since one of the Majority's main 
stated objections to the Mollohan amendment was that it did not 
contain offsets). The Obeyamendment would have added $78 
million to Housing for the Elderly and Disabled (to bring it up to the 
President's request), $20 million for Homeless Assistance Grants, and 
$9 million for HOPWA. These increases were offset by provisions taken 
from a House-passed authorization bill (H.R. 1776) which expanded FHA 
lending activity and thereby produced increases in receipts from FHA 
loan guarantee fees. This amendment, too, was defeated on a party-line 
vote (roll call number 6).

                    environmental protection agency

    While the Committee's total allocation to the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is essentially at the level requested 
by the President, the allocation of funds among programs 
includes specific reductions that we believe will hamper the 
Agency's ability to protect the public health and the 
environment as well as the ability of local communities to 
address critical water and sewage facility problems. The 10% 
reduction in the request for the Agency's Operating Program, 
which funds the Agency's basic environmental and public health 
programs, will affect millions of Americans--the air they 
breathe, the water they drink, the quality of their lives. The 
Committee's cut to the Agency's enforcement programs will 
escalate the level of non-compliance with environmental laws, 
thus exacerbating the problems many Americans face from 
increased pollution. No funds have been provided to address the 
hundreds of requests from members for specific grants for water 
and sewer repair and upgrades in communities in their 
districts.
    In addition, severe reductions to other targeted programs 
continue to restrict EPA's ability to fulfill its mandates. The 
Committee's action to reduce the Superfund program by $66 
million below last year's level will eliminate many new 
construction starts next year. Important Administration 
initiatives have been totally eliminated. The Great Lakes grant 
program, which would have addressed contaminated ``areas of 
concern'' in the crown jewels of our nation's waterways, and 
the Integrated Information Initiative, which would have moved 
environmental information management to a new plane, have been 
totally eliminated.
    Finally, the bill includes legislative riders which would 
impede the Agency's ability to meet its legal requirements. For 
example, Committee report language directs, for the first time, 
severe restrictions on the clean up of contaminated sediments 
in scores of water bodies nationwide. In addition the Majority 
has included new report language related to the Kyoto Protocol 
and its impact on EPA's activities under existing environmental 
laws. While the bill language is identical to previous years, 
this new report language goes beyond a conference agreement 
which was carefully negotiated in 1998, a compromise which 
should not be modified through a report which the House is not 
able to vote on.
    It is time for the Committee to provide EPA with sufficient 
resources to enforce the environmental laws passed by Congress. 
Congress must also stop efforts to change these laws through 
the appropriations process and to allow the Agency to fulfill 
its promise to the American people of a safe, clean environment 
for all Americans.

                      national science foundation

    In the past decade, research by the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) has helped fuel the growth of the economy 
including two of its most vital sectors: information technology 
and biotechnology. Yet, at a critical juncture for these 
burgeoning industries and other NSF-supported areas, the 
committee has cut $508 million from the President's requested 
budget. While the committee's effort to add $167 million in 
total funding over FY 2000 levels is laudable, the shortfall 
from the proposed budget represents a crucial missed 
opportunity to invigorate and enhance the nation's 
technological capacity. The NSF's track record in stimulating 
new technology is impressive. Fifteen years ago, NSF funds 
created the Internet backbone, which later became the 
cornerstone of today's $16 billion online retail industry. At 
the same time, NSF researchers made the key discovery that 
helped launch the biotechnology revolution, creating new drugs 
and techniques like DNA fingerprinting. How many scientific and 
economic breakthroughs will be lost in the coming years if 
needed funding is diminished?
    The recommended $90 million reduction in Computer and 
Information Science and Engineering will seriously hinder the 
NSF'scutting-edge initiative in information technology. Ongoing 
work of this kind could be vital to the future of computing and the 
Internet. The reduction of $30 million in Undergraduate Education is 
tremendously shortsighted at a time when the nation is starved for 
high-skill technical workers and Congress is considering increased 
immigration to bring in skilled workers from abroad. Moreover, while 
the Committee is ``concerned with the lack of research addressing 
linkages between human health and the world's oceans,'' and urges new 
initiatives in this area, the recommended appropriation in Geosciences 
for FY 2001 is $59.2 million below the President's request--hardly an 
impetus for new or expanded initiatives. Overall, the committee's 
funding reduction will mean that 4000 less grants will be funded 
involving 18,000 researchers and science educators. We believe this is 
a short sighted recommendation at a time when our economy, and our 
country, needs them most. Unfortunately the amendment proposed by Rep. 
Obey to restore funding for NSF to the level requested by the President 
was rejected by the Committee (roll call number 9).

             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    While two of NASA's three main accounts are funded at the 
President's request, once again the bill provides less than 
requested for the other account, which funds scientific 
research and technology development programs at NASA. Under the 
bill, this Science, Aeronautics, and Technology account 
receives a very small (one half of one percent) increase over 
the current fiscal year, but $323 million less than requested 
by the President.
    In particular, the measure provides none of the $20 million 
requested for ``Living with a Star''--a new NASA initiative 
(building on existing programs) to improve understanding of the 
Sun and its impact on the Earth's environment, and to help 
provide early warning against solar events that can damage 
communications and power systems on earth and in space.
    Further, the bill provides none of the $290 million 
requested for the Space Launch Initiative, which is NASA's 
program to develop the next generation of reusable launch 
vehicles--i.e., the vehicles that would replace or augment the 
Space Shuttle. By doing so, it eliminates all funding for 
advanced technology research, on-going work on two experimental 
vehicles (the X-34 and X-37), and the ``alternate access to the 
space station'' initiative which is intended to help stimulate 
development of launch vehicles by small and emerging companies.
    The bill also greatly reduces appropriations for on-going 
research and development to improve air traffic control and 
traffic management and reduce airport and airspace congestion. 
The President requested $59.2 million for this ``Aviation 
Systems Capacity'' program, but the bill provides just $10.1 
million.
    During committee consideration of the bill, Rep. Mollohan 
offered an amendment to add $322.7 million to the Science, 
Aeronautics and Technology account, to bring the level in the 
bill up to the amount requested by the President. That 
amendment, however, was defeated on a party-line vote (roll 
call number 8).

                  FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

    The bill provides only $300 million of the $2.9 billion 
requested by the President to replenish FEMA's Disaster Relief 
Fund. The President's request was intended just to cover the 
cost of an ``average'' year of natural disasters. 
(Specifically, the request is based--as is the usual practice--
on the average cost of disaster assistance over the preceding 
five years, excluding the unusually high costs associated with 
the Northridge Earthquake.) It is necessary to maintain 
adequate balances in the Disaster Relief Fund so that FEMA can 
respond quickly to needs resulting from hurricanes, tornadoes, 
floods, earthquakes, and other disasters, rather than having to 
wait many months until Congress is able to provide supplemental 
appropriations. If Congress were to adjourn without having 
provided any funding beyond the $300 million in this bill, 
FEMA's ability to meet emergency needs would be placed at risk.
    During committee consideration of the bill, Rep. Boyd 
offered an amendment to provide an additional $2.6 billion in 
emergency appropriations for FEMA Disaster Relief, in order to 
fully fund the President's request. The amendment was defeated 
on a party line vote (roll call number 10).

                               CONCLUSION

    Thus, the bill falls short of what is needed in a wide 
range of areas. It represents a series of missed opportunities 
to take action to alleviate affordable housing shortages, 
expand scientific research, meet needs of veterans, and prepare 
for natural disasters.
    In saying this, we mean no criticism of the Chairman of the 
VA-HUD subcommittee or anyone else who was involved in putting 
together this bill. On the contrary, they did the best they 
could with the allocation they were given. In several cases, 
they did some useful and creative things to stretch dollars as 
far as possible and improve programs.
    The fundamental problem, however, is the Majority party's 
overall budget strategy, which seeks to actually shrink 
domestic appropriations in order to finance their agenda of tax 
cuts targeted to the well off. This bill with all its 
shortcomings is a direct consequence of that budget strategy.

                                   Alan B. Mollohan.
                                   Dave Obey.

                                
