[Senate Report 106-161]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                       Calendar No. 279

106th Congress                                                   Report
  1st Session                    SENATE                         106-161

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



 
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000

                                _______
                                

               September 16, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______


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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1596]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1596) 
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, 2000, and for other 
purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the 
bill do pass.



Amount of new budget (obligational) authority

Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... $97,214,196,000
Amount of appropriations to date, 1999..................  94,721,961,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2000........................  99,676,504,000
    Under estimates for 2000............................  -2,462,308,000
    Above appropriations for 1999.......................  +2,492,235,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs..........................     6
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development............    30
Title III--Independent agencies:
    American Battle Monuments Commission.........................    64
    Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board...............    64
    Department of the Treasury: Community development financial 
      institutions...............................................    66
    Consumer Product Safety Commission...........................    67
    Corporation for National and Community Service...............    67
    U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals...............................    70
    Department of Defense--Civil: Cemeterial expenses, Army......    71
    Environmental Protection Agency..............................    71
    Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and 
      Technology 
      Policy.....................................................    96
    Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental 
      Quality....................................................    97
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector 
      General....................................................    97
    Federal Emergency Management Agency..........................    98
    General Services Administration: Consumer Information Center.   106
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration................   107
    National Credit Union Administration.........................   126
    National Science Foundation..................................   127
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................   135
    Selective Service System.....................................   136
Title IV--General provisions.....................................   137

                              INTRODUCTION

    The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2000 provides a total of $97,214,196,000, including 
approximately $23,396,626,000 in mandatory spending. The 
Committee did its best to meet all important priorities within 
the bill, with the highest priority given to veterans programs 
and section 8 contract renewals. Other priorities included 
maintaining environmental programs at or above current year 
levels, ensuring adequate funds for our Nation's space and 
scientific research programs, and providing adequate funding 
for emergency management and disaster relief.
    As recommended by the Committee, this bill attempts to 
provide a fair and balanced approach to the many competing 
programs and activities under the VA-HUD subcommittee's 
jurisdiction within the constraints imposed by a very tight 
budget allocation, including constraints dictated by the 1997 
budget agreement designed to result in a unified Federal budget 
in fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee recommendation provides $20,354,058,000 in 
discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
an increase of $1,107,793,000 above the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level and $1,164,000,000 above the budget request. The 
Committee has made veterans programs the highest priority in 
the bill. Increases in VA programs include $1,100,000,000 above 
the budget request for medical care, $50,000,000 above the 
request for the State home program, and $14,000,000 above the 
request for the state cemetery grant program.
    For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
Committee recommendation totals $27,155,816,000, an increase of 
$2,486,483,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The 
Committee has provided fair and needed funding for all HUD 
programs while also providing the needed funding for all 
expiring section 8 contracts.
    For the Environmental Protection Agency, the Committee 
recommendation totals $7,322,378,000, a decrease of $26,974,000 
below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and an increase of 
$115,732,000 above the budget request. Major changes from the 
President's request include an increase of $550,000,000 for 
clean water State revolving funds and a decrease of 
$100,000,000 below the request for Superfund.
    The Committee recommendation includes $854,580,000 for the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, including additional funds 
for emergency food and shelter, anti-terrorism, and fire 
program enhancements.
    The Committee recommendation for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration totals $13,378,400,000. This amount is 
the same as the President's request. The Committee 
recommendation includes a restructuring of NASA's appropriation 
accounts to ensure greater accountability of the international 
space station program and to protect other vital NASA programs.
    For the National Science Foundation, the Committee 
recommendation totals $3,921,450,000, an increase of 
$250,250,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The 
Committee views NSF as a key investment in the future and this 
funding is intended to reaffirm the strong and longstanding 
leadership of this Committee in support of scientific research 
and education.
    The Committee strongly supports the Offices of Inspector 
General [OIG] and their efforts to combat fraud, waste and 
abuse, and promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness of 
programs. Therefore, the Committee has provided significant 
increases to the Offices of Inspector General wherever 
necessary to enhance such activities. Increases over the fiscal 
year 1999 level include $7,200,000 or 20 percent for the VA 
OIG, $3,000,000 or 10 percent for the EPA OIG, and $2,615,000 
or 48 percent for the FEMA OIG. The bill also includes a new 
$10,000,000 audit account for the HUD IG to investigate 
longstanding accounting deficiencies at HUD. The additional 
resources will be focused on high priority concerns identified 
by Congress, OMB, and the agencies.

              Reprogramming and Initiation of New Programs

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

                 Government Performance and Results Act

    The Committee remains very concerned regarding the 
compliance of the major agencies within the jurisdiction of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies with regard to the Government Performance and Results 
Act [GPRA]. While each agency has made progress toward 
compliance with GPRA, each has additional progress to make. 
Each agency must do better at providing objective, measurable 
goals for all program activities and projects, and each budget 
justification must tie these goals into a coherent set of 
funding requests.

                TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Appropriations, 1999

                                                         $42,625,039,000

Budget estimate, 2000

                                                          42,586,684,000
Committee recommendation
                                                          43,750,684,000

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    The Veterans Administration was established as an 
independent agency by Executive Order 5398 of July 21, 1930, in 
accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 1016). This 
act authorized the President to consolidate and coordinate 
Federal agencies especially created for or concerned with the 
administration of laws providing benefits to veterans, 
including the Veterans' Bureau, the Bureau of Pensions, and the 
National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers. On March 15, 
1989, VA was elevated to Cabinet-level status as the Department 
of Veterans Affairs.
    The VA's mission is to serve America's veterans and their 
families as their principal advocate in ensuring that they 
receive the care, support, and recognition they have earned in 
service to the Nation. The VA's operating units include the 
Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Benefits 
Administration, National Cemetery Administration, and staff 
offices.
    The Veterans Health Administration develops, maintains, and 
operates a national health care delivery system for eligible 
veterans; carries out a program of education and training of 
health care personnel; carries out a program of medical 
research and development; and furnishes health services to 
members of the Armed Forces during periods of war or national 
emergency. A system of 172 medical centers, 811 outpatient 
clinics, 132 nursing homes, and 40 domiciliaries is maintained 
to meet the VA's medical mission.
    The Veterans Benefits Administration provides an integrated 
program of nonmedical veteran benefits. This Administration 
administers a broad range of benefits to veterans and other 
eligible beneficiaries through 58 regional offices and the 
records processing center in St. Louis, MO. The benefits 
provided include: compensation for service-connected 
disabilities; pensions for wartime, needy, and totally disabled 
veterans; vocational rehabilitation assistance; educational and 
training assistance; home buying assistance; estate protection 
services for veterans under legal disability; information and 
assistance through personalized contacts; and six life 
insurance programs.
    The National Cemetery Administration provides for the 
interment in any national cemetery with available grave space 
the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons and discharged 
veterans; permanently maintains these graves; marks graves of 
eligible persons in national and private cemeteries; and 
administers the grant program for aid to States in 
establishing, expanding, or improving State veterans' 
cemeteries. The National Cemetery System includes 153 
cemeterial installations and activities.
    Other VA offices, including the general counsel, inspector 
general, Boards of Contract Appeals and Veterans Appeals, and 
the general administration, support the Secretary, Deputy 
Secretary, Under Secretary for Health, Under Secretary for 
Benefits, and the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $43,750,684,000 for the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, including $23,396,626,000 in mandatory 
spending and $20,354,058,000 in discretionary spending. The 
amount provided for discretionary activities represents an 
increase of $1,164,000,000 above the budget request and 
$1,107,793,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The 
Committee has given VA programs--especially medical care--the 
highest priority in the bill. Increases above the President's 
request are recommended for medical care, state home 
construction grants, and state cemetery grants. The 
appropriation for VA will ensure the highest quality care and 
services to our Nation's veterans, and honor and dignity to 
those who are deceased.

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


                       compensation and pensions


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1999

                                                         $21,857,058,000

Budget estimate, 2000

                                                          21,568,364,000
Committee recommendation
                                                          21,568,364,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has provided $21,568,364,000 for compensation 
and pensions. This is a decrease of $288,694,000 below the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level and the same as the budget 
estimate.
    The estimated caseload and cost by program follows:

                                            COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             1999                2000             Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
    Compensation:
        Veterans....................................          2,273,901           2,267,620              -6,281
        Survivors...................................            302,748             300,001              -2,747
        Children....................................                633                 633   ..................
        (Clothing allowance)........................            (76,627)            (76,416)               -211
    Pensions:
        Veterans....................................            387,952             380,995              -6,957
        Survivors...................................            282,715             267,945             -14,770
        Minimum income for widows (non-add).........               (675)               (670)                 -5
        Vocational training (non- add)..............                (15)                 (8)                 -7
    Burial allowances...............................             92,310              91,380                -930
                                                     ===========================================================
Funds:
    Compensation:
        Veterans....................................    $14,796,699,000     $15,119,868,000       +$323,169,000
        Survivors...................................      3,470,343,000       3,570,531,000        +100,188,000
        Children....................................          7,463,000           7,684,000            +221,000
        Clothing allowance..........................         40,494,000          40,382,000            -112,000
    Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and 102-568)          1,419,000           1,388,000             -31,000
    Medical exams pilot program (Public Law 104-275)         17,152,000          20,147,000          +2,995,000
    Pensions:
        Veterans....................................      2,366,613,000       2,419,078,000         +52,465,000
        Survivors...................................        717,596,000         697,470,000         -20,126,000
        Minimum income for widows...................          3,429,000           3,479,000             +50,000
    Vocational training.............................             42,000              23,000             -19,000
    Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-568,             9,552,000           9,344,000            -208,000
     and 103-446)...................................
    Payment to Medical Care (Public Laws 101-508 and          6,793,000           7,200,000            +407,000
     102-568).......................................
    Payment to Medical Facilities...................          4,676,000           2,436,000          -2,240,000
    Burial benefits.................................        126,793,000         120,077,000          -6,716,000
    Other assistance................................          2,466,000           2,466,000   ..................
    Contingency.....................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
    Unobligated balance and trans-  fers............        285,527,000        -453,208,000        -738,735,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
        Total appropriation.........................  \1\ 21,857,058,000  \1\ 21,568,365,000   \1\ -288,694,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals do not add down due to rounding.

    The appropriation includes $38,079,000 in payments to the 
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' accounts 
for expenses related to implementing provisions of the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the Veterans' Benefits Act 
of 1992, the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, and 
the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1996. The amount 
also includes funds for a projected fiscal year 2000 cost-of-
living increase of 2.4 percent for pension recipients.
    The bill includes language permitting this appropriation to 
reimburse such sums as may be necessary, estimated at 
$2,436,000, to the medical facilities revolving fund to help 
defray the operating expenses of individual medical facilities 
for nursing home care provided to pensioners, should 
authorizing legislation be enacted.
    The Committee has not included language proposed by the 
administration that would provide indefinite fiscal year 2000 
supplemental appropriations after June 30, 2000 for 
compensation and pensions. The Committee has also rejected 
proposed bill language to split this account into three 
separate appropriation accounts.

                         readjustment benefits

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $1,175,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   1,469,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,469,000,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has recommended the budget estimate of 
$1,469,000,000 for readjustment benefits. The amount 
recommended is an increase of $294,000,000 above the fiscal 
year 1999 enacted level.
    The estimated caseload and cost for this account follows:

                                              READJUSTMENT BENEFITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                1999               2000            Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
    Education and training: Dependents.................            44,100             45,600             +1,500
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons....................           289,000            281,000             -8,000
        Reservists.....................................            74,200             73,000             -1,200
    Vocational rehabilitation..........................            51,440             50,726               -714
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................           458,740            450,326             -8,414
                                                        ========================================================
Funds:
    Education and training: Dependents.................      $132,182,000       $136,574,000        +$4,392,000
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons....................       904,665,000        896,804,000         -7,861,000
        Reservists.....................................       105,876,000        107,986,000         +2,110,000
    Vocational rehabilitation..........................       403,206,000        405,855,000         +2,649,000
    Housing grants.....................................        19,373,000         19,373,000   .................
    Automobiles and other conveyances..................         6,494,000          6,494,000   .................
    Adaptive equipment.................................        26,600,000         31,700,000         +5,100,000
    Work-study.........................................        34,500,000         39,900,000         +5,400,000
    Payment to States..................................        13,000,000         13,000,000   .................
    Reporting fees.....................................  .................         3,600,000         +3,600,000
    Unobligated balance and other adjustments..........      -470,896,000       -192,286,000       +278,610,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total appropriation............................     1,175,000,000      1,469,000,000       +294,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   veterans insurance and indemnities

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $46,450,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      28,670,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,670,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has provided $28,670,000 for veterans 
insurance and indemnities, as requested by the administration. 
This is a decrease of $17,780,000 below the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level. The Department estimates there will be 4,486,887 
policies in force in fiscal year 2000 with a total value of 
$459,619,000.

         VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Administrative
                                        Program account      expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999..................     $300,266,000     $159,121,000
Budget estimate, 2000.................      282,342,000      156,958,000
Committee recommendation..............      282,342,000      156,958,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides for all costs, with the 
exception of the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program, 
of VA's direct and guaranteed loans, as well as the 
administrative expenses to carry out these programs, which may 
be transferred to and merged with the general operating 
expenses appropriation.
    VA loan guaranties are made to service members, veterans, 
reservists and unremarried surviving spouses for the purchase 
of homes, condominiums, manufactured homes and for refinancing 
loans. VA guarantees part of the total loan, permitting the 
purchaser to obtain a mortgage with a competitive interest 
rate, even without a downpayment if the lender agrees. VA 
requires that a downpayment be made for a manufactured home. 
With a VA guaranty, the lender is protected against loss up to 
the amount of the guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the 
loan.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends such sums as may be necessary for 
funding subsidy payments, estimated to total $282,342,000, and 
$156,958,000 for administrative expenses. The administrative 
expenses may be transferred to the ``General operating 
expenses'' account. Bill language limits gross obligations for 
direct loans for specially adopted housing to $300,000.

                  education loan fund program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999....................          $1,000        $206,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................           1,000         214,000
Committee recommendation................           1,000         214,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The bill includes $1,000 for funding subsidy program costs 
and $214,000 for administrative expenses. The administrative 
expenses may be transferred to and merged with the ``General 
operating expenses'' account. Bill language is included 
limiting program direct loans to $3,000.

            vocational rehabilitation loans program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999....................         $55,000        $400,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................          57,000         415,000
Committee recommendation................          57,000         415,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

    This appropriation covers the funding subsidy cost of 
direct loans for vocational rehabilitation of eligible veterans 
and, in addition, it includes administrative expenses necessary 
to carry out the direct loan program. Loans of up to $827 
(based on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are 
available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in 
vocational rehabilitation programs as provided under 38 U.S.C. 
chapter 31 when the veteran is temporarily in need of 
additional assistance. Repayment is made in 10 monthly 
installments, without interest, through deductions from future 
payments of compensation, pension, subsistence allowance, 
educational assistance allowance, or retirement pay.

                        committee recommendation

    The bill includes the requested $57,000 for program costs 
and $415,000 for administrative expenses for the Vocational 
Rehabilitation Loans Program account. The administrative 
expenses may be transferred to and merged with the ``General 
operating expenses'' account. Bill language is included 
limiting program direct loans to $2,531,000. It is estimated 
that VA will make 4,600 loans in fiscal year 2000, with an 
average amount of $550.

          native american veteran housing loan program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

                                                          Administrative
                                                                expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................        $515,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................         520,000
Committee recommendation................................         520,000

                          program description

    This program will test the feasibility of enabling VA to 
make direct home loans to native American veterans who live on 
U.S. trust lands. It is a pilot program that began in 1993 and 
expires on December 31, 2001. Subsidy amounts necessary to 
support this program were appropriated in fiscal year 1993.

                        committee recommendation

    The bill includes the budget estimate of $520,000 for 
administrative expenses associated with this program in fiscal 
year 2000. These funds may be transferred to the ``General 
operating expenses'' account.

  GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS PROGRAM 
                                ACCOUNT

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program was established by Public Law 105-368, the 
Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. The program is a 
pilot project designed to expand the supply of transitional 
housing for homeless veterans and to guarantee up to 15 loans 
with a maximum aggregate value of $100,000,000. Not more than 
five loans may be guaranteed in the first 3 years of the 
program. The project must enforce sobriety standards and 
provide a wide range of supportive services such as counseling 
for substance abuse and job readiness skills. Residents will be 
required to pay a reasonable fee.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The bill includes the budget estimate of $48,250,000 for 
program costs, and a loan limitation of $100,000,000. 
Administrative expenses of the program, estimated at $750,000 
for fiscal year 2000, will be borne by the ``Medical care'' and 
``General operating expenses'' appropriations.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                              MEDICAL CARE

Appropriations, 1999.................................... $17,306,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................  17,306,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  18,406,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates the 
largest Federal medical care delivery system in the country, 
with 172 medical centers, 40 domiciliaries, 132 nursing homes, 
and 811 outpatient clinics which includes independent, 
satellite, community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
    This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment 
of eligible beneficiaries in VA hospitals, nursing homes, 
domiciliaries, and outpatient clinic facilities; contract 
hospitals; State home facilities on a grant basis; contract 
community nursing homes; and through the hometown outpatient 
program, on a fee basis. Hospital and outpatient care also are 
provided for certain dependents and survivors of veterans under 
the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the VA [CHAMPVA]. 
The medical care appropriation also provides for training of 
medical residents and interns and other professional 
paramedical and administrative personnel in health science 
fields to support the Department's and the Nation's health 
manpower demands.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $18,406,000,000 for VA medical 
care, an increase of $1,100,000,000 over the budget request and 
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. In addition, VA has 
authority to retain third-party collections, estimated by the 
Department to total $749,000,000 in fiscal year 2000. 
Therefore, the Committee's recommendation represents total 
discretionary resources for medical care of $19,155,000,000.
    The Committee recognizes that VA has been making 
significant progress toward its goals of reducing per-patient 
costs by 30 percent and increasing the number of new patients 
by 20 percent by the fiscal year 2002, from 1997 levels. VA has 
made great strides in streamlining its health care system, 
shifting care to outpatient settings where appropriate, closing 
unutilized inpatient beds, and eliminating wasteful practices. 
While the Veterans Health Administration has been transforming 
itself into a more modern and efficient, patient-focused health 
care system, significant challenges remain. These include the 
need to improve capital asset management so as to optimize the 
use of VA health care dollars (this issue is addressed in the 
``Construction, major projects'' and ``Capital Asset Fund'' 
accounts), maintain sufficient capacity to serve patients with 
special disabilities, improve revenue collections, continue to 
implement the recommendations of the Residency Realignment 
Review Committee and adapt to changes in its relationships with 
medical affiliates, and manage effectively the patient 
enrollment system. These challenges will be magnified as VA 
seeks to implement additional management efficiencies including 
reductions in staff.
    According to the budget justification, additional 
streamlining and cost-cutting measures are planned for fiscal 
year 2000; such ``management efficiencies'' would total 
$1,145,326,000 in savings and a reduction of 6,949 FTE, 
according to the President's budget. The Committee has not been 
provided full details of these management efficiencies, and is 
concerned that VA's budget request is insufficient to maintain 
high quality medical care to our nation's veterans in view of 
the magnitude of the proposed reductions.
    The Committee notes that VA's budget was not predicated on 
a detailed assessment of requirements, and no analysis of the 
specific reductions which would occur under the budget proposal 
were conducted prior to submission of the President's budget. 
The Committee, during hearings on VA's fiscal year 2000 budget, 
requested that such analysis be conducted. VA's recent field 
survey indicated that the President's budget would actually 
require a reduction of 13,000 FTEs, almost double that 
suggested in the budget justification. Moreover, many of the 
specific reductions being considered by the networks are 
unacceptable.
    The Committee notes that VA has some new demands on its 
budget which were not envisioned at the time the ``30-20-10'' 
initiative was developed. In particular, VA faces a significant 
new requirement associated with treating veterans suffering 
from hepatitis C with a new and costly therapy. VA plans to 
address aggressively this serious public health problem--an 
approach strongly supported by the Committee--at an estimated 
cost of approximately $350,000,000 in fiscal year 2000. In 
addition, costs for pharmacy and prosthetics are anticipated to 
be significantly higher than originally estimated. Yet the 
administration has ignored these critical requirements.
    For these reasons, the Committee has added $1,100,000,000 
to the budget. The amount provided by the Committee ensures VA 
will not be required to take untenable and inappropriate 
personnel actions, restrict access to care, reduce services, or 
implement closures or delays that would occur under the 
President's budget. The Committee continues to support 
strongly, however, continued improvements such as 
standardization efforts which will reduce costs while improving 
quality of care and access to medical services.
    The Committee is extremely troubled by the fact the 
administration refused to conduct a detailed assessment of the 
requirements of the Veterans Health Administration, and is 
saddened by the fact that the administration has not made a 
higher priority of veterans' needs in its budget process. There 
are approximately 3.4 million American veterans who depend on 
VA for medical care services, and deserve the best possible 
treatment. The Committee expects the administration's fiscal 
year 2001 budget request will include a more appropriate and 
realistic estimate of requirements for VA medical care, 
accompanied by detailed analysis.
    Cost collections.--The Committee continues to be troubled 
by VA's poor performance in its medical collections program. 
Funds made available through the cost recovery program are a 
critical component of VA's budget. Unfortunately, collections 
have consistently fallen behind targets. Last year, collections 
were estimated at $598,000,000, with actual collections 
totaling $560,096,498, a reduction of 6 percent. For fiscal 
year 1999, a $50,500,000 shortfall below the original estimate 
is anticipated. The Committee is concerned that VA will fail 
again in fiscal year 2000 to meet its targets despite the 
department's efforts to implement recommendations made by 
Coopers & Lybrand to improve the cost recovery program. The 
Committee believes VA should consider centralizing and/or 
contracting out this function so as to maximize collections 
potential. Therefore, the Committee directs VA to conduct a 
study that examines the issues involved in outsourcing the 
revenue process, including contracting out some or all of its 
third and first-party revenue processes. The study should 
identify key decision points and provide alternatives that will 
result in the most revenues to the VA. VA shall report to the 
Committee on the results of this study by October 30, 1999, 
including a timeline for implementation during fiscal year 
2000.
    Long-term care issues.--In view of the growing demand for 
long-term care services for veterans, the Committee supports 
the Department's efforts to develop a long-term care strategy. 
This strategy should include expanding options and services for 
home and community-based care, making these services the 
preferred placement site where clinically appropriate; 
establishing systemwide care coordination processes; and 
establishing a uniform VA-wide policy on the provision of 
nursing home services. The Committee recognizes the importance 
of the recommendations made by the Federal Advisory Committee 
on the Future of VA Long-Term Care.
    In keeping with this, the Committee stresses that long-term 
care funds are not to be restricted to nursing homes, but shall 
include other long-term care services as appropriate.
    In addition, the Committee urges VA to undertake six long-
term care demonstration programs, separate from the community 
nursing home contract, to test the impact of a mix of 
approaches to care coordination and management on leveraging 
limited VA resources to meet more veterans needs for long-term 
care services. VA should plan and manage this program with the 
assistance of an experienced contract coordinator and manager 
of long-term care services. The program should be evaluated by 
an independent entity, such as GAO, including an analysis of 
clinical and cost outcomes, veteran and family satisfaction, 
and effective management of a full continuum of services.
    The Committee notes that the State Home Program could 
provide an avenue of opportunity for VA to provide home-based 
personal care services to those veterans in need of long-term 
care who wish to remain in their own homes. VA should give 
close consideration to utilizing the state home programs to 
provide in-home health care services.
    Mental illness.--The Committee urges VA to place veterans 
who are diagnosed as chronically mentally ill in case 
management programs to provide services with a scope and 
intensity equivalent to case management services delivered to 
patients with similar diagnoses in state public mental health 
systems. Funds for this activity could come from funds which 
have been saved from eliminating beds in inpatient psychiatric 
facilities.
    The Committee directs VHA to require each Veterans 
Integrated Service Network to submit comprehensive written 
reports regarding the consolidation or closure of psychiatric 
programs for veterans with mental illness. These reports should 
address how the VISN's will provide alternative community-based 
mental health services and how dollars saved from cuts in 
inpatient psychiatric facilities will be redirected toward 
these services. Reports concerning previous and future 
consolidations must be submitted by the VISN's to VHA by 
December 31, 1999. A report is to be submitted to the Committee 
by February 28, 2000.
    Fee-basis cost containment.--The Committee notes that VA 
currently spends nearly $500,000,000 annually on fee-basis and 
other contract care, not including community nursing home and 
CHAMPVA programs. VA may not be receiving the most favorable 
competitive rates from community providers because it has not 
negotiated volume discounts or used managed care programs to 
bring costs down and manage utilization appropriately. 
Additionally, VA does not coordinate care, use quality or 
access measures, or have the ability to determine continuity or 
appropriateness of care. Therefore, the Committee believes VA 
should conduct a pilot program of managed care services in up 
to four VISNs, using an experienced managed care coordinator 
with an in-place, credentialed network of providers, for 
patients receiving fee-basis and other contract care. The pilot 
is to determine the extent to which VA could save resources; 
achieve better coordination of contracted care; improve 
quality, access and continuity of care; and create reliable and 
available data.
    Recovery audit program.--The Committee has included bill 
language authorizing VA to conduct a recovery audit program for 
the fee-basis and other contract medical programs. VA is to 
select a contractor with experience in conducting similar 
audits and recovery efforts to determine overpayments and 
payments which were not authorized, and to take steps to 
recover overpayments. VA could recover tens of millions of 
dollars which would be returned to the medical care account for 
services to veterans.
    Alaska Health Care Partnership.--The Committee supports the 
Alaska Federal Health Care Partnership's efforts to develop an 
Alaska-wide telemedicine network to provide access to health 
services and health education information in remote areas of 
Alaska to the more than 200,000 Federal beneficiaries now 
living in Alaska, including more than 65,000 veterans. The 
partnership, a joint effort of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Department of Defense, Coast Guard, and the Indian 
Health Service, is creating 235 telemedicine health care access 
sites over a 4-year period at VA, IHS, DOD, and Coast Guard 
clinical facilities throughout Alaska, linking remote 
installations and villages with tertiary health facilities 
located in Anchorage and Fairbanks. It should serve as a model 
for the use of telemedicine technology for the delivery of 
health care services and health care education in remote and 
inaccessible settings. The Committee anticipates that the 
Alaska telemedicine network will generate substantial savings 
by avoiding the high cost of transporting veterans from remote 
villages to Anchorage or other hub medical facilities for 
routine health problems and will result in a significantly 
higher level of available health care for Alaska veterans 
living in remote and inaccessible locations. The Committee 
recommends funding of $750,000 for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to continue its participation in the partnership's 
Alaska telemedicine project.
    Ft. Howard VAMC transition plan.--The Committee is aware of 
the VA's plan to transition the Ft. Howard VAMC to a mixed use 
facility. The Committee expects VISN 5 to submit its business 
plan to VA headquarters by January 15, 2000. The Committee 
believes that public participation and input are critical to 
any transitional plan. The Committee directs the VA to solicit 
the input of the community, veterans and veterans service 
organizations in Maryland prior to the submission of the 
business plan. The business plan must include a rigorous 
analysis of the proposed continuum of care and assisted living 
model to ensure that the facility will be affordable and 
valuable for veterans and the taxpayers. The plan also must 
include a detailed analysis of the proposed management 
structure and breakdown of responsibilities among the 
participants. Furthermore, during any transitional phase at Ft. 
Howard, the VA must maintain patient care and access to patient 
care for veterans and their families. There cannot be any 
interruption of medical care or changes in medical care that 
pose an undue burden to the Ft. Howard staff, the veterans and 
their families.
    Hepatitis C.--The Committee reiterates its concern 
regarding the disproportionately high prevalence of hepatitis C 
among veterans. Caring for veterans with hepatitis C will lead 
to significantly greater health care costs unless VA pursues a 
vigorous program of testing and treatment. The Committee urges 
VA to make testing for hepatitis C broadly available to 
veterans, and to use all available therapies in the most 
clinically appropriate and cost-effective manner.
    Medication Prescription Authority.--On May 4, 1999, VA 
issued a proposed rule that would permit ``other health care 
professionals'' (non-physicians) to prescribe medications and 
to conduct medication reviews. Subsequently, the VA withdrew 
the proposed rule. Prior to any further consideration of such a 
proposal, VA should conduct an internal review, including a 
public hearing, to discuss the implications for patient safety 
and to explore the specific role and legal responsibility of 
physicians and non-physician health care professionals with 
regard to prescription authority for patients in the VA health 
care system. VA should consult with the American Medical 
Association and other interested parties in conducting this 
internal review and public hearing.
    National Formulary.--The Committee notes that 
pharmaceutical costs represent almost $2,000,000,000 of VA's 
medical care budget. The Department's aggressive management of 
pharmaceutical costs has saved hundreds of millions of dollars 
over the past five years, allowing more dollars to be directed 
to health care for veterans. Therefore, the Committee supports 
implementation of the national formulary along with VA's waiver 
policy to ensure the most cost-effective use of pharmaceutical 
dollars while ensuring access to drugs not on the formulary 
when appropriate.
    Persian Gulf War Veterans.--The Committee notes that July 
1999 submission of the National Academy of Sciences Institute 
of Medicine's plan to review the scientific and medical 
literature regarding adverse health effects associated with 
exposures experienced during the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act 
of 1998 (Section XVI of Public Law 105-277). This legislation 
was intended to speed the long overdue relief owed to veterans 
of the Persian Gulf War. Therefore, the Committee strongly 
urges the Secretary in collaboration with the National Academy 
of Sciences, to continue expeditiously the determination of 
service-connection for ill veterans under the Persian Gulf War 
Veterans Act of 1998.
    Other issues.--The Committee is aware of the need for 
community-based outpatient clincs in Beaufort, Sumter, and 
Orangeburg, SC, which would improve services to over 150,000 
veterans in 16 counties. The Committee urges VHA to accelerate 
efforts by the Charleston and Columbia VAMC to promote these 
valuable initiatives and keep the Committee apprised of its 
progress.
    The Committee directs the Department to continue the 
demonstration project involving the Clarksburg VAMC and the 
Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia University.
    The Committee also supports the continuation of the 
inpatient services contracting demonstration program at the 
Brevard VAMC.
    The Committee supports VA's efforts to explore with the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention opportunities to 
maximize the resources of both agencies to reduce complications 
of diabetes through the CDC's prevention centers located at 
schools of public health, and to expand this initiative to 
include hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases.
    The Committee supports VA's efforts to undertake a three-
year rural health care pilot program at the White River 
Junction, VT, VAMC. The rural health care services delivery 
model will explore new methods of optimizing surgical, 
ambulatory and mental health care services in rural settings. 
VA estimates this will cost approximately $7,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2000.
    The Committee is aware of commercially available clinical 
guidance software tools that are being used by the Department 
of Defense to assess the health of Persian Gulf servicemembers. 
The Committee believes that such tools could deliver value to 
the VA by identifying veteran medical problems and solutions 
continuously, and creating standardized patient data to analyze 
better how resources are being used. Accordingly, the Committee 
directs that the VA report to the Committee by April 1, 2000, 
on the efficacy of such tools, their applicability in the VA 
system, and their compatibility with the Government 
Computerized Medical Record.
    The Committee urges VA to conduct a feasibility analysis of 
a VA telemedicine project at the Honolulu VAMROC to assess the 
value of telemedicine and telecommunications technologies to 
deliver health care services to veterans residing throughout 
the islands of the Pacific region.
    The Committee continues to support the VA's efforts to 
strengthen its psychology post-doctoral training program, and 
requests a report on the program's progress, including the 
number of training slots and their location, by March 1, 2000. 
The Committee is also interested in the progress being made in 
interdisciplinary training programs.
    The Committee remains supportive of the VA/DOD distance 
learning project designed to transition clinical nurse 
specialists into roles as adult nurse practitioners. The 
Committee requests a progress report by March 1, 2000.
    The Committee urges VA to provide support to establish a 
Veterans Intervention, Education, and Training Network at the 
HAMMER Training and Education Center to work with the National 
Veterans Foundation to provide crisis intervention and other 
counseling to veterans.
    The Committee urges VA to continue to work to establish a 
partnership with the Garden State Cancer Center to make 
radioimmunodetection and radioimmunotherapy technology 
available to cancer afflicted veterans.
    Colorectal cancer remains the second leading cause of 
cancer-related deaths in the U.S. With early detection through 
appropriate screenings, colorectal cancer also remains one of 
the most curable forms of cancer. The Committee urges VA to 
take all necessary steps to ensure that federal policy and 
guidelines calling for regular screenings of all average risk 
adults 50 years of age and older are being consistently applied 
to VA's patient population. These guidelines call for yearly 
fecal occult blood tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy conducted 
every five years for average risk patients and surveillance of 
the entire colon with colonoscopy for those patients considered 
to be at high risk.
    The Committee supports further deployment of the Joslin 
Vision Network, which uses non-invasive diabetes screening to 
detect diabetes earlier than other available tests, as well as 
emphasizing preventive care and behavioral modifications.
    The Committee has included bill language transferring not 
to exceed $27,907,000 to the general operating expenses account 
for expenses of the Office of Resolution Management 
($26,111,000) and Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint 
Adjudication ($1,796,000). The Committee directs that funds for 
this activity be included in the general operating expenses 
budget request for fiscal year 2001.
    The Committee has included bill language delaying the 
availability until August 1, 2000, of $635,000,000 in the 
equipment, lands, and structures object classifications.
    The Committee has included bill language, similar to that 
proposed by the administration, to make available through 
September 30, 2001, up to $900,000,000, approximately 5 percent 
of the medical care appropriation. This provides flexibility to 
the Department as it continues to implement significant program 
changes.

                    medical and prosthetic research

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $316,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     316,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     316,000,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $316,000,000 
for medical and prosthetic research. This is the same as the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The Committee remains highly 
supportive of this program, and recognizes its importance both 
in improving health care services to veterans and recruiting 
and retaining high-quality medical professionals in the 
Veterans Health Administration.
    The Committee supports VA's efforts to address the 
difficulty VA physician-investigators have finding time to 
conduct research.
    The Committee strongly supports the merit review process 
for the allocation of VA research funds.
    The Committee urges VA to establish a Triservice Nursing 
Research Program to enhance nursing research initiatives and to 
focus on specific health care needs of aging veterans.
    Given the mounting evidence that Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is 
a primary cause leading to the rising incidence of 
hepatocellular carcinoma, the Committee urges VA to conduct 
longitudinal studies to determine the clinical course of 
Hepatitis C and factors resulting in the progression of HCV to 
cirrhosis and liver cancer.
    The Committee is concerned with the dramatic rise in the 
incidence rates of lower esophageal and upper stomach cancers. 
The Committee understands that experts believe there is a 
strong and probable causal relationship between 
gastroesophageal reflux and esophageal adenocarcinoma. The 
Committee therefore urges VA to intensify research efforts on 
the relationship between acid reflux and lower esophageal/upper 
stomach cancer.
    The Committee urges VA to consider working with its 
affiliated schools of public health to conduct research to 
develop population-based interventions and studies on health 
problems that predominantly affect veterans. Population-based 
health promotion research will aid VA as it continues its 
transformation to a more comprehensive, cost-efficient health 
care delivery system.
    Recent research has documented the link between 
neurofibromatosis and cancer, brain tumors and heart disease. 
The Committee encourages the VA to increase its NF research 
portfolio, in addition to continuing to collaborate with other 
Federal agencies. In addition, the Committee requests that the 
VA report on these efforts by March 1, 2000.

      medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $63,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      61,200,000
Committee recommendation................................      60,703,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $60,703,000 for medical 
administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, a decrease 
of $2,297,000 below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The 
reduction of $497,000 below the administration's request 
reflects two technical adjustments requested by the Department, 
one involving the funding mechanism for the Office of 
Facilities Management and another involving the consolidation 
of headquarters' public affairs activities. The amount provided 
is sufficient to add 33 FTE to enhance the oversight of care 
provided to our nation's veterans, including additional staff 
in the Offices of the Medical Inspector, Performance and 
Quality, and Patient Care Services.
    The decrease in the MAMOE account from the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level reflects the Committee's approval of VA's plans 
to establish a reimbursement process between VHA, NCA, and VBA 
for project technical and consulting services to be provided by 
the Facilities Management Service Delivery Office. Bill 
language has been included providing this transfer authority. 
The estimated level of reimbursement to the MAMOE account in 
fiscal year 2000 for facilities management support is 
$7,100,000.

                   GENERAL POST FUND, NATIONAL HOMES

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Program      Limitation on  Administrative
                                                                      account      direct loans      expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999............................................          $7,000         $70,000         $54,000
Budget estimate, 2000...........................................           7,000          70,000          54,000
Committee recommendation........................................           7,000          70,000          54,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                      Departmental Administration


                       general operating expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $855,661,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     912,353,000
Committee recommendation................................     912,594,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $912,594,000 for general operating 
expenses, an increase of $56,933,000 above the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level. The amount provided includes $706,365,000 for 
the Veterans Benefits Administration and $206,229,000 for 
general administration. In addition to this appropriation, 
resources are made available for general operating expenses 
through reimbursements totaling $343,128,000 for fiscal year 
2000, with total estimated obligations of approximately 
$1,255,722,000.
    The Committee recommendation is $241,000 above the 
administration's request, reflecting two technical adjustments 
requested by the Department. VA has requested a change to the 
funding mechanism for the Office of Facilities Management, 
which requires an additional $104,000 in GOE and a commensurate 
reduction in the MAMOE account. Also, VA plans to consolidate 
headquarters' public affairs activities, requiring an 
additional $137,000 in GOE, and a commensurate reduction in the 
MAMOE and NCA accounts.
    VBA funding levels, including reimbursements for credit 
reform administrative costs, would total $859,832,000, an 
increase of $49,524,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level. Most of the increase is dedicated to the compensation 
and pension (C&P) program. While the Committee supports ongoing 
efforts to ``reengineer'' this program, and acknowledges the 
difficulty and increasing complexity of VBA's workload, the 
Committee believes inadequate progress has been made within the 
last year to improve the timeliness and quality of claims 
processing. The Committee has approved VA's proposal for a 
total of 440 additional FTE for the C&P program, and has 
approved $44,800,000 for initiatives to achieve VBA's goals, 
including information technology enhancements and training. 
Given these additional resources, the Committee intends to hold 
VBA fully accountable in meeting the C&P goals it has set forth 
for fiscal year 2000--including completing rating-related 
actions in 95 days and achieving a national accuracy rate of 81 
percent for core rating work--and directs VBA to submit a 
quarterly progress report.
    The Committee supports VA's ``one-VA philosophy'' and 
believes the colocation of functions performed at the Hines 
Benefits Delivery Center and the Austin Automation Center are 
an important step in the integration of data systems, as well 
as making more effective use of limited resources.
    The Committee notes that the National Guard currently 
administers some 3,000 armories located in all 50 states, 
territories and the District of Columbia. Those facilities 
could provide office space and infrastructure to support 
veterans assistance counseling and claims processing. VA should 
consider entering into a partnership with the National Guard 
Bureau to conduct a pilot program to determine whether services 
to veterans could be improved through sharing arrangements with 
National Guard armories.
    The Committee recommends the current level of $25,000 for 
official reception and representation expenses.
    Bill language has been included restricting travel expenses 
in the immediate Office of the Secretary to $100,000.

                    national cemetery administration

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $92,006,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      97,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      97,256,000

                          program description

    The National Cemetery Administration was established in 
accordance with the National Cemeteries Act of 1973. It has a 
fourfold mission: to provide for the interment in any national 
cemetery the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons and 
discharged veterans, together with their spouses and certain 
dependents, and permanently to maintain their graves; to mark 
graves of eligible persons in national and private cemeteries; 
to administer the grant program for aid to States in 
establishing, expanding, or improving State veterans' 
cemeteries; and to administer the Presidential Memorial 
Certificate Program.
    There are a total of 153 cemeterial installations in 39 
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The 
Committee's recommendation for the National Cemetery 
Administration provides funds for all of these cemeterial 
installations, including the Tahoma National Cemetery.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $97,256,000 for the National 
Cemetery Administration. This is an increase of $5,250,000 over 
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The increase of $256,000 
above the administration's request reflects two technical 
adjustments requested by the Department involving the funding 
mechanism for the Office of Facilities Management and the 
consolidation of headquarters' public affairs activities.
    The increase above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level would 
fund 37 additional FTE, for a total of 1,406. This will allow 
for growth in cemeterial interment workloads at existing 
cemeteries, and for the activation of new national cemeteries 
in the Cleveland, OH; Chicago, IL; Dallas/Ft. Worth; and 
Albany, NY areas. In addition, funds are included to reduce the 
equipment backlog.
    The Committee has included bill language transferring not 
to exceed $117,000 to the ``General operating expenses'' 
account for expenses of the Office of Resolution Management and 
Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication. The 
Committee directs that funds for this activity be included in 
the general operating expenses budget request for fiscal year 
2001.

                    office of the inspector general

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $36,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      43,200,000
Committee recommendation................................      43,200,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $43,200,000 
for the inspector general. This is an increase of $7,200,000 
above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The amount provided 
will enable OIG to increase total staffing by 12 FTE, for a 
total of 374. The Committee notes that the authorized level of 
staffing is 417 FTE. The additional resources above the current 
level will enable OIG to implement fully its Combined 
Assessment Program, perform GPRA data reliability reviews to 
ensure accuracy of data used to measure and report 
accomplishments toward achieving goals, and undertake other new 
initiatives.
    The Committee has included bill language transferring not 
to exceed $30,000 to the ``General operating expenses'' account 
for expenses of the Office of Resolution Management and Office 
of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication. The 
Committee directs that funds for this activity be included in 
the general operating expenses budget request for fiscal year 
2001.

                      construction, major projects

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $142,300,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      60,140,000
Committee recommendation................................      70,140,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $70,140,000 
for construction, major projects, an increase of $10,000,000 
above the budget request.
    The following table compares the Committee recommendation 
with the budget request.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Available
   Location and description       through        2000        Committee
                                    1999       request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Program:
    Clinical improvements:      ...........       13,000         13,000
     Kansas City, MO, Surgical
     suite....................
    Clinical improvements:           24,000       17,500         17,500
     Tampa, FL, Spinal cord
     injury and energy center.
    Patient environment:              1,300       12,700         12,700
     Murfreesboro, TN,
     Psychiatric patient
     privacy..................
    Advance planning fund:      ...........        2,970         12,970
     Various stations.........
    Asbestos abatement:         ...........        1,000          1,000
     Various stations.........
    Design fund: Various        ...........        1,000          1,000
     stations.................
Less: Design fund.............  ...........         -650           -650
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................       25,300       47,520         57,520
                               =========================================
Veterans Benefits               ...........          225            225
 Administration: Advance
 planning fund................
National Cemetery Program:      ...........       11,900         11,900
 Leavenworth, KS, Facility
 right-sizing/gravesite
 development..................
Advance planning fund: Various  ...........          500            500
 stations.....................
Less: Design fund.............  ...........         -595           -595
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................  ...........       11,805         11,805
                               =========================================
Claims Analyses: Various        ...........          590            590
 stations.....................
                               =========================================
      Total construction,            25,300       60,140         70,140
       major projects.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee has included language and $10,000,000 in 
funding for capital asset realignment studies to allow VA to 
comply with the recommendations contained in the General 
Accounting Office's March 10, 1999, testimony entitled ``VA 
Health Care--Capital Asset Planning and Budgeting Needs 
Improvement.'' GAO concluded that VA does not systematically 
evaluate veterans' or asset needs on a market or geographic 
basis and could enhance its health care services by reducing 
the level of resources spent on underused or inefficient 
buildings. Currently, the advance planning fund is available to 
develop and identify needs for traditional construction 
proposals. The language would expand the activities of the 
advance planning fund to include the awarding of contracts to 
examine multiple or single health care markets to assess VA's 
future health care requirements and whether other alternatives 
such as contracting for services, sharing agreements, facility 
leasing, partnering, asset replacements, or a combination 
thereof, are best suited for providing health care to veterans 
in various geographic areas. The Committee expects to be kept 
apprised of the process to be followed and the criteria to be 
used in conducting these capital asset realignment studies. 
This issue is also discussed in the ``Capital Asset Fund'' 
account.
    The Committee continues to support strongly a new national 
cemetery in the Oklahoma City area. VA expects to award a 
design contract for architectural and engineering services for 
this project in October 1999, and the design should be 
completed within a year of award. Therefore, the Committee 
expects that the President's fiscal year 2001 budget submission 
will include construction funds for this project so that the 
project may be completed as expeditiously as possible.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $175,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     175,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     175,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for minor 
construction, the same as the current budget and the request.
    Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends 
$3,900,000 to convert unfinished space into research 
laboratories at the ambulatory care addition of the Harry S. 
Truman VAMC, consistent with VA's strategic plan.
    The Committee concurs with GAO's assertion that VA needs to 
improve the way it makes capital asset investment decisions, 
including those for minor projects. Despite the significant 
amount of resources involved, the current process for approving 
minor projects is decentralized, inconsistent, and less 
rigorous than that applied to major projects. The Committee 
expects VA to follow GAO's recommendations to improve capital 
investment decisionmaking.
    The Committee notes that the Inspector General recently 
completed an audit of the minor construction and nonrecurring 
maintenance programs, and found that at least 6 of the 68 
projects--9 percent--in their statistical sample of minor 
construction projects were not justified or needed to be 
reduced in scope. Based on the sample results, OIG projected 
that at least $20,400,000 of construction items in the fiscal 
year 1998 operating plan were not needed. The Committee intends 
that VA implement the IG's recommendations to strengthen the 
process used to assess project needs to ensure that funds are 
allocated effectively and appropriately to the highest priority 
projects.
    The Committee urges VA to allocate sufficient funds to 
address the research program's need for space.

                         parking revolving fund


                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    No new budget authority is requested by the administration 
or provided for fiscal year 2000.

       grants for construction of state extended care facilities

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      90,000,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for grants for the 
construction of State extended care facilities, the same as the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The amount provided represents 
an increase of $50,000,000 above the budget request. The 
Committee notes there is a backlog of approximately 
$100,000,000 in priority one projects from fiscal year 1999. 
This program is a cost-effective means of meeting the long-term 
health care needs of veterans.
    The Committee expects to be kept apprised of changes in the 
allocation methodology.
    The Committee urges VA to provide funds to replace the 
boiler plant and construct a dietary facility at the 
Southeastern Veterans Center in Pennsylvania.

       grants for the construction of state veterans' cemeteries

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      11,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for grants for 
construction of State veterans' cemeteries in fiscal year 2000, 
an increase of $15,000,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level and $14,000,000 above the budget request. These funds 
will reduce the backlog of approximately $34,000,000 in State 
cemetery grant applications.
    The Committee notes the need for cemeteries in Bloomfield 
and Jacksonville, MO. Pre-application for State cemetery grants 
have already been approved by NCA for these important projects.

                           CAPITAL ASSET FUND

Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     $10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                          Program Description

    The Capital Asset Fund would allow the Department on a 
pilot basis to sell, transfer, or exchange excess and 
underutilized properties and retain ninety percent of the 
proceeds to invest in more appropriate capital to benefit 
veterans. Under the administration proposal, ten percent of the 
proceeds would be transferred to the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development to assist in the funding of homeless 
assistance groups in local areas. Of the amount retained by VA, 
five percent of the net proceeds would be transferred into the 
VA homeless program, and eighty-five percent would be used to 
fund future VA asset disposal-related activities and other non-
recurring capital needs. Capital projects would include major 
and minor construction, parking, non-recurring maintenance, 
leasing, and equipment. The pilot would include up to 30 
disposal projects.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has not recommended funds owing to the lack 
of authorization. In addition, the Committee is concerned about 
the proposal to transfer a portion of the proceeds to HUD.
    However, the Committee recognizes the need to dispose of 
unneeded facilities. According to the General Accounting 
Office, fewer than 1,200 of VHA's 4,700 buildings are used to 
deliver health care services to veterans; VA has over 5,000,000 
square feet of vacant space, which can cost as much as 
$35,000,000 a year to maintain. In Congressional testimony 
earlier this year, GAO stated ``VHA has the opportunity to 
reduce significantly the amount of funds used to operate and 
maintain unneeded or inefficient health care delivery locations 
and reinvest such savings to enhance care provided to 
veterans.'' Over time VA could redirect hundreds of millions of 
dollars to direct patient care activities if it sold, 
transferred or exchanged unutilized or underutilized 
properties. Therefore, upon enactment of authorizing 
legislation, the Committee will review this proposal to provide 
additional capital asset management tools to the Department.

                       administrative provisions

    The Committee has included seven administrative provisions 
carried in earlier bills. Included is a provision enabling VA 
to use surplus earnings from the national service life 
insurance, U.S. Government life insurance, and veterans special 
life insurance programs to administer these programs. This 
provision was included for the first time in fiscal year 1996 
appropriations legislation. The Department estimates that 
$36,754,000 will be reimbursed to the ``General operating 
expenses'' account as a result of this provision.
    The Committee has not included bill language requested by 
the administration authorizing the reimbursement of the Office 
of Resolution Management and the Office of Employment 
Discrimination Complaint Adjudication for services provided, 
from funds in any appropriation for salaries and other 
administrative expenses. Instead, transfer authority totaling 
up to $28,054,000 from the medical care, national cemetery 
administration, and OIG appropriations has been provided. In 
the future, resources for this activity are to be included in 
the GOE budget request.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 1999.................................... $24,659,378,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................  28,048,478,000
Committee recommendation................................  27,156,066,000

                          general description

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was 
established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public 
Law 89-174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the 
principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned 
with the Nation's housing needs, fair housing opportunities, 
and improving and developing the Nation's communities.
    In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and 
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who 
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan 
insurance programs that help families become homeowners and 
facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and 
homeownership subsidy programs for low-income families who 
otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat 
discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair 
housing opportunity; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate 
supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid neighborhood 
rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of 
our urban centers from blight and decay.
    HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the 
marketplace and fosters programs and research that stimulate 
and guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but 
better communities and living environments.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$27,156,066,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. This is an increase of $2,486,688,000 above the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level.
    The Committee continues to be concerned over the 
Department's apparent lack of interest in working with the 
Senate and House housing subcommittees in consolidating and 
reforming HUD's primary programs. Instead, the Department's 
continuing strategy is to seek authority for broad new 
initiatives and programs through general appropriation language 
and not seek concurrence with the authorizing committees. While 
certain matters may be appropriate for the Appropriations 
Committee's to address, HUD's apparent disregard for the 
authorizing committees and primary focus on the appropriations 
process is inappropriate. For example, proposals like HUD's 
Regional Connections Initiative and America's Private 
Investment Companies Initiative as well as new HUD proposals 
for privatizing and sale of the Government National Mortgage 
Association (GNMA) and for the restructuring of the Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program are proposals which 
raise many policy issues that require a complete public debate 
and also require the development of a program structure that is 
typical of authorizing legislation, not appropriations 
legislation. This is an annual problem and the Committee 
continues to be disappointed in HUD's lack of committment to a 
dialogue on housing policy in the authorizing committees and 
with the Congress as a whole.
    The Committee urges the Department to continue its efforts 
to reform its programs, especially the delivery system for 
these programs. This is especially important since GAO again at 
the beginning of 1999 designated HUD as a high risk area, as it 
was in both 1995 and 1997. HUD is the only agency ever 
designated as high risk on an agency-wide basis. Further, the 
most recent audit of HUD's financial statements by the HUD 
Inspector General revealed 6 material weaknesses and 11 
reportable conditions. This is one more material weakness and 
reportable condition than was identified in the 1998 audit. 
This concern further is highlighted by recent audits that have 
disclosed HUD loses some $900,000,000 annually through fraud 
and neglect in its assisted housing programs.
    In addition, HUD's budget includes, according to GAO, some 
19 new programs and initiatives with funding of some 
$731,000,000. The Committee believes HUD must focus its efforts 
on its core programs rather than redirect HUD staffing and 
expertise to new boutique programs and activities, especially 
since many of these programs and activities can be achieved at 
the discretion of states and localities under the existing 
authority of programs such as CDBG and HOME. Because of recent 
downsizing and restructuring, HUD is vulnerable to poor 
management decisions, structural weaknesses and deficiencies in 
its primary housing and community development programs. An 
overload of new activities and programs can only further weaken 
the Department.
    The Committee also urges HUD to continue to redesign the 
budget process to meet the requirements of the Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA). HUD must establish measures 
and benchmarks to connect funding decisions with goals in a 
manner consistent with GPRA. Again, unlike HUD's current 
approach, consultation with Congress is critical to the success 
of GPRA and the success of HUD.

                        housing certificate fund

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

Appropriations, 1999.................................... $10,326,542,000
Budget estimate, 2000.................................\1\ 11,522,095,215
Committee recommendation..............................\1\ 11,051,135,000

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

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$11,051,135,000, of which $10,855,135,000 shall be used to fund 
expiring section 8 contracts including the costs of sticky or 
enhanced vouchers for families that choose to continue to live 
in multifamily housing in which a mortgage is refinanced and 
the housing was previously eligible for the Preservation 
Program, as well as in certain circumstances where owners of 
assisted multifamily housing opt-out of the section 8 program. 
In addition, this account includes the Administration's 
recommendation for an advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000 
for the remainder costs of contracts renewed in fiscal year 
2000 for the months requiring section 8 assistance during 
fiscal year 2001. The Committee has included $100,000,000 in 
this account to cover the costs of renewing contracts for below 
market section 8 projects up to market. An additional 
$2,050,000,000 in recaptures, carryover from fiscal year 1999, 
and transfers from the ``Annual Contributions for Assisted 
Housing'' account also is expected to be available for section 
8 contract renewals.
    For projects facing displacement because of prepayment, HUD 
is authorized to provide sticky or enhanced vouchers which 
permit current residents of such a project to be subsidized 
based on the market rent for a dwelling unit in the project. 
Tenants shall remain eligible for sticky vouchers so long as 
they continue to live in the same projects for which owners 
have prepaid the mortgage, subject to a rent reasonableness 
standard. This bill includes legal authority to allow HUD to 
provide section 8 rental assistance up to the market rent of a 
unit for low-income families where owners of projects assisted 
with section 8 project-based assistance choose to not renew 
their expiring section 8 contracts. In these cases, the tenant 
is required to pay no greater than 30 percent of his or her 
adjusted income. The Committee believes that HUD must first 
make every effort to renew the expiring section 8 contracts 
which are attached to this assisted housing, especially those 
projects located in low vacancy areas, including those in high 
cost urban areas and rural areas, and especially those projects 
that serve the elderly and persons with disabilities.
    Other activities eligible for funding under this account 
include the conversion of section 23 projects to assistance 
under section 8, the family unification program, and the 
relocation of witnesses in connection with efforts to fight 
crime in public and assisted housing pursuant to a law 
enforcement or prosecution agency.
    In addition, the Committee believes that section 8 tenant-
based assistance provides a needed opportunity for disabled 
families to have a more diverse housing choice with an 
opportunity to mainstream into a community of their choice. In 
cases where elderly public housing and assisted housing 
projects are designated as elderly-only, it is expected that up 
to $40,000,000 be used to provide needed section 8 tenant-based 
housing assistance for disabled families that would otherwise 
be served by public and assisted housing.
    Finally, the Committee reiterates its continuing and 
growing concern over HUD's inadequate accounting procedures for 
identifying excess section 8 contract reserves as well as 
excess project-based section 8 assistance. While the Department 
has made strides towards completing an overhaul of its section 
8 accounting systems, there remains significant concerns over 
the accuracy of its section 8 accounting. This is unacceptable 
and the Department's continued failure to provide accurate 
analysis of all accounts has resulted in a lack of credibility. 
The Committee reminds HUD that an accurate fiscal forecast of 
the funding in all HUD programs is critical to HUD's 
credibility and is a requirement for a sound relationship with 
this Committee.
    The Committee also directs HUD to identify in its fiscal 
year 2001 budget justification the renewal costs associated 
with each project-based section 8 program, such as the section 
8 moderate rehabilitation program and the section 515 program.
    The Committee has not included any additional funds for 
incremental section 8 assistance as requested by the 
Administration. While the Committee understands there is demand 
for additional section 8 assistance, the Administration's 
budget projections and recommendations have created such 
uncertainty over the ability or desire of the Administration to 
meet its financial commitment to preserve and renew existing 
section 8 contracts in future budgets that it would be very 
ill-advised to add additional section 8 incremental assistance 
at this time.
    The Committee believes that the funding of any incremental 
vouchers depends on a full and frank discussion of the actual 
cost of section 8 assistance, including vouchers. While the 
Committee supports section 8 rental assistance as the most 
practical way to provide Federal housing assistance to low-
income families, the actual cost each year in outlays 
approaches $20,000,000,000, with much of this cost hidden 
within existing long-term section 8 project-based contracts. 
The annual cost in budget authority will continue to increase 
to match the $20,000,000,000 in outlays as these long-term 
section 8 contracts expire. This means that the cost of 
including new incremental vouchers will become an additional 
annual competing cost against other budget priorities, 
especially critical as the annual cost of renewing existing 
expiring section 8 contracts continues to explode.
    Also, very troubling are HUD audit findings from data 
collected for calendar 1997 from families assisted under HUD 
assisted housing programs that conclude that the Department 
annually provides overpayments of some $900,000,000 in its 
assisted housing programs. This is continuing problem that HUD 
must address. In real terms, the loss of $900,000,000 
represents an annual loss of section 8 housing assistance for 
over 135,000 low-income families.
    Moreover, the Congress and the Administration need to 
address the concern that section 8 (tenant-based) vouchers do 
not always provide real rental choice for assisted families. 
Instead, because of market distortions in how section 8 rents 
are calculated, families with vouchers often have little choice 
in their rental decisions, leaving them often in low-income and 
very low-income neighborhoods and living in substandard 
housing. In a number of cases, families with vouchers are 
unable to use their vouchers to obtain affordable housing. This 
lack of choice also can result in de facto redlining which is 
not acceptable.
    Obviously, any change to provide more rental choice in the 
section 8 voucher program could result in large additional 
costs, and the Congress and HUD need to understand this cost, 
as well as how to balance this cost with the need to ensure 
that the section 8 voucher program provides real choice in the 
selection of affordable housing.
    The Committee has adopted the Administration's 
recommendation to defer the appropriation on fiscal year 2000 
section 8 funding with the greatest reluctance. This hard 
choice had to be made since the Committee had to compensate for 
other shortfalls generated by the Administration's fiscal year 
2000 budget, including incomplete budget estimates generated by 
OMB, especially with regard to our Nation's financial 
commitment to the medical needs of our Veterans.
    In addition, the Administration's recommendation that the 
Congress defer payment of $4,200,000,000 on expiring section 8 
contracts will help create a funding gap in fiscal year 2000 of 
over $8,000,000,000 for the renewal of existing section 8 
contracts in fiscal year 2001. The Committee advises that this 
cost will be very difficult to meet under any budget 
constraint. Even more troubling is the Administration's out-
year budget forecast that proposes flat funding for section 8 
contracts of $11,500,000,000 for the next 10 years. This would 
mean some 1.3 million families will lose their Federal housing 
assistance over the next 10 years.
    The Committee has not included the Administration's request 
of $209,000,000 for Contract Administrators. While the 
Committee supports contracting out of the administration of the 
section 8 project-based contracts, it does not believe that a 
specific set-aside is necessary. HUD also is encouraged to 
expand the use of State and local housing finance agencies in 
contracting out the administration of the section 8 project-
based program.
    The Committee believes that the section 8 tenant-based 
program could be run more cost-effectively and efficiently if 
other public and public-private entities were allowed to 
compete in administering the program. Currently, roughly 2,500 
individual public housing authorities (PHA) operate section 8 
tenant-based programs, of which 1,700 administer less than 250 
contracts. The Committee believes that the Department should 
evaluate consolidating the smaller jurisdictions into larger 
regional or state jurisdictions for administering section 8. 
The Committee is concerned that many administrators of the 
section 8 tenant-based program are not adequately performing 
their responsibilities and duties. Under the tenant-based 
program, the administrators--who are typically local public 
housing authorities (PHA)--are required to perform duties such 
as determining ``rent reasonableness,'' ensuring that housing 
units meet housing quality standards, and providing tenant 
counseling and owner outreach functions. To improve the 
performance of the section 8 contract administrative functions, 
the Committee directs HUD to provide a proposal no later than 
January 5, 2000 on competing the section 8 tenant-based program 
upon contract expiration. The proposal should include details 
on how HUD would be able to manage this competition, what kinds 
of publicly accountable entities could compete (including 
private-public joint ventures), and to what extent the Federal 
government may be able to reduce administrative fees while 
improving the administration of the program. Lastly, the 
Department should submit any necessary legislative language in 
order to carry out this activity.
    HUD also is prohibited from using any funds under this 
account for Regional Opportunity Counseling. To the extent that 
families need counseling on making the best use of section 8 
vouchers, it is expected that the availability of counseling 
will be part of HUD's assessment in awarding the administration 
of section 8 contracts.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $3,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   2,555,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,555,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,555,000,000 
for the public housing capital fund, the same as the budget 
request and $445,000,000 less than the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level.
    The Committee directs HUD to report to the Committee no 
later than May 15, 2000 on the status of all unexpended funds 
appropriated under this account, including any actions taken by 
HUD to ensure that all capital improvement activities are being 
completed by public housing agencies in an expeditious manner.
    HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account 
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $2,818,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   3,003,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,900,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for the payment of operating 
subsidies to public housing authorities (except Indian housing 
authorities) to augment rent payments by residents in order to 
provide sufficient revenues to meet reasonable operating costs 
as determined through the new formula funding system enacted as 
part of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 
1998.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,900,000,000 
for the public housing operating fund, $103,000,000 less than 
the budget request. The Committee believes this reduction is 
appropriate to reflect the increased flexibility provided in 
the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill to public housing 
authorities in administering their housing.
    The Committee expects the new regulations governing the 
payment of operating subsidies will reflect reduced costs 
through increased flexibility as well as provide incentives 
that will reduce the cost of public housing to the Federal 
government while increasing the habitability of this housing 
for the residents. The public housing system has been stagnant 
for far too long. In addition, the Committee directs HUD to 
collect from each public housing authority a summary of all 
salary information as well as a summary of all other annual 
operating expenses, and provide this information to the 
Committee by May 15, 2000.
    The Committee also is very concerned over reports that the 
Department is freezing the availability of operating funds 
where there is an outstanding complaint under the Fair Housing 
Act against a public housing authority. This action by the 
Department presumes that a public housing authority has acted 
improperly whenever there is a complaint under the Fair Housing 
Act and interferes with the ability of a public housing 
authority to meet its legal responsibilities to its tenants and 
for operating its housing. This action by HUD also raises 
serious constitutional issues and damages the ability of the 
parties to resolve fairly the complaint in a manner consistent 
with the Fair Housing Act.
    HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account 
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937.
    Because the activities in this account are now governed 
through new legal authority under the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act of 1998, enacted as part of the fiscal year 
1999 VA/HUD appropriations bill, the Committee directs HUD to 
report on any shortfall in funds or lack of legal authority for 
prior activities handled under this account.
    The Committee is troubled by the Department's development 
and implementation of the new ``Public Housing Assessment 
System'' (PHAS). While the Committee agrees completely with the 
Department's goal of measuring whether a public housing 
authority (PHA) is providing decent, safe, and sanitary housing 
for its residents, the Committee wants to ensure that the 
standards are fair, measurable, objective, and understandable. 
Unfortunately, HUD has instead created an overly complex, 
incomplete, and costly system based on the preliminary 
evaluations performed. Accordingly, the Committee directs HUD 
to consider the preliminary evaluations and ensure that the 
final rule is fair and less costly than its currently devised 
system. The Department should consult with all affected 
parties, such as PHAs, before issuing its final rule.

             Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $310,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     310,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     310,000,000

                          Program Description

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $310,000,000 
for drug elimination grants for low-income housing, of which 
$10,000,000 shall be awarded for technical assistance grants, 
$10,000,000 shall be appropriated to fund Operation Safe House 
which is administered by the HUD inspector general, $10,000,000 
for administrative costs of the HUD inspector general 
associated with Operation Safe House, and $20,000,000 for 
competitive grants under the New Approach Anti-Drug Program.
    The Committee is very concerned about HUD using this 
program to create new special programs or set-asides out of 
this account which are not provided for in law. This program is 
intended to be driven by local needs and local decisionmaking. 
For example, while the Committee supports the use of these drug 
elimination grant funds for youth anti-drug activities, the 
Committee believes that the public housing authorities have the 
authority to use these funds for youth anti-drug activities and 
have a better understanding of their tenants needs and their 
community in prioritizing the use of these funds. HUD also is 
prohibited from making any substantive changes to this program 
unless the changes have been subject to normal notice and 
comment rulemaking.
    The Committee also is concerned that HUD has not monitored 
adequately the use of funds under the Drug Elimination Grant 
program or established baseline criteria to understand the 
effectiveness of this program. HUD, therefore, is directed to 
identify in the fiscal year 2001 budget justification the goals 
for the program and the actual performance of the grantees in 
meeting the goals.

         Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 
                               [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $625,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     625,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     500,000,000

                          Program Description

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $500,000,000 
for the ``HOPE VI'' account, $125,000,000 less than the budget 
request and the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The Committee 
urges the Department to continue funding innovative projects 
that work both as public and mixed-income housing as well as 
building blocks to revitalizing neighborhoods.
    The Committee is concerned about the future of this program 
once the Department meets its goal of demolishing 100,000 
public housing units by the end of 2003. The Department is 
directed to advise the Committee on what form this program 
should take after 2003.
    The Committee also is aware of the success of the 
Neighborhood Networks Initiative in bridging the information 
technology gap in communities by creating residential computing 
centers in HUD-assisted housing. The Committee directs that all 
future HOPE VI grantees include a Neighborhood Networks center 
in each project implementation plan from within the HOPE VI 
supportive service funds, beginning in fiscal year 2000. The 
Neighborhood Networks Initiative has successfully opened over 
500 residential computing centers by leveraging local 
businesses, community organizations, residents and other 
partners since 1995. These centers have helped hundreds of 
residents improve computer technology skills, which in turn has 
increased job and education opportunities. The Committee 
believes that the opportunity to bridge the digital divide 
should also be available to HOPE VI residents. The Committee 
directs the Department to make available technical assistance 
for HOPE VI projects through the Neighborhood Networks 
Initiative. The Committee further directs the Department to 
report to the Committee on the status of its efforts to 
implement the Neighborhood Networks Initiative in HOPE VI 
communities no later than June 30, 2000.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $620,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     620,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     620,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account funds the native American housing block grants 
program, as authorized under title I of the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 
(NAHASDA). This program provides an allocation of funds on a 
formula basis to Indian tribes and their tribally designated 
housing entities to help them address the housing needs within 
their communities. Under this block grant, Indian tribes will 
use performance measures and benchmarks that are consistent 
with the national goals of the program, but can base these 
measures on the needs and priorities established in their own 
Indian housing plan.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $620,000,000 for the native 
American housing block grant, of which $6,000,000 is set aside 
for a credit subsidy for a demonstration of the section 601 
Loan Guarantee Program. The Committee recommendation is the 
same as the budget request.
    The Committee remains concerned about the implementation by 
the administration of the native American housing block grant 
and the potential risk of problems within such a new and 
complex program. The Committee reminds HUD that it is required 
to report on the implementation of this program to the 
Committee on a semi-annual basis, including recommendations to 
ensure that the native American housing block grant program 
meets the needs of this population.
    The Committee is concerned about HUD's capacity and 
commitment to provide adequate training and technical 
assistance in support of the implementation of NAHASDA. The 
Committee, therefore, is reducing the amount of technical 
assistance provided to the Department to assist in the 
implementation of NAHASDA from $6,000,000 to $2,000,000. 
Instead, the National American Indian Housing Council is 
provided the additional $4,000,000 under this account to 
provide a comprehensive training and technical assistance 
program to ensure effective implementation of NAHASDA.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $6,000,000 in program subsidies to 
support a loan guarantee level of $71,956,000. This is the same 
as the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and the fiscal year 2000 
budget request. The Committee requests HUD to provide a status 
report on the program by June 1, 2000, assessing the success of 
the program in providing homeownership opportunities for native 
Americans, a breakdown on the use of the program by State and 
tribal area, and recommendations for program improvement.

            office of rural housing and economic development

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

                          program description

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Office of 
Rural Housing and Economic Development for fiscal year 2000 to 
support housing and economic development in rural communities 
as defined by USDA and HUD.
    Of the $25,000,000 under this account, no less than 
$23,000,000 is intended to be awarded to Indian tribes, State 
housing finance agencies, State community and/or economic 
development agencies, local rural nonprofits, and rural 
community development corporations to support innovative 
economic development and housing initiatives in rural 
communities. Up to $2,000,000 is targeted to be used by HUD to 
maintain a clearinghouse of ideas for innovative strategies for 
developing rural housing, for rural economic development and 
revitalization, and to provide competitive grants directly to 
local rural nonprofits and community development corporations 
to support capacity building and technical assistance in rural 
underserved areas. The Committee expects HUD to use this office 
to coordinate all rural housing and economic development policy 
within the Department. Moreover, to ensure the best use of 
these funds, HUD is directed to cooperate and collaborate in 
the implementation of this program with the Department of 
Agriculture, whenever possible, including the award of grants.

                   Community Planning and Development


                      community development grants

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $4,750,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   4,775,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,800,000,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,800,000,000 
for the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] Program in 
fiscal year 2000. This is an increase of $25,000,000 above the 
budget request for fiscal year 2000.
    Set-asides under CDBG include $67,000,000 for native 
Americans; $3,000,000 for the Housing Assistance Council; 
$1,800,000 for the National American Indian Housing Council; 
$2,000,000 to support Alaska Native Serving Institutions and 
Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions; $42,500,000 for 
Youthbuild; $25,000,000 for the National Community Development 
Initiative and $41,500,000 for section 107 grants, including 
$3,000,000 for community development work study, $10,000,000 
for historically black colleges and universities, $7,000,000 
for insular areas and $6,500,000 for Hispanic-serving 
institutions.
    In addition, this legislation includes a set-aside of 
$110,000,000 within the CDBG program for the Economic 
Development Initiative (EDI) to finance efforts that promote 
economic and social revitalization.
    At a minimum, the Secretary is directed to fund the 
following grants as part of the economic development 
initiative:
      $100,000 to the St. Louis County Port Authority for the 
        remediation of the National Lead Site.
      $500,000 to St. Louis County for the Lemay Early 
        Childhood and Family Center expansion.
      $400,000 for the City of Union for infrastructure 
        improvements to the Union Corporate Center, MO.
      $1,000,000 for City of Knoxville, Tennessee for economic 
        development training for low-income people.
      $700,000 for the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for the 
        preservation of federally assisted low-income housing 
        at risk of being lost as affordable housing.
      $1,700,000 for the Sheldon Jackson College Auditorium in 
        Sitka, Alaska for refurbishing.
      $500,000 for the Community Builders of Kansas City, MO 
        for the development of low-income housing.
      $250,000 for Northern Initiatives in the Upper Peninsula 
        of Michigan for the capitalization of a training 
        endowment fund.
      $900,000 for Focus HOPE for the expansion of its 
        Machinist Training Institute in Detroit, Michigan.
      $900,000 for the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas for the 
        construction of a parking facility.
      $1,000,000 for the construction of a fire station project 
        in Logan, Utah.
      $900,000 for Ogden, Utah for downtown redevelopment.
      $750,000 for Billings, Montana for the redevelopment of 
        the Billings Depot.
      $900,000 for Libby, Montana for the construction of a 
        community center.
      $1,000,000 for Mississippi State University for the 
        renovation of buildings.
      $1,200,000 for the City of Madison, Mississippi to 
        renovate a gateway to historic downtown Madison.
      $900,000 for Providence, Rhode Island for the renovation 
        of the Providence Performing Arts Center.
      $1,000,000 for the Bidwell Industrial Development 
        Corporation the Harbor Gardens development project.
      $250,000 for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for the expansion 
        of the Pennsylvania Convention Center.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Jackson, Mississippi to create 
        a housing rehabilitation program.
      $650,000 for Monessen, Penn. For the development of a 
        business development and support facility.
      $800,000 for the City of Wilkes-Barre for downtown 
        revitalization.
      $500,000 for the Friends of the Capitol Theater for the 
        renovation of the Capitol Theater in Dover, Delaware.
      $2,000,000 for the Idaho Bureau of Disaster Services for 
        the restoration of Milo Creek.
      $300,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development 
        Association for planning for the Lewis and Clark 
        Bicentennial celebration.
      $900,000 for the Developmental Disabilities Resource 
        Center to provide services to persons with disabilities 
        in the Front Range area of Colorado.
      $300,000 for the City of Montrose, Colorado to develop 
        affordable, low-income housing.
      $1,400,000 for the Columbia/Adair County Industrial 
        Development Authority in Kentucky for infrastructure 
        development for the Columbia/Adair County Industrial 
        Park Development.
      $800,000 for the University of Findlay in Ohio to expand 
        its National Center for Excellence in Environmental 
        Management facility.
      $500,000 for MSU-Billings in Billings, Montana for the 
        development of a business development and support 
        facility.
      $500,000 for the City of Brookhaven, Mississippi to 
        renovate historic Whitworth College buildings and 
        related improvements.
      $1,500,000 for the Bethel Pre-Maternal Home in Bethel, 
        Alaska for expansion.
      $3,500,000 for the University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum 
        in Fairbanks, Alaska.
      $800,000 for Forum Health of Youngstown, Ohio for a 
        hospital conversion project.
      $2,200,000 for the Pacific Science Center for the 
        construction of the Mercer Slough Environmental 
        Education Center.
      $800,000 for the Tacoma Art Museum in Tacoma, Washington 
        for expansion.
      $300,000 for the Portsmouth, NH City Housing Authority 
        for the development of a multiple use recreation and 
        learning center.
      $300,000 for the City of Concord for community and 
        neighborhood improvements.
      $100,000 for the City of Nashua, NH for a river front 
        project.
      $75,000 for the Manchester Neighborhood Housing Services 
        in Manchester, NH.
      $200,000 for Vergennes, Vermont for the renovation and 
        expansion of the Vergennes Opera House.
      $1,000,000 for the renovation and expansion of the Flynn 
        Theatre in Burlington, Vermont.
      $75,000 for the French Hill Neighborhood Housing Services 
        in Nashua, NH.
      $75,000 for the Concord Area Trust for Community Housing 
        in Concord, NH.
      $375,000 for the Town of Winchester, NH to tear down an 
        old leather tannery.
      $2,500,000 for the Kansas City Liberty Memorial 
        renovation and restoration.
      $1,500,000 for the American National Fish and Wildlife 
        Museum in Springfield, Missouri for construction.
      $100,000 for the City of Claremont, NH to upgrade and 
        repair their public parks service.
      $75,000 for the Laconia Area Community Land Trust in 
        Laconia, NH.
      $200,000 for the Town of Barre, Vermont for the 
        construction of a business incubator building in the 
        Wilson Industrial Park.
      $300,000 for Housing Vermont to construct affordable 
        housing in Bellows Falls, Vermont.
      $200,000 for the Vermont Center for Independent Living 
        for its Home Access program.
      $100,000 for the Bennington Museum in Bennington, 
        Vermont.
      $500,000 for the Vermont Rural Fire Protection Task Force 
        for the purchase of equipment.
      $900,000 for the Home Repair Collaborative in 
        Indianapolis, Indiana for the repair of low-income 
        housing.
      $1,900,000 for the City of Montgomery, Alabama for the 
        redevelopment of its riverfront area.
      $1,000,000 for the planning and construction of a 
        regional learning center at Spring Hill College in 
        Montgomery, Alabama.
      $1,500,000 for the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center 
        for the development of a greenhouse complex.
      $500,000 for the Grand Rock Community Development 
        Corporation Center in St. Louis, MO for the 
        construction of a community center.
      $500,000 for Calhoun Community College, Advance 
        Manufacturing Center in Decatur, Alabama for the 
        development of an advanced manufacturing center.
      $300,000 for the Clay County Courthouse rehabilitation 
        project in Clay County, Alabama.
      $1,800,000 for the renovation of Bates Mill in Lewiston, 
        Maine.
      $800,000 for Coastal Enterprises, Inc for rural economic 
        development and housing initiatives in Kennebec and 
        Somerset Counties.
      $1,300,000 for the City of Fort Worth, Texas for building 
        renovation associated with the development of the Fort 
        Worth Medtech Center.
      $1,000,000 for the Southwest Collaborative for Community 
        Development for low-income housing and economic 
        development in the southwest border area of Texas.
      $750,000 for Houston, Texas to establish a Distance 
        Learning Center as part of a ``campus park'' 
        redevelopment in the Stella Link community.
      $1,650,000 for Farmington, New Mexico for the renovation 
        of Ricketts Field.
      $1,000,000 for New Mexico Highlands University for it 
        Science and Engineering Complex.
      $800,000 for the National Institute for Community 
        Empowerment for its capacity building efforts in 
        underserved communities.
      $200,000 for the University of Charleston in West 
        Virginia for a basic skills and assessment lab.
      $600,000 for Shepherd College in Shepherdstown, West 
        Virginia for the renovation of Scarborough Library.
      $1,500,000 for the Center for the Arts&Science of West 
        Virginia for the construction of a theater/planetarium.
      $4,000,000 for Wheeling Jesuit University in Wheeling, 
        West Virginia for the construction of a science/
        computer teaching center.
      $500,000 for the Town of Kimball, West Virginia for the 
        restoration of the Kimball War Memorial.
      $150,000 for the County of Maui, Hawaii to assist the 
        Island of Molokai for capacity development related to 
        its status as an Enterprise Community.
      $1,000,000 for Honolulu, Hawaii to implement the Kahuku 
        Drainage Plan.
      $250,000 for the Maui Family Support Services, Inc for 
        the creation of an early childhood center in Maui 
        County, Hawaii.
      $400,000 for Wailuku, Hawaii for revitalization efforts.
      $300,000 for Bethany College in Bethany, West Virginia 
        for the creation of a health and wellness center.
      $200,000 for West Virginia State College to assist in 
        creating a computer library.
      $2,000,000 for the Spartanburg School for the Deaf and 
        the Blind in Spartanburg, South Carolina for a new 
        dormitory.
      $500,000 for the University of South Carolina School of 
        Public Health to consolidate its programs in a new 
        central location.
      $500,000 for Chittenden County, Vermont for the 
        development of affordable low-income housing.
      $650,000 for Burlington, Vermont for downtown 
        redevelopment.
      $500,000 for the development of the Kellog-Hubbard 
        Library in Montpelier, VT.
      $350,000 for Brattleboro, Vermont for downtown 
        redevelopment.
      $250,000 for Willingboro, New Jersey for the 
        revitalization of the Central Business Center.
      $500,000 for Plainfield, New Jersey for the redevelopment 
        of the Teppers building.
      $200,000 for Trenton, New Jersey for the renovation of 
        the YWCA's indoor swimming pool.
      $500,000 for the Affordable Housing Project in Waterloo, 
        Iowa for the development of affordable, low-income 
        housing.
      $500,000 for Des Moines, Iowa for south of downtown 
        redevelopment.
      $500,000 for the Muscatine Center for Strategic Action 
        for the operation of a nonprofit modular housing 
        factory.
      $1,000,000 for New Jersey Community Development 
        Corporation for the construction of the New Jersey 
        Community Development Corporation's Transportation 
        Opportunity Center.
      $500,000 for the Sioux City Stockyards in Sioux City, 
        Iowa for redevelopment.
      $1,250,000 for the University of Maryland-Eastern Shore 
        for the development of a Coastal Ecology Teaching and 
        Research Center.
      $1,250,000 for Prince Georges County for the 
        revitalization of the Route 1 corridor.
      $750,000 for the Patterson Park Community Development 
        Corporation to establish a revolving fund to acquire 
        and rehabilitate properties in East Baltimore, 
        Maryland.
      $1,750,000 for the University of Nevada in Reno, Nevada 
        for the Structures Laboratory.
      $250,000 for Henderson, Nevada for downtown 
        redevelopment.
      $200,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Las Vegas, Nevada 
        for the renovation and expansion of existing 
        facilities.
      $500,000 for the City of Green Bay, Wisconsin for 
        Broadway Street revitalization.
      $500,000 for Milwaukee, Wisconsin for its Metcalfe 
        Neighborhood Redevelopment Initiative.
      $500,000 for the Fremont Public Association in Seattle, 
        Washington for construction costs related to its 
        Community Resource Center.
      $250,000 for the Puget Sound Center for Teaching, 
        Learning and Technology in Seattle, Washington.
      $500,000 for the First AME Church in Los Angeles for the 
        development of a business incubator.
      $500,000 for the City of Riverside, California for the 
        development of Citrus Park.
      $750,000 for the Mitchell Development Corporation for 
        economic development activities in Mitchell, S.D.
      $750,000 for South Dakota State University in Brookings, 
        South Dakota.
      $500,000 for the City of Inglewood, California for the 
        construction of a senior center.
      $250,000 for the City of Beloit, Wisconsin for urban 
        renewal activities.
      $500,000 for Milwaukee, Wisconsin for redevelopment 
        activities in the Menominee River Valley.
      $500,000 for the City of Yankton, South Dakota for the 
        restoration of the downtown area and the development of 
        the Fox run industrial Park.
      $100,000 for Hot Springs, South Dakota for redevelopment.
      $100,000 for Sisseton, South Dakota to make 
        infrastructure improvements at an industrial site in 
        the community.
      $125,000 for Dillard University in New Orleans, LA for 
        assisting persons in the transition from welfare to 
        work.
      $125,000 for Audubon Institute Living Sciences Museum for 
        the restoration of a New Orleans customhouse.
      $750,000 for the New York Public Library's Library for 
        the Performing Arts for renovations.
      $250,000 for the Southside Institutions Neighborhood 
        Alliance in Hartford, Conn. for downtown renovation.
      $250,000 for the University of Connecticut for the 
        construction of a biotechnology facility.
      $250,000 for the City of Aberdeen, South Dakota for a 
        community child day care center.
      $100,000 for North Sioux City Economic Development 
        Corporation for the construction of an industrial park.
      $250,000 for the City of San Francisco, CA for the 
        redevelopment of the Laguna Honda Assisted Living/
        Housing for Seniors.
      $250,000 for the National Center for the Revitalization 
        of Central Cities for the development of redevelopment 
        strategies.
      $300,000 for the Esperanza Domestic Violence Shelter in 
        northern New Mexico for homeless services.
      $300,000 for the Court Youth Center in Dona Ana County, 
        New Mexico for renovation of their youth center.
      $250,000 for Belen, New Mexico for the development of a 
        recreation center.
      $500,000 for the Accomack-Northampton Planning District 
        Commission for economic development on the Eastern 
        Shore of Virginia.
      $250,000 for the City of Santa Ana, CA for the 
        establishment of the IDEA Center.
      $250,000 for the Hampden/Hampshire Housing Partnership 
        Loan Fund in western Massachusetts for the development 
        of affordable housing.
      $250,000 for Lowell, Mass for downtown redevelopment.
      $250,000 for Lawrence, Mass for the City of Lawrence Loan 
        and Investment Program.
      $250,000 for For An Achievable Dream in Newport News, 
        Virginia to help at-risk youth.
      $500,000 for the Research Development Enterprise for the 
        advancement of university research activities.
      $500,000 for Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia for 
        renovation of the Spelman College Science Center.
      $1,000,000 for Children's House Hackensack University 
        Medical Center in Hackensack, NJ for expansion.
      $1,000,000 for Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones in 
        ND.
      $250,000 for Turtle Mountain Economic Development and 
        Education Complex in ND.
      $500,000 for the Panhandle Community Service in 
        Scottsbluff, NE for the construction of an early 
        childhood development center.
      $150,000 for Southwest Virginia Governor's School for 
        Science, Mathematics and Technology for improvements.
    For each of the aforementioned EDI grants, HUD shall 
conduct a close-out review of each grant within 5 years to 
ensure the funds are used for the purpose specified. Any grants 
not obligated within 5 years shall be rescinded and reallocated 
within the next round of CDBG funds.
    In addition, HUD is required to report on all projects 
funded under any EDI grants awarded independently by HUD, 
identifying the purpose of the project, the funding structure 
of the project, the economic impact and social utility of the 
project, and the lessons learned from the project that can be 
applied as a model throughout the country.
    The Committee includes $42,500,000 for the Youthbuild 
program, of which $2,500,000 is for capacity building in 
underserved areas. Because of concerns over HUD's failure to 
provide adequate oversight of its programs, the Department is 
required to audit the Youthbuild program to ensure that funds 
are being used in a manner consistent with program 
requirements. As part of this audit, HUD shall review all 
expenses associated with this program, including a review of 
all the salaries of employees, the costs associated with 
travel, and the use of any funds for purposes of lobbying the 
Congress. HUD is directed to report on this audit no later than 
May 15, 2000. The Committee also has required all grantees to 
contribute a 25 percent local match to be eligible for funds.
    The Committee has included up to $45,000,000 for supportive 
service contracts, a critical activity. However, the Committee 
is concerned that the Secretary has imposed conditions in 
connection with the award of congregate services and service 
coordinator funding that have unduly impeded the full and 
timely distribution of this funding to grantees for the 
purposes intended by the Congress. The Committee has therefore 
included language in this Act that prohibits the Secretary from 
conditioning the award of funds on prior year spend-out. Also, 
the Committee has included language clarifying the 
Congressional intent that where federal funding for these 
purposes to a grantee is delayed and the grantee continues a 
congregate services or service coordinator program with its own 
funds, or other funds, grant funding provided by the Secretary 
may later be used to reimburse the grantee for the costs so 
incurred.
    In addition, $29,000,000 is provided for the cost of 
guaranteed loans, as authorized under section 108 of the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, to subsidize a 
total loan principal not to exceed $1,261,000,000.
    HUD is prohibited from awarding any grants under the CDBG 
program until it transfers the small cities component of the 
CDBG program to the State of New York.
    The Committee rejects the Administration's proposals to 
establish a number of boutique programs within the CDBG 
program, including the Metro Job Links program, Homeownership 
Zones, Citizens Volunteer Housing Corps and Empowerment Zones 
Planning and Implementation grants. These proposals should be 
addressed through the authorization committee.
    In addition, the Committee has concerns about HUD's 
implementation and oversight of the empowerment zone 
designations. A recent HUD Inspector General Audit Report, 
HUD's Oversight of the Empowerment Zone Program (March 30, 
1999), highlighted the fact that HUD does not have an adequate 
system of oversight and control for the Empowerment Zone 
program and has not effectively assessed the program and status 
of Empowerment Zones. In particular, 4 cities reviewed by the 
HUD IG provided inaccurate information to HUD for 61 of the 64 
activities (95.3 percent) evaluated from the June 30, 1997 
Performance Reviews. In addition, the audit indicates that the 
cities reviewed inaccurately reported the actual status and 
progress for 35 of the activities and incorrectly reported 26 
projects as Empowerment Zone activities when they were not. HUD 
needs to establish appropriate oversight requirements before 
additional funds can be considered.

                  home investment partnerships program

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $1,600,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   1,610,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,600,000,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,600,000,000 
for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This amount is the 
same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $10,000,000 less 
than the budget request.

                          homeless assistance

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $975,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   1,020,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,020,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,020,000,000 for homeless 
assistance grants. The amount recommended is $45,000,000 above 
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and the same as the budget 
request for fiscal year 2000. The Committee remains concerned 
about the funding structure of the McKinney homeless assistance 
grants programs and the overall direction of HUD's 
administration of the program. The Committee believes that 
there is a need for a strong continuum of care approach which 
results in permanent and stable housing, not a revolving door. 
There is a particular need to stabilize homeless persons with 
mental disabilities to avoid this revolving door syndrome as 
well as the destabilizing impact this population can have on 
the effectiveness of local continuum of care strategies. 
Therefore, the Committee is including again this year a 
requirement that 30 percent of funds be allocated to permanent 
housing.
    In addition, there is a 25-percent match requirement for 
services to maintain a balance between homeless services and 
the development of transitional and permanent housing.
    The Committee also believes that HUD has created 
significant funding pressures on a number of local homeless 
initiatives through the poor planning of grant awards. The 
Committee is troubled particularly by HUD's decision to shift 
some $23,000,000 plus from the fiscal year 1999 appropriation 
funds to fund supportive housing applications submitted as part 
of the fiscal year 1998 funding process. This shifting of funds 
was conducted without the consultation of Congress and this 
action is inappropriate, likely illegal, and undermines the 
credibility of HUD's budget request for homeless programs for 
fiscal year 2000.
    HUD also is directed to work with other Federal agencies, 
such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of 
Health and Human Services in developing a comprehensive Federal 
approach to homeless issues. A comprehensive Federal approach 
will make HUD's continuum of care more effective in meeting the 
needs of homeless persons.
    To the extent that State and local jurisdictions receive 
homeless assistance, HUD is directed to ensure that these 
jurisdictions pass on at least 50 percent of all administrative 
funds to the nonprofits administering the homeless assistance 
programs.

          Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $225,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     240,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     225,000,000

                          Program Description

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $225,000,000 
for this program, the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level and $15,000,000 less than the budget request. This 
Committee remains concerned about HUD's management of this 
program as well as the increased costs of this program. Of 
particular note, the budget for HOPWA currently exceeds the 
annual budget request of $194,000,000 for the section 811 
Housing for Persons with Disabilities program, a program 
designed to provide housing assistance for all people with 
disabilities, including those with AIDS.
    The Committee also requires HUD to allocate these funds in 
a manner designed to preserve existing HOPWA programs to the 
extent those programs are determined to be meeting the needs of 
persons with AIDS in a manner consistent with the requirements 
of the HOPWA program.

                            Housing Programs


                    Housing for special Populations

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $854,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     854,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     904,000,000

                          Program Description

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $904,000,000 
for development of additional new subsidized housing. Included 
in this recommendation is $710,000,000 for capital advances for 
housing for the elderly (section 202 housing) and $194,000,000 
for capital advances for housing for the disabled (section 811 
housing). These amounts include the fiscal year 1999 funding 
level for section 811 housing and provide an increase of 
$50,000,000 above the fiscal year 1999 level for section 202 
housing. Up to 25 percent of the funding allocated for housing 
for the disabled can be used to fund section 8 assistance for 
the disabled.
    The section 202 funding includes $100,000,000 for the 
conversion of Assisted Living Facilities and for service 
coordinators and congregate services, including $50,000,000 in 
new funds. Of this amount, $50,000,000 is for the conversion of 
section 202 housing to Assisted Living Facilities. It is 
expected that HUD will establish a number of new requirements 
to ensure the Assisted Living Facilities meet the needs of the 
frail elderly, as part of a continuum of care to ensure the 
dignity and independence of this population and to provide an 
opportunity for these persons to age in place. Also, 
$50,000,000 would be available to fund congregate services and 
service coordinators for the section 202 program. Congregate 
services and service coordinators are critical to a successful 
continuum of care approach that promotes the independence and 
personal dignity of our elderly citizens. Services include 
congregate meals, housekeeping, transportation, personal 
emergency response systems, case management and preventative 
health care programs.

                     federal housing administration


             fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on       Limitation on      Administrative
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999................................        $100,000,000    $110,000,000,000        $328,888,000
Budget estimate, 2000...............................          50,000,000     120,000,000,000         330,888,000
Committee recommendation............................         100,000,000     120,000,000,000         330,888,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             fha--general and special risk program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Limitation on      Limitation on    Administrative
                                               direct loans     guaranteed loans      expenses     Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999......................        $50,000,000    $18,100,000,000    $211,455,000    $153,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000.....................         50,000,000     18,100,000,000     211,455,000     153,000,000
Committee recommendation..................         50,000,000     18,100,000,000     211,455,000     153,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

    The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the 
mortgage and loan insurance activity of about 40 HUD mortgage/
loan insurance programs which are grouped into the mutual 
mortgage insurance [MMI] fund, cooperative management housing 
insurance [CMHI] fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and 
the special risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and 
accounting control purposes, these are divided into two sets of 
accounts based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized 
insurance programs of the mutual mortgage insurance fund and 
the cooperative management housing insurance fund constitute 
one set; and the general risk insurance and special risk 
insurance funds, which are partially composed of subsidized 
programs, make up the other.
    The amounts for administrative expenses are to be 
transferred from the FHA program accounts to the HUD ``Salaries 
and expenses'' accounts.
    Language is proposed to provide a commitment limitation 
amounting to $120,000,000,000 in the ``MMI/CMHI'' account and 
$18,100,000,000 in the ``GI/SRI'' account.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has included the requested amounts for the 
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on 
guaranteed loans of $120,000,000,000, a limitation on direct 
loans of $100,000,000, and an appropriation of $330,888,000 for 
administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee 
recommends $18,100,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans, 
a limitation on direct loans of $50,000,000, and $211,455,000 
for administrative expenses. The administrative expenses 
appropriation will be transferred and merged with the sums in 
the Department's ``Salaries and expenses'' account.
    In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct 
loan programs in 1999 for multifamily bridge loans and single 
family purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain 
properties owned by the Department. Temporary financing would 
be provided for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 
multifamily projects by purchasers who have obtained 
commitments for permanent financing from another lender. 
Purchase money mortgages would enable governmental and 
nonprofit intermediaries to acquire properties for resale to 
owner-occupants in areas undergoing revitalization.
    HUD is directed to report to the Committee by May 15, 2000 
on the implementation of the FHA single family property 
disposition program, enacted as part of the VA/HUD fiscal year 
1999 Appropriations bill, including the status of the program 
and an analysis of all savings achieved to date and anticipated 
to be achieved over the next 5 years.
    The Committee also is concerned about new proposed 
guidelines for appraisals, as provided in HUD's Homebuyer 
Protection Plan. Among the issues that have been raised are 
significant cost concerns where a purchaser with FHA mortgage 
insurance may have to pay two or three times the typical cost 
for an appraisal. In addition, it has been suggested that these 
new appraisal standards will encourage the use of FHA mortgage 
insurance in newer suburbs as opposed to making an investment 
in our older communities and inner-city neighborhoods. The 
Committee directs HUD to work with all interested parties to 
ensure that the final guidelines in the Homebuyer Protection 
Plan are fair, make sense and assist in creating additional 
homeownership opportunities.

                Government National Mortgage Association


                guarantees of mortgage-backed securities


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1999:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                        $150,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                               9,383,000

Budget estimate, 2000:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                              15,383,000

Committee recommendation:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                              15,383,000

                          program description

    The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA], 
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees 
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA 
is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United 
States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed 
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended. 
GNMA is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee 
the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that 
are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of 
mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal 
Housing Administration, the Farmers Home Administration, or the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA's guarantee of mortgage-
backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the 
United States.
    In accord with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990 [OBRA] requirements for direct and guaranteed loan 
programs, the administration is requesting $15,383,000 for 
administrative expenses in the mortgage-backed securities 
program. Amounts to fund this direct appropriation to the ``MBS 
program'' account are to be derived from offsetting receipts 
transferred from the ``Mortgage-backed securities financing'' 
account to a Treasury receipt account.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments of 
mortgage-backed securities of $200,000,000,000. This amount is 
the same level as proposed by the budget request. The Committee 
also has included $15,383,000 for administrative expenses, the 
same as the budget request.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        research and technology

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $47,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      35,000,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for research and 
technology activities in fiscal year 2000. This amount is 
$12,500,000 less than the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and 
$15,000,000 less than the budget request. In addition, because 
HUD in the past has used this office's broad authority to 
administer new and unauthorized programs, this office is denied 
demonstration authority except where approval is provided by 
Congress in response to a reprogramming request.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity


                        fair housing activities

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $40,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      47,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,000,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommendation provides $40,000,000, of which 
$25,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP] 
and no more than $15,000,000 is for the fair housing 
initiatives program [FHIP].
    The Committee is concerned that State and local agencies 
under FHAP should have the primary responsibility for 
identifying and addressing discrimination in the sale, rental, 
and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage 
services. It is critical that consistent fair housing policies 
be identified and implemented to insure continuity and 
fairness, and that States and localities continue to increase 
their understanding, expertise, and implementation of the law.
    The Committee remains concerned that the HUD Office of Fair 
Housing and Equal Opportunity continues to pursue regulatory 
authority over the property insurance industry through the Fair 
Housing Act. This activity is not within the ambit of the law. 
Moreover, while HUD has indicated that it does not intend to 
focus its regulatory authority over the property insurance 
requirements, the Committee reminds the Department that the 
McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 explicitly states that, ``unless 
a Federal law specifically relates to the business of 
insurance, that law shall not apply where it would interfere 
with State insurance regulation.'' HUD assertion of authority 
regarding property insurance regulation contradicts this 
statutory mandate.
    Moreover, HUD's insurance-related activities duplicate 
State regulation of insurance. Every State and the District of 
Columbia have laws and regulations addressing unfair 
discrimination in property insurance and are actively 
investigating and addressing discrimination where it is found 
to occur. HUD's activities in this area create an unwarranted 
and unnecessary layer of Federal bureaucracy.
    The Committee reaffirms the intent of the Fair Housing Act 
and the goal of housing for the disabled and is interested in 
the most effective use of funding for this program. However, 
the Committee is concerned with ongoing enforcement actions 
relating to disabled accessibility provisions of the Fair 
Housing Act. There is ongoing concern over certain HUD Fair 
Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) grantees filing 
discrimination claims against builders, architects, and 
developers with regard to the Fair Housing Accessibility 
Guidelines clarified in the 1998 HUD Fair Housing Act Design 
Manual. The Committee expects reasonable enforcement of the 
Fair Housing laws, taking into account the information 
available to, and the reasonable understanding on the part of, 
the parties expected to comply with the law.
    The Department should be on notice that funding decisions 
are not separated from equitable enforcement of, and education 
about, the law. The Committee directs that more emphasis be 
given in the grant process to educational and outreach 
proposals specifically targeted to facilitate compliance with 
multi-family accessibility design and building industry 
professionals, such as architects, builders, developers, and 
local building code officials, with a preference given to 
applications demonstrating a collaborative educational 
approach. Clearly, HUD has an obligation to explain complex and 
confusing rules to those most involved in the construction of 
affordable housing in this country and expected to comply with 
those rules. ``Enforcement'' action should not be misconstrued 
or mischaracterized as an ``educational'' effort on the part of 
FHIP grantees. Grants should be awarded, and other enforcement 
activities by HUD should be pursued with the principal goal of 
ensuring accessible housing for people with disabilities. The 
Committee believes that settlement terms requiring advertising 
or the purposeful dissemination of the admission of wrongdoing 
with the intent to embarrass or harass should not occur.
    The Committee directs HUD to report to the Committee, no 
later than concurrently with the fiscal year 2001 budget 
submission, on the following:
    (1) The number, nature, and status of complaints to HUD 
regarding application of guidelines;
    (2) The use of funds and efforts made with regard to 
educational and technical assistance;
    (3) The number and nature of complaints, cases, or 
enforcement actions in which HUD or a grantee has sought or 
achieved specific penalties or settlements for the denial of 
accessible housing to disabled persons other than remediation 
of the specific lack of accessibility; and
    (4) The number and nature of complaints, cases, or 
enforcement actions initiated by grantees on a basis other than 
the actual denial of accessible housing to a disabled 
individual.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control


                         LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $80,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      80,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      80,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for lead-based paint 
hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2000. 
This is the same as the President's budget request for fiscal 
year 2000 and the same as the fiscal year 1999 appropriation 
level. Of this amount, HUD may use up to $10,000,000 for the 
Healthy Homes Initiative under which HUD conducts a number of 
activities designed to identify and address housing-related 
illnesses. The Committee expects HUD to become more aggressive 
in addressing the threat of lead-related health hazards in 
rental housing supported with section 8 voucher assistance. 
Where these risks are high, vouchers should not be permitted.

         Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring

    The Committee is aware of the efforts the Department has 
made to bridge the growing digital divide between information 
technology ``haves'' and ``have nots'' through its Neighborhood 
Networks initiative. This initiative leverages local 
businesses, community organizations, local residents and other 
partners to provide residential computing centers to HUD-
assisted housing throughout the country which in turn provide 
computer and job training, senior and youth programs and a 
variety of other supportive services at almost no direct cost 
to the Department. The Committee directs the Department to 
submit a report no later than June 30, 2000 which details and 
evaluates: the goals and progress of the initiative; strategies 
to sustain resident involvement in the program and to overcome 
other potential obstacles, which the report should identify; 
future areas of opportunity for the program, including possible 
partnerships with non-profit organizations and other Federal 
agencies; and the effectiveness of the initiative relative to 
the mission and goals of the Department as specified in the 
strategic and annual operating plan.

                     Management and Administration


                         salaries and expenses


                     (including transfers of funds)

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FHA funds     GNMA       CGDB
                                 Appropriation      by      funds by   funds by   Title VI    Indian     Total
                                                 transfer   transfer   transfer   transfer   housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999...........      456,843      528,000      9,383      1,000        150        200    985,826
Budget estimate, 2000..........      502,000      518,000      9,383      1,000        200        400  1,030,733
Committee recommendation.......      414,000      518,000      9,383      1,000        150        200    942,733
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $985,826,000 
for salaries and expenses. This amount is the same as the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level and the budget request. The 
appropriation includes the requested amount of $518,000,000 
transferred from various funds from the Federal Housing 
Administration, $9,383,000 transferred from the Government 
National Mortgage Association, $1,000,000 from the community 
development block grant funds, $150,000 from title VI, and 
$200,000 from the native American housing block grant.
    In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing 
more than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive 
service employees.
    The Committee is very disappointed in the growth of the 
Community Builders program, from a fledgling thought to a full-
blown program of some 800 staff, including a new class of 400 
high-paid contract employees whose primary job is to 
communicate HUD programs to local governments and communities. 
Unfortunately, there is no valid evidence that these community 
builders are communicating HUD programs effectively or 
providing a link for the delivery of program services, and much 
of the activity seems to be primarily for public relations. In 
many cases, the Community Builders do not appear to act like 
HUD staff, but instead seemingly act in the capacity of 
lobbyists for a particular community or group. The Committee 
also is concerned that the growth of this program is occurring 
at a time when HUD is committed to reducing career staff from 
the current level of 9,300 to 7,500 in 2002. The Committee 
believes that HUD needs to build from within through a 
committed staff of HUD professionals who can serve as a vital 
link in a continuum of care for the delivery of HUD programs. 
Therefore, the Committee is terminating the program beginning 
on February 1, 2000 for all external community builders, with 
the expectation that these contract employees can transition to 
new work by that time. The Committee also expects HUD to 
refocus on redeveloping the Department from the inside with an 
emphasis on program delivery, not public relations.
    The Department also is prohibited from employing more than 
9,300 FTEs, including all OMHAR employees and any contract 
employees working on-site in a position which would normally be 
occupied by an FTE. In addition, HUD is prohibited from 
employing more than 200 external community builders. HUD also 
is prohibited from employing more than 14 FTEs in the Office of 
Public Affairs.
    The Committee is concerned that HUD's request for salaries 
and expenses do not reflect the Secretary's implementation of 
the HUD 2020 management reform plan. The Committee directs HUD 
to submit to the Committee by April 15, 2000, an analysis of 
the HUD budget request for salaries and expenses for fiscal 
year 1999, including all projected savings from the Secretary's 
reform efforts. The report should include a breakdown of all 
salaries and expenses and staff by program, office, and grade, 
including all staffing costs in the field. All expenses, other 
than staffing costs, such as travel costs and public relations 
costs, within this account also should be clearly identified.
    In addition, the Committee is troubled that the 
Department's justification for the Office of Multifamily 
Housing Assistance Restructuring's (OMHAR) salaries and 
expenses are not adequately justified. According to preliminary 
GAO results, HUD's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal for OMHAR 
to hire 101 full-time equivalent staff lacks adequate 
documentation and justification. Neither HUD nor OMHAR have 
been able to explain the need or rationale for this staffing 
level or its suggested structural plans for field offices.
    The Committee is further concerned that the Department's 
staffing justification for OMHAR does not reflect its roles and 
responsibilities as envisioned by the ``mark-to-market'' 
legislation. OMHAR and HUD have not provided the Committee any 
convincing evidence that 101 staff is needed to run a program 
that was envisioned to be implemented primarily by publicly 
accountable third parties, namely qualified State and local 
housing finance agencies. While the Committee appreciates 
OMHAR's efforts to ensure public accountability, the Committee 
is concerned that the procedures and processes in place may be 
overly prescriptive and potentially result in delaying the 
completion of transactions. The intent of mark-to-market was to 
provide as much flexibility as possible within reasonable 
parameters to allow the third parties to perform its duties in 
an efficient and effective manner. The role of OMHAR was to 
ensure that proper procedures were in place, qualified and 
publicly accountable entities were selected to act on behalf of 
the Federal government, and to perform post-audit oversight 
duties after a reasonable period of time and number of deals 
were completed. It is not evident that HUD and OMHAR have 
structured the program to meet the intent of the law.
    Due to the Committee's many concerns, the Department is 
directed to hire no more than 50 employees for OMHAR until it 
is able to provide to the Committee an adequate justification 
for its staffing and field office needs. This justification 
should include a workload analysis, a detailed plan on the use 
of any outside assistance such as contractors and consultants, 
and a breakdown by position and explanation for its funding 
needs for salaries and expenses, contract services, and travel. 
Further, OMHAR is directed to provide the Committee quarterly 
reports on the status of the program, including number of 
properties and units whose rents have been restructured, the 
costs of refinancing the mortgages, and the amount of section 8 
cost savings. The first report should be provided to the 
Committee by no later than January 5, 2000.

                      Office of Inspector General


                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Drug
                                                                   FHA funds by     elimination
                                                   Appropriation     transfer         grants           Total
                                                                                     transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999............................     $49,657,000     $22,343,000     $10,000,000     $81,910,000
Budget estimate, 2000...........................      38,000,000      22,343,000      10,000,000      70,343,000
Committee recommendation........................      54,657,000      22,343,000      10,000,000      95,910,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

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

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends a funding level of $95,910,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $4,000,000 
above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $15,567,000 more 
than the budget request. This funding level includes 
$22,343,000 by transfer from various FHA funds and $10,000,000 
from drug elimination grants, the same level as proposed in the 
budget request.
    This account includes an additional $10,000,000 for the HUD 
IG to contract with independent auditors and investigators, 
especially in circumstances where special expertise is needed. 
For example, the Department has struggled for years to provide 
Congress with an accurate and reliable accounting of its 
section 8 funds. The results have been mixed at best, where the 
Department has in just the last 5 years identified over 
$10,000,000,000 in excess section 8 funds available for 
rescission. Nevertheless, the status of appropriated section 8 
funds remains unclear. The Committee expects the HUD IG to 
contract for a financial audit of all section 8 funds. Because 
of the difficulty of this undertaking, the Committee requests 
that the HUD IG advise the Committee on the proposed scope of 
the audit, the costs and a reasonable date for submission. The 
Committee directs the HUD IG to consult with Congress on all 
proposals for additional audits.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $16,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      19,493,000
Committee recommendation................................      16,000,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is $3,493,000 less 
than the budget request. The Committee appreciates that OFHEO 
has issued draft risk-based capital standards for the GSE's, as 
required by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. 
These regulations are long overdue.

                       Administrative Provisions

    Sec. 201. Financing adjustment factors. Provides an 
incentive for refinancing projects financed with FAF bonds to 
lower the cost of section 8 assistance.
    Sec. 202. Fair housing and free speech. Prohibits 
prosecution of persons under the Fair Housing Act where person 
is engaged in lawful activity.
    Sec. 203. Enhanced Disposition Authority. Provides HUD 
flexibility in disposing of HUD-owned and HUD-held properties.
    Sec. 204. HOPWA grants. Technical correction to HOPWA.
    Sec. 205. FHA multifamily mortgage credit demonstrations. 
Extends HUD's multifamily mortgage insurance risk-sharing 
programs through fiscal year 1999.
    Sec. 206. Clarification of owner's right to prepay. 
Clarifies owners right to prepay certain mortgages.
    Sec. 207. Funding of certain public housing funding. 
Prohibits HUD from funding state-assisted housing.
    Sec. 208. FHA administrative contract expense authority. 
Defines nonadministrative FHA expenses.
    Sec. 209. Full payment of claims. Technical correction to 
Mark-to-Market authority.
    Sec. 210. Availability of income matching information. 
Extends income matching procedures to assisted multifamily 
housing.
    Sec. 211. Elimination of Public Housing Set-Aside. 
Eliminates HUD's ability to use public housing capital and 
operating funds.
    Sec. 212. Technical correction to mark-to-market program. 
Technical correction to preserve state-financed multifamily 
housing in a manner consistent with financing agreements or 
law.
    Sec. 213. Technical correction to FHA. Makes technical 
correction to FHA program.
    Sec 214. Limitation on compensation for public housing. 
Limits compensation for public housing employees to $125,000 
except where the HUD Secretary certifies that a higher salary 
is warranted due to special purposes. Because public housing is 
funded entirely by Federal funds, the Committee wants to ensure 
that compensation is reasonable and consistent with Federal 
salary guidelines. Further this section is not intended to be 
used to increase salaries. In addition, this section also 
recognizes in certain circumstances where there are significant 
and complex issues such as issues associated with the 
receivership of a troubled large PHA, additional compensation 
may be warranted.
    Sec. 215. Limitation on compensation for Youthbuild. Limits 
compensation for Youthbuild employees to $125,000, except where 
HUD certifies a higher salary is appropriate. Because the 
Youthbuild program is funded substantially by Federal funds, 
the Committee wants to ensure that compensation is reasonable 
and consistent with Federal salary guidelines. Further, this 
section is not intended to be used to increase salaries.
    Sec. 216. Adjustments to income for unusually high or low 
income families in assisted housing. Permits HUD to make 
adjustments to income for unusually high or low income families 
in assisted housing.
    Sec. 217. GAO reimbursement. Requires GAO to certify 
quarterly on the cost of time attributable to the failure of 
HUD to cooperate with any GAO investigation and to reimburse 
GAO for these costs.
    Sec. 218. HOME technical correction. Authorizes the use of 
HOME funds for the preservation of multifamily housing assisted 
or previously assisted with section 8 assistance. This section 
clarifies the flexibility of using HOME funds in preserving 
section 8 housing, especially housing where the owner has opted 
out of the section 8 program and has declined to renew the 
expiring section 8 contract. This authority will allow 
localities to assist in the purchase of this housing by 
nonprofits and resident groups or assist in supplementing the 
rental assistance where new rents may be higher than the 
section 8 ``fair market rents''.
    Sec. 219. Exemption for Alaska and Mississippi from 
requirement of resident on board. Exempts public housing in 
Alaska and Mississippi from the requirement of having a public 
housing resident on the board of directors of PHAs for fiscal 
year 2000.
    Sec. 220. Administration of the CDBG program by the State 
of New York. Requires HUD to transfer the administration of the 
Small Cities component of the CDBG program to the State of New 
York. This transfer is at the request of Governor Pataki of New 
York. The Committee understand that New York State elected to 
administer the Small Cities component of the CDBG program in 
September, 1996 and that HUD has failed to make the requested 
transfer despite the fact that the CDBG program is designed to 
allow states and localities to have block grant funds to meet 
local needs. New York is only one of two states to have their 
state CDBG program administered by the federal government.
    Sec. 221. Renewal of section 8 project-based contracts. 
Authorizes HUD to renew expiring section 8 project-based 
contracts up to market rents. This section restates current 
authority that HUD may renew section 8 project-based contracts 
up to the market rents, and requires HUD to offer market rents 
to properties that are in a low vacancy area or where a 
predominant number of units are occupied by elderly families, 
disabled families, or elderly and disabled families.
    Sec. 222. Enhanced vouchers for residents of projects with 
expiring section 8 contracts. Authorizes HUD to provide 
``sticky'' or enhanced vouchers for tenants of section 8 
project-based housing where the owners of such housing have 
rejected the renewal of the section 8 contracts. This section 
will allow tenants to continue to maintain their homes where 
the owners of their rental units have raised rents after 
rejecting the renewal of project-based contracts. This 
especially is important where the tenants are elderly or 
persons with disabilities, and want to age in place. HUD must 
make every effort to renew expiring section 8 project-based 
contracts before making sticky vouchers available.
    Sec. 223. Housing finance agencies. Authorizes HUD to 
contract with State housing finance agencies for determining 
the market rent associated with units with expiring section 8 
project-based contracts for purposes of renewing these 
contracts.
    Sec. 224. Section 202 Exemption. Provides limited age 
exemption to single 202 project.
    Sec. 225. Darlinton Preservation Amendment. Assists a 
section 236 project.
    Sec. 226. Section 236 IRP Reform. Modest program reform to 
section 236 program.
    Sec. 227. Risk-sharing priority. Provides a priority for 
risk-sharing mortgage insurance for mark-to-market 
transactions.

                    TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $26,431,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      26,467,000
Committee recommendation................................      26,467,000

                          program description

    The American Battle Monuments Commission [ABMC] is 
responsible for the maintenance and construction of U.S. 
monuments and memorials commemorating the achievements in 
battle of our Armed Forces since April 1917; for controlling 
the erection of monuments and markers by U.S. citizens and 
organizations in foreign countries; and for the design, 
construction, and maintenance of permanent military cemetery 
memorials in foreign countries. The Commission maintains 24 
military memorial cemeteries and 23 monuments, memorials, and 
markers in 15 countries around the world. In addition, the 
Commission administers four large memorials on U.S. soil. It is 
presently charged with erecting a World War II Memorial in the 
Washington, DC, area.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $26,467,000 
for the American Battle Monuments Commission, which is $36,000 
over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The Committee also is 
providing the ABMC authority to borrow up to $65,000,000 from 
the United States Treasury in order to begin the construction 
of the World War II Memorial in fiscal year 2000. The Committee 
expects to include in conference comprehensive legislation to 
ensure appropriate requirements are met in the funding of any 
loan.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $6,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       7,500,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $6,500,000 for the Chemical Safety 
and Hazard Investigation Board, the same as the fiscal year 
1999 enacted level and a decrease of $1,000,000 below the 
budget request.
    The Committee is troubled that the Board has not been 
making the most effective use of its resources. The agency has 
a disproportionate number of staff devoted to external affairs 
activities; a disproportionate amount of contract funds going 
to activities which are not directly related to accident 
investigations; no criteria to select and prioritize 
investigations; and significant contracts management problems 
including the lack of formal, written procedures for its staff 
to follow in awarding and managing contracts. Ineffective use 
of resources resulted in an announcement earlier this year that 
the Board would not begin any new investigations this fiscal 
year, when the year was only half over.
    The Committee also notes the agency has failed to meet the 
expectations it set forth in its August 1997 business plan, 
including the fact that the Board has completed and reported 
the results for only two investigations since commencing 
operations in January 1998.
    The Committee respects the challenges of creating a new 
organization, and is encouraged that the three reports produced 
by the Board this year have been well received. Nevertheless, 
the Committee believes that the Board has put too much emphasis 
on external affairs and information management, and too little 
on investigation and reporting. The Committee is also concerned 
that the Board seems to be pursuing activities that go beyond 
its mission of investigating and preventing catastrophic 
chemical incidents.
    The Committee directs the Board to complete an updated 
business plan, formal written procedures for awarding and 
managing contracts, and formal written procedures for selecting 
and performing investigations by December 31, 1999. The 
Committee directs the Board not to fill any more positions in 
the areas of External Relations or Information Technology and 
directs the Board to spend the preponderance of its contract 
resources on investigations and safety, rather than on external 
affairs or information technology.
    The Committee directs that no funds be expended to develop 
software for vulnerability assessments. This is not an 
effective allocation of resources.
    The Committee does not intend to augment the Board's 
resources until it is confident that appropriate management 
practices have been implemented and resources are being 
effectively allocated to chemical accident investigations where 
the Board can make useful recommendations with broad 
application.
    The Committee has again included bill language limiting the 
number of career senior executive service positions to three.

                       Department of the Treasury


              Community Development Financial Institutions

   Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Program Account

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $95,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     125,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      80,000,000

                          Program Description

    The Community Development Financial Institutions [CDFI] 
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 microloan funds. Recipient 
institutions are required to support mortgage, small business, 
and economic development lending in currently underserved, 
distressed neighborhoods.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for CDFI, $15,000,000 
below the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level as provided in 
the Fiscal Year 1999 VA-HUD Appropriations Act and $45,000,000 
below the administration's request. This funding level is 
provided due to continuing concerns raised by the Senate 
Banking Committee about the Fund's ability to manage its 
current program responsibilities. Further, the Committee does 
not recommend funding for a new microenterprise lending program 
proposed by the Administration due to the lack of authorization 
and concerns about duplicating existing microenterprise 
efforts. According to the General Accounting Office, there are 
already seven other federal agencies and 20 specific federal 
programs that support microenterprise development. The Small 
Business Administration currently provides significant funding 
for microenterprise technical assistance and capacity building. 
Further, some states and private foundations provide support 
for these types of microenterprise efforts.
    The Committee is concerned that the CDFI does not 
adequately provide capital in low-population rural states. In 
fact, less than 11 percent of the CDFI core component awards 
granted between 1996 and 1998 were provided to states with 
populations less than 2 million people. The Committee directs 
the CDFI Fund to improve its efforts in making funding 
available to entities in states with populations of less than 2 
million people. Further, the Fund is required to submit a 
report to the Committee by March 15, 2000 on its progress in 
addressing the economic development needs of small rural areas. 
In its report, the Fund should analyze the feasibility of 
considering additional objective measures of economic distress, 
such as underemployment and gradual outmigration over an 
extended time period.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $47,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      50,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      49,500,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $49,500,000 for the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, a decrease of $1,000,000 below the 
budget estimate and an increase of $2,500,000 above the fiscal 
year 1999 enacted level. The decrease is to be taken at the 
agency's discretion, subject to normal reprogramming 
guidelines.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


                national and community service programs

                           operating expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $435,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     545,500,000
Committee recommendation................................     423,500,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $423,500,000 
for the Corporation for National and Community Service. Of this 
amount, $70,000,000 is for educational awards; $224,500,000 is 
for grants under the National Service Trust, including the 
AmeriCorps program; $7,500,000 is for the Points of Light 
Foundation; $18,000,000 is for the Civilian Community Corps; 
$43,000,000 is available for school-based and community-based 
service-learning programs; $28,500,000 is for quality and 
innovation activities; $27,000,000 is for administrative 
expenses; and $5,000,000 is for audits and other evaluations. 
The total amount is $12,000,000 less than the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level.
    Despite the unqualified opinion rendered by the independent 
auditor on the Corporation's Statement of Financial Position, 
the Committee remains extremely troubled by the Corporation's 
inability to operate its activities with adequate 
responsibility and accountability. To illustrate these 
problems, the auditors were unable to render an opinion on the 
Corporation's Statement of Operations and Changes in Net 
Position, and the Statement of Cash Flows. This was due to the 
Corporation's financial systems and management's inability to 
explain certain adjustments made to the accounting records. A 
major reason for this disclaimer was the Corporation's 
inability to explain $31,000,000 worth of expenditures. 
Further, an additional two material weaknesses in the 
Corporation's financial operations were identified in the 
audit.
    While the Committee appreciates the Corporation's attempts 
to repair its well-documented operational problems, the 
Committee is extremely troubled by the Corporation's inability 
to explain $31,000,000 in expenditures as disclaimed by the 
independent auditors. This error not only highlights the 
significant and continuous problems in the Corporation's 
financial operations but also severely undermines its 
credibility with this committee. The Committee urges the 
Corporation to identify what these funds were spent on and 
whether they represent inappropriate or possibly illegal 
expenditures.
    Another problem identified by the Inspector General was the 
existence of a large surplus of funds in the National Service 
Trust account. The IG found a surplus of approximately 
$100,000,000 in excess funds in the Trust account to fund its 
existing liabilities. The Committee, however, is very concerned 
that the Corporation may be requesting more funds than is 
necessary to meet its liabilities for its AmeriCorps program; 
thus, accordinlgy, bill language is included to rescind 
$80,000,000 in surplus funds. The Committee also directs the 
Corporation to report in its fiscal year 2001 budget request 
and operating plan the status of its Trust fund reserve 
including the award usage rate and the number of participants 
in the program.
    The Committee continues its strong support for the 
Corporation's literacy and mentoring efforts and the AmeriCorps 
participation in helping homeless veterans and directs the 
Corporation to increase its support in these areas. 
Specifically, the Committee is providing $40,000,000 for the 
``America Reads'' literacy and mentoring program. The Committee 
also directs the Corporation to submit a report by March 15, 
2000 on its literacy and mentoring activities and funding 
support.
    The Committee is also providing $5,000,000 for the Girl 
Scouts of America, Inc. ``P.A.V.E. (Project Anti-Violence 
Education) the Way'' project, which is a youth anti-violence 
program based on girls working in partnership with adult 
volunteers to meet community needs. This funding will be used 
to create and implement comprehensive violence prevention and 
intervention programs.
    The Committee directs the Corporation to provide $250,000 
directly to the Shelby County Commission's RSVP Program in 
Alabama. The Corporation is directed to allow the Shelby County 
Commission to operate its program separately from the existing 
multi-county consortium.

                      Office of Inspector General

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

                          Program Description

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This is a $2,000,000 
increase over the amount appropriated for this Office in fiscal 
year 1999 and the budget request.
    The Committee is providing an additional $2,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2000 funds to the OIG for the purpose of reviewing 
and auditing the State Commissions of the Corporation for 
National and Community Service.
    Over the past five years, the OIG has reported numerous 
instances of mismanagement and fraud in AmeriCorps programs. 
These problems range from inadequate record-keeping, to 
improper counting of service hours by AmeriCorps members and 
programs, to outright fraud and abuse. In addition, OIG has 
reported that most phases of the AmeriCorps grant program, as 
operated by the Corporation, are flawed, from the review of 
grant proposals and the pre-award process, the awarding and 
monitoring of grantees, and the close-out and follow-up of 
grants.
    Recent events, including the convictions of two AmeriCorps 
administrators for fraud, underscore the need for better 
monitoring and oversight. The most recent matter to reach the 
press is equally disheartening, and concerns two Indiana 
programs that apparently directed AmeriCorps members to engage 
in activities which are clearly not appropriate under the 
National and Community Service Act, as amended, and the 
Corporation's regulations, and should not be counted toward 
service hours required to earn an award. These abuses, reported 
on July 29, 1999, by the Indiana State Auditor, indicate that 
the State Commissions themselves might be inadequate to the 
task of monitoring and overseeing the program sites. It would 
appear that the Corporation has done little, if anything, to 
review the ability of the State Commissions to monitor the 
activities of the programs sites.
    Given the context, the Committee is firm in its belief that 
a more directed effort is appropriate. In response to 
previously-voiced Congressional concerns, the OIG, in fiscal 
year 1999, developed a financial review methodology and began 
the review of 18 of 50 State Commissions. OIG's intent is to 
review and assess all State Commissions' fiscal operations and 
monitoring of AmeriCorps programs. Based on these results, the 
OIG plans to audit the state commissions.

                     U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $10,195,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      11,450,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,450,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $11,450,000 
for the Court of Veterans Appeals, an increase of $1,255,000 
above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and the same as the 
fiscal year 2000 budget request. The recommendation includes 
$910,000 for the pro bono representation program.

                      Department of Defense--Civil


                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $11,666,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      12,473,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,473,000

                          program description

    Responsibility for the operation of Arlington National 
Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery is 
vested in the Secretary of the Army. As of September 30, 1998, 
Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries 
contained the remains of 272,195 persons and comprised a total 
of approximately 628 acres. There were 3,604 interments and 
2,034 inurnments in fiscal year 1997; 3,600 interments and 
2,100 inurnments are estimated for the current fiscal year; and 
3,700 interments and 2,150 inurnments are estimated for fiscal 
year 1999.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $12,473,000 
for the Army's cemeterial expenses. This amount is $807,000 
above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and the same as the 
fiscal year 2000 budget request.

                    Environmental Protection Agency

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $7,590,352,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   7,206,646,000
Committee recommendation................................   7,322,378,000

                          general description

    The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] was created 
through Executive Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 designed to 
consolidate certain Federal Government environmental activities 
into a single agency. The plan was submitted by the President 
to the Congress on July 8, 1970, and the Agency was established 
as an independent agency in the executive branch on December 2, 
1970, by consolidating 15 components from 5 departments and 
independent agencies.
    A description of EPA's pollution control programs by media 
follows:
    Air.--The Clean Air Act Amendments [CAA] of 1990 authorize 
a national program of air pollution research, regulation, 
prevention, and enforcement activities.
    Water quality.--The Clean Water Act [CWA], as amended in 
1977, 1981, and 1987, provides the framework for protection of 
the Nation's surface waters. The law recognizes that it is the 
primary responsibility of the States to prevent, reduce, and 
eliminate water pollution. The States determine the desired 
uses for their waters, set standards, identify current uses 
and, where uses are being impaired or threatened, develop plans 
for the protection or restoration of the designated use. They 
implement the plans through control programs such as permitting 
and enforcement, construction of municipal waste water 
treatment works, and nonpoint source control practices. The CWA 
also regulates discharge of dredge or fill material into waters 
of the United States, including wetlands.
    Drinking water.--The Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] of 
1974, as amended in 1996, charges EPA with the responsibility 
of implementing a program to assure that the Nation's public 
drinking water supplies are free of contamination that may pose 
a human health risk, and to protect and prevent the 
endangerment of ground water resources which serve as drinking 
water supplies.
    Hazardous waste.--The Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act of 1976 [RCRA] mandated EPA to develop a regulatory program 
to protect human health and the environment from improper 
hazardous waste disposal practices. The RCRA Program manages 
hazardous wastes from generation through disposal.
    EPA's responsibilities and authorities to manage hazardous 
waste were greatly expanded under the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments of 1984. Not only did the regulated universe of 
wastes and facilities dealing with hazardous waste increase 
significantly, but past mismanagement practices, in particular 
prior releases at inactive hazardous and solid waste management 
units, were to be identified and corrective action taken. The 
1984 amendments also authorized a regulatory and implementation 
program directed to owners and operators of underground storage 
tanks.
    Pesticides.--The objective of the Pesticide Program is to 
protect the public health and the environment from unreasonable 
risks while permitting the use of necessary pest control 
approaches. This objective is pursued by EPA under the Food 
Quality Protection Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act [FIFRA] and the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act [FFDCA] through three principal means: (1) review 
of existing and new pesticide products; (2) enforcement of 
pesticide use rules; and (3) research and development to 
reinforce the ability to evaluate the risks and benefits of 
pesticides.
    Radiation.--The radiation program's major emphasis is to 
minimize the exposure of persons to ionizing radiation, whether 
from naturally occurring sources, from medical or industrial 
applications, nuclear power sources, or weapons development.
    Toxic substances.--The Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA] 
establishes a program to stimulate the development of adequate 
data on the effects of chemical substances on health and the 
environment, and institute control action for those chemicals 
which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
environment. The act's coverage affects more than 60,000 
chemicals currently in commerce, and all new chemicals.
    Multimedia.--Multimedia activities are designed to support 
programs where the problems, tools, and results are cross media 
and must be integrated to effect results. This integrated 
program encompasses the Agency's research, enforcement, and 
abatement activities.
    Superfund.--The Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 [CERCLA] established a 
national program to protect public health and the environment 
from the threats posed by inactive hazardous waste sites and 
uncontrolled spills of hazardous substances. The original 
statute was amended by the Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act of 1986 [SARA]. Under these authorities, 
EPA manages a hazardous waste site cleanup program including 
emergency response and long-term remediation.
    Leaking underground storage tanks.--The Superfund 
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 [SARA] established 
the leaking underground storage tank [LUST] trust fund to 
conduct corrective actions for releases from leaking 
underground storage tanks that contain petroleum or other 
hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST response program 
primarily through cooperative agreements with the States.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends a total of $7,322,378,000 for EPA. 
This is an increase of $115,732,000 above the budget request 
and a decrease of $267,974,000 below the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level.
    The Committee believes EPA's state revolving funds 
represent a critical investment in our nation's water quality. 
With the significant unmet need in water infrastructure 
financing, the Committee has made the state revolving fund 
programs a high priority and has restored the President's 
reduction of $550,000,000 to the clean water SRF.
    The Committee has also sought to protect funding levels for 
the core EPA programs, including the NPDES permit program, 
pesticides registration and reregistration, RCRA corrective 
action, and compliance assistance activities. Also, the 
Committee has made a priority of science and technology to 
provide research and information leading to the most effective 
approaches to protecting the environment. The Committee did not 
fund new unauthorized programs, and eliminated or reduced lower 
priority activities. The Committee has not provided for any 
growth in EPA staffing, and notes there has been significant 
growth in EPA's workforce in the past five years.
    In fiscal year 1999 EPA is implementing a new budget 
structure for the first time. EPA developed this budget 
structure to comply with the Government Performance and Results 
Act. EPA's strategic plan, with its 10 goals and myriad of 
objectives and subobjectives, is the basis for the new 
structure. While the Committee notes the difficulty of 
transitioning to a new budget structure and acknowledges the 
agency's efforts in attempting to comply with the Results Act, 
there are several major concerns. First, the Committee is very 
troubled that program information is very difficult to identify 
within the various goals and objectives, and funding for key 
programs often is divided into several goals or objectives with 
little rationale for how the funding is allocated. Many program 
activities easily could be justified under several goals or 
objectives, leading to serious questions about budget 
accountability.
    Also, the Committee is concerned that in executing the 
budget, agency activities may not be conforming with the budget 
approved by the Congress. While the agency has been attempting 
to ferret out inconsistencies--as demonstrated in a major 
reprogramming request for fiscal year 1999 which realigns 
dollars with actual activities in myriad objectives--the 
Committee is concerned there continues to be a lack of 
accountability within programs and regions for funds 
appropriated. The Committee will be monitoring this issue 
closely and directs that the Inspector General make 
recommendations for improving budget accountability.
    The agency is directed to notify the Committee prior to 
each reprogramming in excess of $500,000 between objectives, 
when those reprogrammings are for different purposes. The 
exceptions to this limitation are as follows: (1) for the 
``Environmental programs and management'' account, Committee 
approval is required only above $1,000,000; and (2) for the 
``State and tribal assistance grants'' account, reprogramming 
of performance partnership grant funds is exempt from this 
limitation.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $660,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     642,483,000
Committee recommendation................................     642,483,000

                          program description

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $642,483,000 
for science and technology, a decrease of $17,517,000 below the 
enacted level. In addition, the Committee recommends the 
transfer of $38,000,000 from the Superfund account, for a total 
of $680,483,000 for science and technology.
    The Committee has made the following changes to the budget 
request:
  +$2,900,000 for drinking water research, to ensure the best 
        available science needed for upcoming regulatory 
        requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act 
        Amendments.
  +$1,500,000 for the National Jewish Medical and Research 
        Center for research on the relationship between indoor 
        and outdoor pollution and the development of 
        respiratory diseases.
  +$1,800,000 for the National Environmental Respiratory Center 
        at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute. The 
        research should be coordinated with EPA's overall 
        particulate matter research program and consistent with 
        the recommendations set forth by the National Academy 
        of Sciences report on PM research.
  +$1,250,000 for the Center for Air Toxics Metals at the 
        Energy and Environmental Research Center.
  +$1,500,000 for the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics 
        Research Center.
  +$250,000 for acid rain research at the University of 
        Vermont.
  +$2,500,000 for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research 
        Center.
  +$1,500,000 for the National Decentralized Water Resources 
        Capacity Development Project.
  +$2,500,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate 
        Competitive Research.
  +$750,000 for the Institute for Environmental and Industrial 
        Science at Southwest Texas State University.
  +$1,000,000 for the Integrated Public/Private Energy and 
        Environmental Consortium [IPEC] to develop cost-
        effective environmental technology, improved business 
        practices, and technology transfer for the domestic 
        petroleum industry.
  +$1,000,000 for the University of South Alabama, Center for 
        Estuarine Research.
  +$6,000,000 for the Mine Waste Technology Program and the 
        Heavy Metal Water Program at the National Environmental 
        Waste Technology, Testing, and Evaluation Center.
  +$3,000,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation.
  +$350,000 for the Consortium for Agricultural Soils 
        Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases.
  +$250,000 to continue the work of the Environmental 
        Technology Development and Commercialization Center at 
        the Texas Regional Institute for Environmental Studies.
  +$750,000 for the Geothermal Heat Pump (GHP) Consortium. GHP 
        conserves energy, reduces harmful emissions into the 
        atmosphere and decreases energy costs. Continued 
        federal support is needed to ensure successful 
        deployment of this new technology.
  -$900,000 from the EMPACT program.
  -$7,000,000 from the new RTP lab project.
  -$20,000,000 from the climate change technology initiative.
  -$900,000 from various lower priority facility repair and 
        improvement projects.
    The Committee supports no less than the administration's 
request of $7,000,000 for the Superfund Innovative Technology 
Evaluation [SITE] program, no less than $4,000,000 for the 
Clean Air Status and Trends Network [CASTNet], and the current 
funding level of $1,000,000 for each of the Hazardous Substance 
Research Centers.
    The Committee is concerned about the accuracy of 
information contained in the Integrated Risk Information System 
[IRIS] database which contains health effects information on 
more than 500 chemicals. The Committee directs the Science 
Advisory Board to examine a representative sample of IRIS 
health assessments completed before the IRIS Pilot Project, as 
well as a representative sample of assessments completed under 
the project, to assess the extent to which they incorporate all 
relevant data, including the most current data; employ current 
methodologies; and document the range of uncertainty and 
variability of the data. SAB is to report to the Committee 
within 6 months of enactment of this Act on its findings.
    The Committee notes EPA plans to expand asthma research and 
its children's health centers in fiscal year 2000. In 
implementing these efforts the Committee urges EPA to utilize 
through a competitive solicitation, accredited schools of 
public health which have expertise in such areas as 
epidemiology, toxicology and risk assessment.
    Bill language is included, as requested by the 
administration, regarding the liquidation of obligations made 
in fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
    The Committee has not included proposed bill language 
relative to the environmental services fund.

                 environmental programs and management

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $1,846,700,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   2,046,993,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,885,000,000

                          program description

    The Agency's ``Environmental programs and management'' 
account includes the development of environmental standards; 
monitoring and surveillance of pollution conditions; direct 
Federal pollution control planning; technical assistance to 
pollution control agencies and organizations; preparation of 
environmental impact statements; enforcement and compliance 
assurance; and assistance to Federal agencies in complying with 
environmental standards and insuring that their activities have 
minimal environmental impact. It provides personnel 
compensation, benefits, and travel expenses for all agency 
programs except hazardous substance Superfund, LUST, Science 
and Technology, Oil Spill Response, and OIG.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,885,000,000 for environmental 
programs and management, an increase of $38,300,000 above the 
1999 level and a decrease of $161,993,000 below the budget 
request.
    The Committee has made the following changes to the budget 
request:
  +$2,000,000 to validate screens and tests required by the 
        Food Quality Protection Act to identify hormone-
        disrupting chemicals, for a total of $9,700,000.
  +$1,500,000 for training grants under section 104(g) of the 
        Clean Water Act.
  +$8,500,000 for the National Rural Water Association.
  +$2,300,000 for the Rural Community Assistance Program.
  +$650,000 for the Groundwater Protection Council.
  +$1,000,000 for the National Environmental Training Center at 
        West Virginia University.
  +$1,550,000 for the Small Flows Clearinghouse.
  +$1,250,000 for the national onsite and community wastewater 
        treatment demonstration project through the Small Flows 
        Clearinghouse.
  +$1,500,000 for local source water protection efforts in each 
        state, utilizing the existing infrastructure for 
        grassroots/wellhead protection where appropriate.
  +$4,000,000 under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for state 
        participation in multi-state planning efforts on 
        regional haze, including aiding in the development of 
        emissions inventories, quantification of natural 
        visibility conditions, monitoring and other data 
        necessary to define reasonable progress and develop 
        control strategies.
  +$2,000,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental 
        Research and Policy.
  +$500,000 for the Small Public Water System Technology Center 
        at Western Kentucky University.
  +$400,000 for Small Water Systems Technology Assistance 
        Center at the University of Alaska-Sitka.
  +$500,000 for the Small Public Water System Technology Center 
        at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
  +$500,000 for the Southeast Center for Technology Assistance 
        for Small Drinking Water Systems at Mississippi State 
        University.
  +$500,000 to assist communities in Hawaii to meet 
        successfully the water quality permitting requirements 
        for rehabilitating native Hawaiian fishponds.
  +$5,000,000 under section 104(b) of the Clean Water Act for 
        America's Clean Water Foundation for implementation of 
        onfarm environmental assessments for hog production 
        operations, with the goal of improving surface and 
        ground water quality.
  +$500,000 for the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program 
        through the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
  +$500,000 for the Ohio River Watershed Pollutant Reduction 
        Program, to be cost-shared.
  +$1,500,000 to continue the sediment decontamination 
        technology demonstration in the New York-New Jersey 
        Harbor.
  +$1,500,000 for the National Alternative Fuels Vehicle 
        Training Program.
  +$2,500,000 for King County, WA, molten carbonate fuel cell 
        demonstration project.
  +$1,000,000 for the Frank Tejeda Center for Excellence in 
        Environmental Operations to demonstrate new technology 
        for water and wastewater treatment.
  +$800,000 for the National Center for Vehicle Emissions 
        Control and Safety for onboard diagnostic research.
  +$750,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants 
        Program.
  +$1,250,000 for the Lake Champlain management plan.
  +$400,000 for the Long Island Sound Program Office.
  +$500,000 for the Environmentors project.
  +$1,500,000 for the Food and Agricultural Policy Research 
        Institute's Missouri watershed initiative project to 
        link economic and environmental data with ambient water 
        quality.
  +$500,000 for the Small Business Pollution Prevention Center 
        at the University of Northern Iowa.
  +$750,000 for the painting and coating compliance enhancement 
        project through the Iowa Waste Reduction Center.
  +$2,000,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute for 
        development and demonstration of environmental cleanup 
        technologies.
  +$500,000 for the final year of funding for the Ala Wai Canal 
        watershed improvement project.
  +$200,000 for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the 
        University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture 
        and Human Resources to continue developing 
        agriculturally based remediation technologies.
  +$1,000,000 for the Animal Waste Management Consortium 
        through the University of Missouri, acting with Iowa 
        State University, North Carolina State University, 
        Michigan State University, Oklahoma State University, 
        and Purdue University to supplement ongoing research, 
        demonstration, and outreach projects associated with 
        animal waste management.
  +$1,500,000 for the University of Missouri Agroforestry 
        Center to support the agroforestry floodplain 
        initiative on nonpoint source pollution.
  +$1,000,000 for the Columbia basin ground water management 
        assessment.
  +$1,500,000 for a cumulative impacts study of North Slope oil 
        and gas development. The Committee expects the 
        Administrator to contract for the full amount with the 
        National Academy of Sciences through the National 
        Research Council's Board on Environmental Studies and 
        Toxicology to perform the study which shall be 
        completed within 2 years of contract execution. The 
        Council shall seek input from federal and state 
        agencies, Native organizations, non-governmental 
        entities, and other interested parties. Pending 
        completion of the NRC study, the Committee directs that 
        federal agencies shall not, under any circumstances, 
        rely upon the pendency of the study to delay, suspend, 
        or otherwise alter federal decision-making and NEPA 
        compliance for any existing or proposed oil and gas 
        exploration, development, production or delivery on the 
        North Slope.
  +$750,000 for an expansion of EPA's efforts related to the 
        Government purchase and use of environmentally 
        preferable products under Executive Order 13101. This 
        includes up to $200,000 for University of Missouri-
        Rolla to work with the Army to validate soysmoke as a 
        replacement for petroleum fog oil in obscurant smoke 
        used in battlefield exercises.
  +$200,000 to complete the development of a technical guidance 
        manual for use by permit reviewers and product 
        specifiers (Government and private sector) to ensure 
        appropriate uses of preserved wood in applications 
        including housing, piers, docks, bridges, utility 
        poles, and railroad ties.
  +$500,000 for a watershed study for northern Kentucky, 
        including the development and demonstration of a 
        methodology for implementing a cost-effective program 
        for addressing the problems associated with wet weather 
        conditions on a watershed basis.
  +$1,750,000 for the Kansas City Riverfront project to 
        demonstrate innovative methods of removing contaminated 
        debris.
  +$250,000 for the Maryland Bureau of Mines to design and 
        construct a Kempton Mine remediation project to reduce 
        or eliminate the loss of quality water from surface 
        streams into the Kempton Mine complex.
  +$1,000,000 for the Alabama Department of Environmental 
        Management water and wastewater training programs.
  +$900,000 to continue the National Biosolids Partnership.
  +$250,000 for the Vermont Department of Agriculture to work 
        with the conservation districts along the Connecticut 
        River in Vermont to reduce nonpoint source pollution.
  +$75,000 for the groundwater protection/wellhead protection 
        project, Nez Perce Indian Reservation in Idaho.
  +$500,000 for the Water Systems Council to assist in the 
        effective delivery of water to rural citizens 
        nationwide.
  +$500,000 to complete the Treasure Valley Hydrologic Project.
  +$800,000 for the Wetland Development project in Logan, UT.
  +$500,000 for Envision Utah sustainable development 
        activities.
  +$550,000 for the Idaho Water Initiative.
  +$1,000,000 for the Northeast Environmental Enforcement 
        Project, the Southern Environmental Enforcement 
        Network, the Midwest Environmental Enforcement 
        Association, and the Western States Project, which 
        serve as a central point of contact for environmental 
        enforcement training, networking, and information.
  +$750,000 for the Resource and Agricultural Policy Systems 
        Project.
  +$200,000 for the Vermont Small Business Development Center 
        to assist small businesses in complying with 
        environmental regulations.
  +$750,000 to continue the Urban Rivers Awareness Program at 
        the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia for its 
        environmental science program.
  +$500,000 for the Kenai River Center for research on 
        watershed issues and related activities.
  +$300,000 for the restoration of the Beaver Springs Slough.
  +$750,000 for the New Hampshire Estuaries Project management 
        plan implementation.
  +$200,000 for the Fairmount Park Commission to identify, 
        design, implement, and evaluate environmental education 
        exhibits.
  +$100,000 to continue the Design for the Environment for 
        Farmers Program to address the unique environmental 
        concerns of the American Pacific area through the 
        adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.
  -$94,000,000 from the climate change technology initiative 
        [CCTI], including elimination of funds for the 
        Transportation Partners program. GAO found that EPA 
        provided no justification for the requested increase 
        for CCTI.
  -$3,000,000 from the environmental monitoring for public 
        access and community tracking [EMPACT] program. The 
        amount provided is the same as the current level for 
        this program.
  -$21,000,000 from the Montreal protocol fund. Over 
        $93,000,000 has been appropriated in EPA funding since 
        fiscal year 1991.
  -$2,000,000 from environmental education.
  -$4,700,000 from sustainable development challenge grants.
  -$5,000,000 from international capacity building.
  -$5,200,000 from the new RTP lab project.
  -$35,000,000 from payroll costs.
  -$60,468,000 from contracts and grants.
    The Committee directs that no reductions be taken below the 
President's request from pesticides registration or 
reregistration activities, the NPDES permit backlog, compliance 
assistance activities, RCRA corrective action, or data quality/
information management activities related to the reorganization 
of the Office of Information Management.
    The Committee supports the President's full request for the 
south Florida ecosystem restoration project, the National 
Estuary Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, and the 
water quality monitoring program along the New Jersey-New York 
shoreline. The Committee supports no less than fiscal year 1999 
funding levels for the Great Lakes National Program Office, and 
for the environmental finance centers.
    The Committee directs that compliance assistance and 
centers activities within the Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance be funded at no less than $25,000,000. 
Compliance assistance should be an essential element of EPA 
regulatory policy.
    EPA Staffing.--The Committee is very concerned about the 
significant growth in EPA's workforce over the past decade, 
during a time when the states have taken on increasing 
responsibility for environmental programs. More than 70 percent 
of programs which can be delegated by EPA are now being run by 
the States. In the past decade, there has been a significant 
increase in the number of staff in state environmental agencies 
devoted to carrying out EPA mandates. Therefore, the Committee 
has put a prohibition on the growth of EPA staff for fiscal 
year 2000, and notes that the General Accounting Office has 
been asked to review and make recommendations on EPA staffing 
issues. Bill language has been included limiting personnel 
compensation and benefits funded under this account to 
$900,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. Workyears to be funded by 
this account are not to exceed 11,250 FTEs. Priority areas 
identified above by the Committee are to receive FTE increases 
by shifting FTE from lower priority areas. No reductions-in-
force will be precipitated by this cap.
    Environmental Data Management.--The Committee notes that 
the Inspector General has once again listed environmental data 
information systems as a major area of concern at EPA, 
including concerns about the accuracy, timeliness and 
usefulness of EPA data. Given that one of EPA's ten goals 
includes ``Expansion of Americans' Right to Know About Their 
Environment,'' and in view of the Government Performance and 
Results Act which requires that EPA rely on environmental data 
to assess its progress, it is imperative that EPA give top 
priority to addressing this management weakness. While EPA has 
taken the important first step of establishing a new 
information office to consolidate and provide uniformity in 
EPA's approach to information management, much remains to be 
done.
    EPA, in the last several years, has disseminated large 
volumes of environmental data to the public, relying heavily on 
the development of new information products for its Internet 
web site. While government agencies should be sharing important 
information with the public, agencies must exercise the new 
powers afforded by Internet disclosure of data in a fair and 
responsible manner. The Committee is concerned that EPA has not 
always provided adequate opportunities for public involvement 
in the development, maintenance and refinement of the many 
information products that have been placed in the public domain 
during the last several years. Accordingly, the Committee is 
establishing the following expectations for EPA's information 
management activities.
    First, EPA shall establish an agenda of information 
products, published on a semi-annual basis, that would identify 
the information products EPA is preparing for the public, 
providing a brief description of each product, the schedule for 
its release and a contact person for further information. The 
agenda should encompass all products being prepared or funded 
by EPA, at the headquarters or regional level.
    Second, EPA shall establish procedures to engage the public 
in the development, maintenance and modification of information 
products it offers to the public. These procedures should allow 
the public a timely opportunity to comment on all aspects of a 
new information product, including issues concerning data 
quality, analytical methodology, public presentation of data 
and the use of data for a purpose that differs from the 
original purpose for which it was collected. At a minimum, 
these procedures shall include the process EPA and the states 
will use to assure prompt correction of data errors in existing 
EPA Internet resources. These procedures shall also be 
consistent with EPA's obligations under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act.
    Third, the Committee believes that the recent controversy 
under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, over the 
availability of ``offsite consequence analysis'' information to 
potential terrorists underscores the need for a more systematic 
process to consider the security implications of information 
dissemination. EPA shall consult with the Department of 
Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other 
appropriate national security and law enforcement agencies to 
define the decisionmaking process and criteria the government 
will use to provide the proper balance between the disclosure 
of environmental information and protection of public security.
    Fourth, the Committee is concerned about EPA's ability to 
protect confidential business information. The Agency has 
established a series of policies, grounded in various 
environmental statutes, that curtail the ability of data 
submitters to make confidentiality claims that would otherwise 
be allowable under the Freedom of Information Act. Accordingly, 
EPA shall report to Congress, by March 1, 2000, on the elements 
of its policies that prevent claims of confidentiality, 
including those claims that are based on the argument that 
multiple pieces of publicly available data can be used to 
reveal a ``mosaic'' picture of a trade secret. This report 
shall clarify where existing statutes explicitly mandate 
disclosure and where EPA has created policies or provided 
interpretations of statutes that require disclosure.
    Fifth, the Committee is concerned, based on a report by the 
EPA Inspector General, that the Agency's computer security 
system is inadequate. EPA shall provide a report to the 
Committee, with the concurrence of the EPA Inspector General, 
that EPA has taken adequate steps to install a full firewall 
system to protect EPA information systems against intrusion, to 
assure that all EPA program offices have the hardware, trained 
staff and management commitment to provide computer security, 
and to test the integrity of the computer security measures on 
a periodic basis.
    Sixth, the Committee is concerned that the Administration 
is pursuing legal positions that would have the effect of 
insulating its information dissemination activities from all 
forms of judicial review. The Committee believes that the 
availability of judicial review is an important means to 
provide redress for those who might be harmed by government 
action and to provide the proper incentives for care in the use 
of information by government agencies. The Committee directs 
EPA to establish a cooperative agreement with an institution 
with strong credentials in administrative law to consult with a 
cross-section of legal experts and provide the Congress with 
recommendations on when judicial review should be allowed for 
government dissemination of information, by electronic or other 
means. This evaluation should consider the Constitution, the 
Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, the 
Freedom of Information Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act and any 
other federal statute concerning information management or 
government liability.
    With respect to the new Office of Information Management, 
the Committee expects the office will be fully operational 
prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2000, will be vested with 
adequate authority to ensure that all EPA offices follow the 
policies and procedures it sets forth, and will promptly follow 
through on meeting prior data quality/information management 
commitments such as those made for the Reinventing 
Environmental Information initiative.
    Finally, the Committee notes that $10,000,000 has been 
provided in the STAG account for a competitive grant program 
for seed money for states to enhance environmental data quality 
through integrated information systems.
    Enforcement Statistics Project.--The Committee believes it 
is in the public interest to have access to accurate, credible, 
and consistent statistics about federal and state environmental 
enforcement actions. The current system is not meeting those 
standards. Therefore, the Committee directs EPA to provide 
$300,000 to the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and 
$200,000 to the National Academy of Public Administration 
(NAPA) for the following purposes. ECOS is to analyze state 
enforcement and compliance statistics; identify the sources of 
any inconsistencies among the states and EPA in data 
collection, reporting, or definitions; and gather and make 
available to Congress and the public a national summary of 
state enforcement and compliance activities. NAPA is to provide 
an independent evaluation of the state and federal enforcement 
data, including the national summary prepared by ECOS and 
comparable reports of EPA enforcement activities, and to 
recommend to Congress, EPA and the states such actions as would 
be needed to ensure public access to accurate, credible and 
consistent enforcement data. EPA is to award funds for this 
project within 60 days of enactment of this Act. The project is 
to be completed by April, 2001.
    Grants Management.--The Committee is very concerned about 
EPA oversight of its grants and assistance agreements. The 
Committee notes that in 1996 EPA designated oversight of 
assistance agreements as a material management control weakness 
and it remains a material weakness at this time. Also, the 
Inspector General has for the past two years, included concerns 
about the grants program as one of the top ten management 
challenges facing EPA. The Committee expects EPA will make 
reforms in this area a high priority, and provide a report to 
the committee by March 31, 2000, on actions taken and those 
planned for the future so that it can be taken off the list of 
agency material weaknesses.
    Government Performance and Results Act.--The Committee is 
concerned that EPA continues to measure its progress under the 
Results Act primarily through the use of ``output'' measures, 
rather than performance measures. Less than 15 percent of EPA's 
measures are true environmental indicators and EPA continues to 
rely heavily on traditional output measures such as the number 
of permits it plans to issue. The Committee fully expects that 
the fiscal year 2001 budget will include a much larger 
percentage of environmental indicators as performance measures.
    Reinvention.--The Committee remains concerned that the 
Agency's efforts to develop more flexible, effective approaches 
to address environmental problems are having little impact on 
the agency's core programs. In particular, the Committee is 
concerned about the hesitant steps that the agency has taken to 
providing such flexibility to states through performance 
partnerships. A recent GAO report raised concerns about the 
effectiveness of EPA's implementation of the National 
Performance Environmental Partnership system, and made 
recommendations to improve NEPPS. Also, the Committee looks 
forward to the publication in May 2000 of the report of the 
National Academy of Public Administration, which will assess 
efforts at the agency and in states to improve core programs 
and will recommend how the agency can build an effective 
capacity to test and learn from innovations.
    Kyoto Protocol.--Bill language has been included, as in the 
current year, prohibiting EPA from spending funds to implement 
the Kyoto Protocol. The Committee notes that this restriction 
on the use of funds shall not apply to the conduct of education 
activities and seminars by the agency.
    The conferees note that some EPA programs involve research 
or other activities that are associated with climate change. To 
the extent that the Committee has funded this work, it has done 
so based on the program's individual merits of contributing to 
issues associated with energy efficiency and cost savings, 
related environmental assessments, and general energy emission 
improvements. The bill language is intended to prohibit funds 
provided in this bill from being used to implement actions 
solely under the Kyoto Protocol, prior to its ratification.
    The Byrd-Hagel resolution which passed in 1997 remains the 
clearest statement of the will of the Senate with respect to 
the Kyoto Protocol, and the Committee is committed to ensuring 
that the administration not implement the Kyoto Protocol 
without Congressional consent. The Committee recognizes, 
however, that there are also longstanding programs which have 
goals and objectives that, if met, could have positive effects 
on energy use and the environment. The Committee does not 
intend to preclude these programs from proceeding, provided 
they have been funded and approved by Congress.
    To the extent future funding requests may be submitted 
which would increase funding for climate change activities 
prior to Senate consideration of the Kyoto Protocol (whether 
under the auspices of the Climate Change Technology Initiative 
or any other initiative), the Administration must do a better 
job of explaining the components of the programs, their 
anticipated goals and objectives, the justification for any 
funding increases, a discussion of how successes will be 
measured, and a clear definition of how these programs are 
justified by goals and objectives independent of implementation 
of the Kyoto Protocol. The conferees expect these items to be 
included as part of the fiscal year 2000 budget submission for 
all affected agencies.
    Last year, the Committee directed the Administration to 
include these items in the fiscal year 2000 budget submission. 
The Committee is concerned that several agencies are tardy in 
doing so. The Committee expects the EPA's report to be 
consistent with the observations of the July 14, 1999, General 
Accounting Office (GAO) Report to the Senate (B-283052). Three 
agencies did not submit reports until April 9 or later, and one 
submitted its report one day before this hearing. According to 
the GAO, both the timing and the content of these submissions 
made it more difficult for Congress to assess Administration 
proposals.
    With regard to these submissions, the Committee expects all 
affected agencies to comply fully with the letter and spirit of 
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). The 
GAO is directed to prepare a report that evaluates the Agency's 
completed plan and submit its report to the Appropriations 
Committee 90 days after receipt of the Agency's plan.
    Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations 
Cost and Capability Assessment.--The Committee directs EPA to 
conduct with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a cost 
and capability assessment of the Unified National Strategy for 
Animal Feeding Operations and report the results to the 
Congress by May 15, 2000. The assessment will be conducted as a 
pilot project in affected states and shall determine the costs, 
both public and private, to plan, implement, monitor and 
enforce the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding 
Operations, with a focus on Comprehensive Nutrient Management 
Plans (CNMP). EPA and USDA shall work with local committees 
including conservation districts, state agencies, producers and 
public interest groups, which will provide the local oversight 
and guidance to making the cost and capability determinations. 
The results of this pilot project shall be summarized by the 
committees and included in the final report which the EPA and 
USDA will prepare and submit to the Congress.
    Reuse of industrial packages.--While EPA has a number of 
programs designed to promote pollution prevention and recycling 
in industrial processes, few resources have been directed at 
the reuse of materials. One example is the reuse of industrial 
packages which include packages used for the transportation or 
storage of commodities, the contents of which are not meant for 
retail sale without being repackaged. The Committee urges EPA 
to investigate and promote opportunities for the reuse of 
industrial packages in their original intended form through 
reconditioning and remanufacture by working with private sector 
organizations whose primary purposes include education and 
research in the field of reusable industrial packages. EPA 
should also consider developing a pilot project on the reuse of 
industrial packages as an environmentally preferable product.
    HPV Challenge Program.--The Committee is concerned about 
EPA's implementation of the High Production Volume (HPV) 
Chemical Challenge Program. To ensure EPA will be able to 
manage effectively the large influx of data which will be 
generated by this program, EPA should consider upgrading its 
software to a more internationally useable system such as the 
International Uniform Chemical Information Database (IUCLID). 
The Committee understands that IUCLID would allow the input of 
data in one format for all venues.
    Lead-based paint pre-renovation education rule.--The 
Committee is concerned that EPA's lead-based paint pre-
renovation education rule, specifically as it relates to multi-
family housing, may create confusion for property owners and 
tenants and may not be the most effective way to achieve the 
child health protections intended under section 1018 of Title X 
of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act. The 
Committee believes EPA should meet with multi-family property 
owners to consider the practical effects of the regulations and 
to discuss how burdens can be minimized in conformance with the 
statutory direction of child health protection. EPA should 
consider amending the final rule to facilitate implementation 
of the rule. EPA is to report to the Committee by June 1, 2000 
on the efforts it has taken to streamline the paperwork burden 
for small businesses.
    Tier II/Low Sulfur Rule.--The Committee is concerned that 
as part of the proposed Tier II/low sulfur rule, the Agency may 
have failed to conduct sufficient analyses of the potential 
negative health impacts and the potential costs of imposing new 
controls on vehicles and fuels to reduce NOX 
emissions, including the effect of reducing NOX 
emissions in areas of the country that are VOC-limited, such 
that ozone levels respond more to reductions in VOCs than to 
NOX reductions. The Committee directs EPA to 
undertake an analysis of the potential disbenefits of 
reductions in NOX emissions, using the latest 
modeling technology, and to report to the Committee as soon as 
possible but no later than March 1, 2000 on the areas of the 
country and the number of people in those areas where ozone 
levels may increase as a result of implementing the Tier II/low 
sulfur rule. In addition, the Committee is also concerned that 
the Agency has failed to evaluate the full impact of the low-
sulfur rule on the refining industry in light of the health of 
the industry and other regulatory requirements affecting the 
industry. Therefore, the Committee requests the EPA, working 
with the Department of Energy, conduct a full analysis of the 
potential impact of the many regulatory requirements facing the 
industry in light of current and anticipated market conditions 
and trends, and to report to the Committee no later than August 
1, 2000. Given the complexity of the Tier II/low sulfur rule 
and the need for full public scrutiny of the many issues 
involved, the Committee also requests that the Administrator 
report to the Committee within 30 days on whether all of the 
underlying data relating to potential costs and health benefits 
as well as disbenefits, have been released to the public for 
review and comment.
    Other issues.--The 2002 Winter Olympics may provide a 
unique opportunity to showcase sustainable building 
technologies including renewable and energy efficient building 
materials and energy efficient design technologies. EPA is 
encouraged to work with the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for 
the Olympic Winter Games to develop a program in which 
sustainable building technologies may be incorporated into 
appropriate Olympic facilities, with particular emphasis on the 
Oquirrh Park Service District.
    The Committee strongly encourages EPA to continue the Big 
Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational Study.
    The Committee believes EPA should develop a comprehensive 
plan to guide its efforts to establish an air toxics monitoring 
program, including how the data generated from the program will 
be used to guide decisionmaking.
    The Committee urges EPA to accelerate completion of the 
lead safety sampling technician course to meet the urgent need 
for individuals trained to perform visual inspections and 
sample dust, soil, and paint chips in high risk housing and as 
needed for clearance after repainting and remodeling.
    The Committee believes EPA should increase its support to 
$60,000 for the Tri-State Implementation Council, which is 
implementing the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed Management 
Plan.
    The Committee understands that advancements in fuel 
catalysts could prolong the effectiveness of catalytic 
converters and achieve reductions in airborne emissions of 
hydrocarbons, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 
oxide. Such reductions could significantly improve air quality 
and aid in attaining air quality standards. The Committee 
encourages EPA to identify and test these catalysts in non-
attainment areas.
    The Committee urges EPA to consider favorably a proposal 
from the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center to establish 
a Center for Sustainable Manufacturing that would assist small 
and medium-sized manufacturers in improving their economic 
performance while reducing toxic emissions and hazardous 
wastes.
    The Committee urges EPA to continue its support to the 
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association to address 
multimedia and multi-jurisdictional issues in waste management, 
site cleanup and pollution prevention.
    The Committee urges EPA to continue an ongoing project by 
the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning to phase-out 
leaded gasoline internationally. Approximately $500,000 is 
needed to complete this important project.
    The Committee supports and acknowledges the need and public 
benefit of integrating regulatory and technical assistance 
programs between federal agencies. The Committee recognizes the 
Earth Sciences and Resources Institute at the University of 
South Carolina is developing a geographic information decision 
support system to facilitate the cost-effective planning, 
management and regulation of animal feeding operations and 
associated comprehensive nutrient management plans. The 
decision support system can serve as a framework for federal 
efforts to link important water quality and agricultural 
conservation issues.
    The Committee recognizes the unique program developed by 
the University of Kentucky Transportation Center and the 
Calspan University of Buffalo Research Center to develop on-
board, real-time computing capability to monitor the emissions 
of commercial vehicles. The Committee encourages EPA to find 
the necessary resources to fund a pilot program.
    Bill language has been included, as requested by the 
administration, clarifying EPA's grant making authorities under 
section 20 of FIFRA.
    Bill language is included, as requested by the 
administration, regarding liquidating obligations made in 
fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
    The Committee has not included proposed bill language 
relative to the environmental services fund.

                      office of inspector general


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $31,154,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      29,409,000
Committee recommendation................................      32,409,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $32,409,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General, an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget 
request. In addition, the budget request of $10,753,000 will be 
available by transfer from the Superfund account, for a total 
of $43,162,000. The trust fund resources will be transferred to 
the inspector general ``General fund'' account with an 
expenditure transfer.
    The Committee has added $3,000,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General to address major problems at EPA and to form 
a new program evaluation unit to analyze environmental outcomes 
more effectively. Funds are included for additional audits of 
grants and assistance agreements, which represent a major 
portion of EPA's budget and which EPA has identified as a 
material management control weakness. The IG will assess 
whether a systemic problem exists within EPA's grants 
management and oversight responsibilities, including whether 
EPA is using the grants process in lieu of the more appropriate 
contracting process for certain procurements, whether there is 
adequate competition in awarding grants, whether quantifiable 
deliverables are being obtained, and whether adequate oversight 
is being conducted by EPA.
    In addition, the IG is expected to continue audits of 
computer security, which also has been identified as a material 
weakness, and related activities to protect computer systems.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $56,948,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      62,630,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,930,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $25,930,000 for buildings and 
facilities. The Committee recommendation does not include, 
without prejudice, the administration request of $36,700,000 
for the Research Triangle Park laboratory construction project 
owing to budget constraints.

                     hazardous substance superfund


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $1,500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   1,500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,400,000,000

                          program description

    On October 17, 1986, Congress amended the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
[CERCLA] through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 
Act of 1986 [SARA]. SARA reauthorized and expanded the 
hazardous substance Superfund to address the problems of 
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spills. Specifically, 
the legislation mandates that EPA: (1) provide emergency 
response to hazardous waste spills; (2) take emergency action 
at hazardous waste sites that pose an imminent hazard to public 
health or environmentally sensitive ecosystems; (3) engage in 
long-term planning, remedial design, and construction to clean 
up hazardous waste sites where no financially viable 
responsible party can be found; (4) take enforcement actions to 
require responsible private and Federal parties to clean up 
hazardous waste sites; and (5) take enforcement actions to 
recover costs where the fund has been used for cleanup.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,400,000,000 for Superfund, a 
decrease of $100,000,000 below the budget request and fiscal 
year 1999 enacted level. The amount provided includes 
$700,000,000 from general revenues, and the balance from the 
trust fund.
    The amount recommended includes the following:
      $913,647,000 for the response program. This includes the 
        President's full request for brownfields.
      $145,000,000 for enforcement.
      $38,000,000 for research and development.
      $125,000,000 for management and support.
      $70,000,000 for the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
        Disease Registry, including up to $2,500,000 for the 
        Great Lakes fish consumption study and up to $2,000,000 
        for ATSDR to complete the exposure assessment, 
        community and health provider outreach, exposure dose 
        reconstruction, other measures necessary to complete 
        the Dover Township, New Jersey Case Control Study, and 
        the multistate Childhood Brain Cancer Case Control 
        Study. The Committee directs that the reduction from 
        the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for ATSDR be taken 
        from health assessments, consistent with GAO's March 
        1999 report which recommended against conducting 
        detailed health assessments at each site proposed for 
        the NPL. Bill language has been included to relieve 
        ATSDR from the requirement that full health assessments 
        be conducted at all sites proposed for the NPL within 
        one year, and to enable ATSDR to conduct other 
        appropriate health studies, evaluations, or activities, 
        in lieu of health assessments.
      $58,000,000 for the National Institute of Environmental 
        Health Sciences, including $23,000,000 for worker 
        training grants and $35,000,000 for research.
      $39,600,000 for other Federal agencies.
      $10,753,000 for the inspector general.
    The Committee continues to be concerned with EPA's 
management of the Superfund program, which has been listed by 
the General Accounting Office as a high risk program subject to 
fraud, waste and abuse for a decade. Recently GAO reported that 
EPA may be retaining more contract capacity than it needs to 
conduct its Superfund cleanup work, leading to excessive 
program support costs. GAO also has raised concerns about EPA's 
inconsistent use of independent cost estimates to control 
contractor costs, as well as EPA's cost-recovery practices.
    In addition, all of Superfund's performance measures 
required by the Results Act are process-oriented; there are no 
measures that directly address reduction of risk to human 
health and the environment. The Committee expects that in the 
fiscal year 2001 budget, EPA will include environmental 
indicators as in the RCRA corrective action program.
    Given these concerns, along with the need for 
reauthorization, the constraints imposed by the budget 
allocation, and the need to prioritize spending according to 
risk, the Committee has reduced Superfund spending by 
$100,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee directs 
that funds for sites where remedies are yet to be selected be 
primarily allocated on the basis of risk, ensuring that those 
sites posing the most significant risk to human health and the 
environment will be addressed first.
    In view of the fact that almost half of the NPL sites are 
now on the construction completion list, it is expected that 
the Superfund program will be ramping down within the next five 
to ten years. Given the need to have solid and independently 
verified estimates of the cost to implement and phase down this 
program, the Committee directs that within 45 days of enactment 
of this Act, EPA award a cooperative agreement for an 
independent analysis of the projected costs over the 10-year 
period of fiscal years 2000-2010 for implementation of the 
Superfund program under current law, including the annual and 
cumulative costs associated with administering CERCLA 
activities at National Priority List (NPL) sites. It shall 
identify sources of uncertainty in the estimates. The analysis 
shall model (1) costs for completion of all sites currently 
listed on the NPL, (2) costs associated with additions to the 
NPL anticipated for fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2009, 
(3) costs associated with Federal expenditures for the 
operations and maintenance at both existing and new NPL sites, 
(4) costs for emergency removals, (5) non-site-specific costs 
assigned to other activities such as research, administration, 
and interagency transfers, and (6) costs associated with 5-year 
reviews at existing and new NPL sites and associated 
activities. For purposes of this analysis, costs associated 
with assessment, response and development of brownfields, and 
Federal facility sites are not to be included. The analysis 
shall be conducted by Resources For the Future. The results of 
the analysis are to be transmitted in a report to Congress by 
December 31, 2000.
    The Committee notes that King County and the City of 
Seattle are working together to encourage reuse of contaminated 
industrial land by facilitating cleanup and redevelopment. 
Also, the Port of Ridgefield, WA, is working to clean up 
contamination at that site including the removal of an 
underground plume. The Committee encourages EPA to give 
favorable consideration to grant applications under the 
Brownfields program for these projects.
    The Committee is aware there is significant interest in 
resolving and settling the Natural Resource Damage suit in the 
Silver Valley of Idaho. The Committee is concerned the federal 
agencies involved in the suit appear to be more interested in 
protracted litigation than in a timely and equitable resolution 
of the NRD claims in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. It is the 
Committee's expectation that EPA will work to assure there is 
such a resolution within this fiscal year.
    The Committee directs that Superfund FTE's not exceed 3,300 
in fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee has included bill language delaying the 
availability of $100,000,000 until September 1, 2000.

              leaking underground storage tank trust fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $72,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      71,556,000
Committee recommendation................................      71,556,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $71,556,000 
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, a decrease of 
$944,000 below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The 
Committee directs that not less than 85 percent of these funds 
be provided to the States and tribal governments.
    In light of widespread contamination of drinking water by 
the gasoline additive MTBE from leading underground petroleum 
storage tanks, the Committee urges EPA in undertaking 
corrective actions and enforcement to give high priority to 
releases that pose the greatest threat to human health and the 
environment.

                           oilspill response


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      15,618,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,000,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the oilspill 
response trust fund, the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level and a decrease of $618,000 below the budget request.

                   state and tribal ASSISTANCE grants

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $3,408,050,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   2,837,957,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,250,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,250,000,000 
for State and tribal assistance grants, an increase of 
$412,043,000 over the budget request and a decrease of 
$158,050,000 below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following:
      $885,000,000, the budget request, for performance 
        partnership/categorical grants and associated program 
        support. Clean Lakes program activities are to be 
        funded through the sec. 319 nonpoint source grant 
        program. The Committee suggests that 5 percent of the 
        section 319 funds be allocated to clean lakes, and that 
        EPA better integrate the Clean Lakes and section 319 
        programs by incorporating the section 314 guidance into 
        the 319 guidance.
      $10,000,000 for competitive grants to States and 
        federally-recognized Indian Tribes 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 
        environmental 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. EPA 
        will address any of its own internal funding needs 
        associated with this effort through a redirection of 
        funding during the fiscal year 2000 operating plan 
        process.
      $825,000,000 for drinking water State revolving funds, an 
        increase of $50,000,000 over fiscal year 1999 and the 
        same as the budget request.
      $1,350,000,000 for clean water State revolving funds, an 
        increase of $550,000,000 above the budget request.
      $50,000,000 for water and wastewater projects on the 
        United States-Mexico border. The Committee directs that 
        of the funds provided for U.S./Mexico border projects, 
        $3,000,000 shall be for the El Paso-Las Cruces 
        Sustainable Water Project and $2,000,000 shall be for 
        the Brownsville water supply project.
      $30,000,000 for rural and Alaskan Native villages to 
        address the special water and wastewater treatment 
        needs of thousands of households that lack basic 
        sanitation, including $2,000,000 for training and 
        technical assistance. The State of Alaska will provide 
        a match of 25 percent.
      $100,000,000 for special needs infrastructure grants, as 
        follows:
      $2,700,000 for the Pownal, VT wastewater treatment 
        project.
      $2,000,000 for the Fall River/New Bedford, MA combined 
        sewer overflow and wastewater treatment system.
      $3,000,000 for the central metropolitan interceptor 
        improvement project in Milwaukee, WI.
      $4,000,000 for the Lockwood, MT, water and sewer district 
        for implementation of its wastewater collection, 
        treatment and disposal plan.
      $2,000,000 for the Ogden, UT, water, sewer and stormwater 
        improvements.
      $2,800,000 to complete the Hogg Creek Interceptor Project 
        to improve wastewater disposal in Jackson, MS.
      $5,000,000 for the upgrade of sewage treatment facilities 
        in Cambridge and Salisbury, MD.
      $3,000,000 for the Mitchell, SD, water system.
      $1,300,000 for the Cabot, VT, wastewater treatment 
        project.
      $1,500,000 for the Big Timber, MT wastewater treatment 
        facility.
      $1,800,000 for the City of Blackfoot, ID, for wastewater 
        treatment plant improvements.
      $5,000,000 for the City of Welch, WV, for water/sewer 
        improvements.
      $2,300,000 for the Shulerville--Honey Hill, SC, water 
        extension project.
      $1,000,000 for the Big Haynes Creek, GA, stormwater basin 
        retention and reuse project.
      $2,000,000 for the Sacramento, CA, sewer overflow 
        upgrade.
      $1,500,000 for the Southeastern Oakland County, MI, sewer 
        overflow modification project.
      $1,500,000 for the City of Montrose, CO, wastewater 
        treatment plant upgrade.
      $500,000 for Dell Rapids, SD, wastewater treatment 
        facility upgrade.
      $5,500,000 for the State of Missouri Department of 
        Natural Resources for phosphorous removal efforts in 
        southwestern Missouri communities under 50,000, 
        including but not limited to Nixa, Ozark, Kimberling 
        City, Reeds Spring, and Galena wastewater treatment 
        facilities discharging into the Table Rock Lake 
        watershed.
      $3,300,000 for the Missouri Division of State Parks water 
        and sewer improvements needs including the state parks 
        of Meramec, Roaring River, Lake of the Ozarks, Knob 
        Noster, Cuivve River, Mark Twain, and Trail of Tears.
      $500,000 for the Clovis, NM emergency repair of a 
        wastewater effluent holding pond and renovation of its 
        wastewater treatment plant.
      $3,000,000 for a grant to the Arizona Water 
        Infrastructure Financing Authority for making a loan to 
        the city of Safford, AZ to address the city's 
        wastewater needs, which will be repaid by the city to 
        the Arizona Clean Water Revolving fund established 
        under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
        Act, as amended.
      $1,000,000 for Vinalhaven, ME, municipal sewer system.
      $600,000 for the cities of Jerome and Dietrich, ID, to 
        upgrade local water facilities.
      $2,000,000 for the Berlin, NH, water infrastructure 
        improvements.
      $3,000,000 for North Jessamine County, KY, wastewater 
        system improvements.
      $2,300,000 for the Moapa Valley Water District, NV, 
        wastewater treatment expansion.
      $3,750,000 for water/sewer improvements for the City of 
        Valdez, AK.
      $3,600,000 to address water and wastewater deficiencies 
        in the North and South Valley areas of the city of 
        Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, NM ($3,100,000) and 
        Espanola, NM ($500,000).
      $3,750,000 for water/sewer improvements in the Chugiak 
        area of Anchorage, AK.
      $3,000,000 for the Grand Forks, ND, water treatment 
        plant.
      $3,000,000 for a surface water treatment plant in 
        Franklin County, AL.
      $500,000 for Lafayette, AL, water system project.
      $1,000,000 for combined sewer overflow projects in 
        Lynchburg and Richmond, VA.
      $2,000,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration 
        Project, PA.
      $2,500,000 for the Metaline Falls water system 
        improvements in Pend Oreille County, WA.
      $500,000 for the Springettsbury, Township, PA, regional 
        sewer project.
      $600,000 for the city of Bremerton, WA, combined sewer 
        overflow project.
      $500,000 for the city of Sitka, AK, water/sewer 
        improvements.
      $1,500,000 for the North Hudson, NJ, Sewerage Authority 
        combined sewer overflow initiative.
      $1,500,000 for the Passaic Valley, NJ, Sewerage Combined 
        Sewer Overflow initiative.
      $5,200,000 for the Jackson, MS, water and wastewater 
        system rehabilitation.
      $1,500,000 for the County of Kauai, HI, for the Lihue 
        wastewater treatment plant.
      $1,500,000 for the Doan Brook watershed project in 
        Cleveland, OH, to alleviate sanitary sewer 
        contamination.
    EPA is to work with the grant recipients on appropriate 
cost-share arrangements consistent with past practice.
    The Committee notes that EPA is in the process of revising 
upward its estimate of clean water infrastructure financing. It 
is expected that EPA's updated estimate of the 20 year-
requirement will be approximately $200,000,000,000--compared to 
EPA's 1996 needs survey estimate of roughly $140,000,000,000--
excluding replacement costs and operations and maintenance. 
There currently is an annual gap of almost $6,000,000,000 
between capital needs and total federal, state and local 
expenditures on wastewater infrastructure, including 
replacement costs. Given these needs, the Committee is 
perplexed with EPA's decision to cut funding dramatically for 
the clean water state revolving fund program. This program has 
proven to be an effective state-federal partnership, with 
significant leveraging of federal funds and strong state cost-
sharing. The Committee believes the SRF program will continue 
to play a critical role in meeting water infrastructure 
financing requirements, and expects EPA to request an 
appropriate level of funding for this critical program in its 
fiscal year 2001 budget request. The Committee urges EPA to 
initiate a dialog to determine how much additional SRF funding 
is needed to address the long term water quality needs of the 
nation.
    The Committee has not included bill language requested by 
the administration authorizing a set-aside of up to 20 percent 
of state revolving funds for nonpoint source grants. The 
Committee notes it has recommended $200,000,000 in section 319 
grants for nonpoint source controls. In view of the need for 
wastewater infrastructure financing, the Committee cannot 
support the administration's proposal.
    The Committee has provided no funds for the 
administration's proposal for a new $200,000,000 clean air 
partnership grant program. This program is not specifically 
authorized and cannot be supported in view of the many higher 
priority agency activities. Further, according to GAO, EPA did 
not perform any analysis to justify establishing this program 
or its cost.
    The Committee is concerned with the length of time it has 
taken EPA to close out the construction grants for Gary and 
Indianapolis, IN, which were awarded under the Clean Water Act 
during the 1970's with work completed during the 1980's. The 
Committee expects EPA to settle all outstanding audit disputes 
with these cities by November 1, 1999, giving due deference to 
decision documents from EPA or the relevant delegated agency 
which indicate that a ``hard look'' or other review was 
conducted in determining whether costs are eligible or 
allowable.
    The Committee has included bill language, which has been 
carried for several years, clarifying that drinking water 
health effects research is to be funded out of the science and 
technology account only.
    Bill language has been included, as in fiscal year 1999, 
which allows states in fiscal year 2000 and hereafter to 
include as principal, amounts considered to be the cost of 
administering SRF loans to eligible borrowers.
    Bill language is included, as the administration requested, 
regarding section 319 grants to Indian tribes.
    Finally, bill language is included making technical 
corrections to fiscal year 1999 appropriation language related 
to water infrastructure grants for Alaska and Utah.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

    The Committee has included bill language which prohibits 
the EPA Administrator from awarding any funds to a non-profit 
organization unless such organization has certified that it has 
not used federal funds to engage in litigation against the 
United States.

                   Executive Office of the President


                Office of Science and Technology Policy

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $5,026,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       5,201,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,201,000

                          program description

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,201,000 for 
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This amount is the 
same as the budget request and $175,000 above the fiscal year 
1999 enacted level.
    The Committee is concerned about recent actions taken by 
the European Union with respect to the safety of agricultural 
commodities produced in part through the use of biotechnology. 
The Committee believes that there is a clear need to provide 
impartial scientific analysis of the use of these new 
technologies and methods to maintain public confidence in the 
nation's food supply. Therefore, the Committee directs OSTP to 
organize a special working group with participation from other 
federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Environmental Protection Agency to study and provide 
recommendations to the Committee on how to address this issue. 
This report should be submitted to the Committee by June 15, 
2000.

  Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $2,675,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       3,020,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,675,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $2,675,000 for the Council on 
Environmental Quality, the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level.
    Bill language relative to the use of detailees has been 
continued again this year.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation


                      Office of Inspector General

                          (Transfer of Funds)

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $34,666,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      33,666,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,666,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $34,666,000 for the FDIC inspector 
general, which are to be derived by transfer from the bank 
insurance fund, the savings association insurance fund, and the 
FSLIC resolution fund.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $2,640,254,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     921,300,000
Committee recommendation................................     854,580,000

                          general description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $854,580,000 for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. The amount provided includes 
$300,000,000 in disaster relief expenditures and $554,580,000 
for other programs. Despite severe budget constraints, the 
Committee has accommodated some increases for priority 
initiatives such as counter-terrorism, fire program 
enhancements, and emergency food and shelter.

                            disaster relief

Appropriations, 1999..................................\1\ $2,113,745,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... \2\ 300,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     300,000,000

\1\ Includes $1,806,000,000 in supplemental appropriations.
\2\ The administration requested an additional $2,480,425,000 in 
contingency funds, for a total of $2,780,425,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

    Through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), FEMA provides a 
significant portion of the total Federal response to victims in 
Presidentially declared major disasters and emergencies. Major 
disasters are declared when a State requests Federal assistance 
and has proven that a given disaster is beyond the State's 
capacity to respond. Under the DRF, FEMA provides three main 
types of assistance: individual and family assistance; public 
assistance, which includes the repair and reconstruction of 
State, local and non-profit infrastructure; and hazard 
mitigation.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $300,000,000 
for FEMA disaster relief, a decrease of $7,000,000 below the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level, excluding contingency funds. 
The Committee has not included the administration's request of 
$2,480,425,000 for disaster relief contingency funds.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about expenditures 
in the disaster relief program. While the Committee supports 
FEMA's efforts to close out old disasters--some dating back to 
1989--FEMA is incurring obligations to the disaster relief fund 
at a much faster rate than in previous years. As a result, the 
fund faced a potential shortfall earlier this year, resulting 
in the need for an unanticipated supplemental appropriation to 
replenish it. The Committee is concerned about whether FEMA, in 
expediting the close-out of old disasters, is ensuring that the 
Congress has accurate and timely information concerning the 
status of fund balances and whether FEMA is ensuring that 
closeouts are occurring in such a way that project eligibility 
requirements are being met consistently. The Committee requests 
that the General Accounting Office review how FEMA is tracking 
disaster relief requirements and the status of disaster relief 
fund balances, as well as how FEMA ensures that disaster 
assistance dollars are used effectively and efficiently, and 
consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements.
    The Committee commends FEMA for its rule, published 
September 1, 1999, listing the factors it considers when 
evaluating a Governor's request for a major disaster 
declaration, including State per capita damage; the severity, 
magnitude and impact of the disaster; insurance coverage; 
hazard mitigation measures; recent disaster history; and 
programs of other Federal assistance. The Committee is 
concerned, however, that these indicators are no more stringent 
than those used in the past. Moreover, traditionally FEMA has 
not been consistent in its application of these criteria. The 
Inspector General recently found that forty percent of the 192 
declarations it examined in the 10-year period October 1988-
September 1998 were declared with a state per capita damage 
figure under $1, while FEMA used a $1 per capita damage 
threshold as one of its disaster criteria. The Committee 
expects that FEMA will apply the criteria it has published in a 
consistent manner, and will look to strengthening the criteria 
over time, while recognizing the need to maintain some 
flexibility for unique circumstances.
    The Committee continues to have concerns about FEMA's 
implementation of the hazard mitigation grant program 
authorized by section 404 of the Stafford Act. FEMA has been 
exempting several categories of projects from benefit-cost 
analysis, including property acquisitions, hazard research, and 
mitigation planning efforts; 14 percent of the projects 
reviewed by GAO had been exempted from benefit-cost analysis. 
While the Committee recognizes the need for some flexibility in 
selecting projects under this program, it is imperative that 
funds be allocated to those projects which will yield the 
greatest opportunities to reduce risk. The General Accounting 
Office conducted a review of this program and made 
recommendations to ensure that funded projects are cost-
effective. The Committee expects FEMA to follow these 
recommendations, while also ensuring that funds are obligated 
more expeditiously. Currently there is approximately 
$400,000,000 in unobligated 404 funds, dating back to 1994.
    The Committee strongly supports FEMA's efforts to require 
adequate insurance for public buildings. This is integral to 
ensuring that state and local governments are taking all steps 
possible to prepare for disaster events. The rule should 
correct a disincentive against insurance caused by the existing 
regulatory interpretation of the Stafford Act, reward 
communities and States for having insurance, save Federal 
disaster costs, and enhance preparedness.
    Bill language has been included, as requested by the 
administration, authorizing the transfer of $2,900,000 from the 
disaster relief fund to emergency management planning and 
assistance for the consolidated emergency management 
performance grant. The funds to be transferred represent the 
authorization for disaster preparedness improvement grants.
    The Committee recognizes the State of Texas has formed 
Texas Task Force 1 (TxTF-1), the Texas Urban Search and Rescue 
Team, through the National Emergency Response and Rescue 
Training Center located in College Station, Texas. The 
Committee notes that TxTF-1 is a fully operational team, 
strategically located in the Central and Southeastern part of 
the nation on the Gulf Coast. The Committee also notes the 
State of Texas has invested $2,000,000 to equip fully and train 
this team which has already been deployed in several natural 
disasters. Therefore, the Committee suggests FEMA do a full 
evaluation of TxTF-1 and report back to the Committee as to 
whether it should be included in the national Urban Search and 
Rescue System.

                      PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUND

Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     $30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Under this initiative, FEMA provides funds for community-
identified mitigation projects that reduce the exposure to 
disaster losses. These funds are expected to leverage private 
sector resources. Of the total amount requested, $2,600,000 
will be transferred to the Emergency Management Planning and 
Assistance appropriation into the consolidated emergency 
management performance grants to support Project Impact 
mitigation activities at the State level.

                         COMMITTEE DESCRIPTION

    The Committee recommends funds for this activity under the 
``Emergency management planning and assistance'' account, in 
lieu of a separate account as proposed by the administration.

            disaster assistance direct loan program account


                      (limitation on direct loans)

                            STATE SHARE LOAN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999....................      $1,355,000        $440,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................       1,295,000         420,000
Committee recommendation................       1,295,000         420,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Disaster assistance loans authorized by the Robert T. 
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 42 U.S.C. 
5121 et seq. are loans to States for the non-Federal portion of 
cost sharing funds and community disaster loans to local 
governments incurring substantial loss of tax and other 
revenues as a result of a major disaster. The funds requested 
for this program include direct loans and a subsidy based on 
criteria including loan amount and interest charged.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    For the State Share Loan Program, the Committee has 
provided $25,000,000 in loan authority and $420,000 in 
administrative expenses. For the cost of subsidizing the 
appropriation, the bill includes $1,295,000.

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................\1\ $174,779,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     189,720,000
Committee recommendation................................     180,000,000

\1\ Includes $3,641,000 in Y2K emergency contingency funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

    Program Support.--This activity provides the necessary 
resources to administer the Agency's various programs at 
headquarters and in the regions.
    Executive Direction.--This activity provides for the 
general management and administration of the Agency in legal, 
congressional, government, and media affairs, and financial and 
personnel management, as well as the management of the Agency's 
national security program.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $180,000,000 for FEMA salaries and 
expenses. This is a decrease of $9,720,000 below the request 
and an increase of $5,221,000 above the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level. Owing to severe budget constraints, the 
Committee was not able to fund fully the budget estimate. The 
Committee did not fund 49 workyears lost to unbudgeted 
increases in fiscal year 1999, or 20 new workyears for 
administrative support for Project Impact. However, the 
Committee recommendation does accommodate additional resources 
for counterterrorism/anti-terrorism activities and for 
enhancements to the fire prevention and training program.

                    office of the inspector general

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $5,400,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       8,015,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,015,000

                          program description

    This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and 
investigative functions to identify and correct management and 
administrative deficiencies, which create conditions for 
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and 
mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit, 
contract audit, and inspection services. Contract audits 
provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on 
accounting and financial matters relative to the negotiation, 
award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. 
Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of agency 
operations.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $8,015,000 
for the Office of the Inspector General, an increase of 
$2,615,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level.

              emergency management planning and assistance

Appropriations, 1999....................................\1\ $244,535,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     250,850,000
Committee recommendation................................     255,850,000

\1\ Includes $3,711,000 in Y2K conversion emergency funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

    The emergency management planning and assistance 
appropriation provides resources for the following activities: 
response and recovery; preparedness; information technology 
services; fire prevention and training; operations support; 
policy and regional operations; mitigation programs; and 
executive direction. Flood plain management activity and flood 
insurance operations are funded by transfer from the national 
flood insurance fund in fiscal year 1994.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget estimate of 
$255,850,000 for emergency management planning and assistance. 
This is an increase of $10,026,000 above the fiscal year 1999 
level and $5,000,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee has included funds for the predisaster 
mitigation program in this account, rather than in a separate 
account as proposed by the administration. The Committee has 
recommended $25,000,000 for this program. The administration 
had proposed $30,000,000.
    The Committee has taken a reduction of $4,500,000 from the 
consolidated emergency management performance grant (EMPG), 
owing to budget constraints. However, funding under the EMPG 
would increase $7,950,000 over the current level.
    The Committee approves of FEMA's proposal for consolidated 
emergency management performance grants and has included 
necessary bill language requested by FEMA. This mechanism will 
allow increased flexibility for states to allocate funds 
according to risk. The Committee notes, however, that FEMA 
initiated performance partnership grants several years ago, 
which had the same stated purpose but did not result in 
significant changes to the allocation of funds. Also, FEMA did 
not adequately integrate risk information into the performance 
partnership grant process, or demonstrate that states were 
being held more accountable in exchange for the increased 
flexibility.
    The Committee expects the new emergency management grant 
will incorporate increased accountability--including using 
performance measures that clearly demonstrate accountability--
and that FEMA will implement incentives and/or disincentives to 
ensure states meet performance goals. Finally, the Committee 
expects FEMA will update and refine the state capability 
assessment for readiness (CAR) to lessen its subjectivity, 
provide more reliable information on state capability, and 
include an assessment of local governments' capabilities.
    The Committee notes the cost-share developed for the EMPG 
is a composite cost-share based on cost-share policies for the 
funding sources contributing to the EMGP.
    The Committee supports FEMA's anti-terrorism activities, 
and has included requested funding of $30,800,000 (including 
$4,688,000 in salaries and expenses). However, the Committee is 
concerned about the need to coordinate better the roles and 
responsibilities of the myriad federal agencies involved in 
anti-terrorism training, equipment and response planning. Over 
the past two years, the General Accounting Office has been 
assessing various aspects of the federal government's efforts 
to combat terrorism, and has raised serious concerns about 
potentially overlapping programs, and inadequate management and 
coordination of crosscutting programs. Given that the President 
has requested approximately $10,000,000,000 for these efforts 
government-wide in fiscal year 2000, the Committee strongly 
suggests the administration closely consider the findings and 
recommendations made by GAO to ensure we are allocating 
counterterrorism/anti-terrorism funds in the most effective 
manner possible. The Committee notes that GAO recently was 
tasked with evaluating the first-responder training programs 
for anti-terrorism. Given that FEMA plays a critical role in 
this area, the Committee looks forward to receiving GAO's 
recommendations for how the federal government could provide 
first responder training more effectively and economically.
    The Committee supports FEMA's efforts to enhance the U.S. 
Fire Administration consistent with the recommendations of the 
Blue Ribbon Panel review of USFA, and requests a report within 
90 days of enactment of this Act on FEMA's plans and progress 
in implementing the recommendations.
    Full funding of $5,500,000 has been provided for the dam 
safety program. Full funding has also been provided for the 
Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium. In distributing the general 
reduction within this account, no funds should be taken from 
these programs.
    The Committee recognizes that investing in mitigation will 
yield reductions in future disaster losses, and that mitigation 
should be strongly promoted. However, an analytical assessment 
is needed to support the degree to which mitigation activities 
will result in future ``savings.'' Therefore, the Committee 
directs FEMA to fund an independent study to assess the future 
savings resulting from the various types of mitigation 
activities.
    The Committee has added bill language ensuring that prior 
year appropriations for the Jones County, MS, emergency 
operating center will remain available until September 30, 
2001. This is necessitated by protracted decision-making 
related to floodplain determinations.

                RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND

    The Radiological Emergency Preparedness [REP] Program 
assists State and local governments in the development of 
offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans within the 
emergency planning zones of commercial nuclear power facilities 
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC].
    The fund is financed from fees assessed and collected from 
the NRC licensees to cover the cost of the REP program. 
Estimated collections for fiscal year 2000 are $13,460,000.

                       emergency food and shelter

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     125,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     110,000,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $110,000,000 for the Emergency 
Food and Shelter Program, an increase of $10,000,000 above the 
fiscal year 1999 level and a reduction of $15,000,000 below the 
budget request. The additional funds will provide for more than 
8 million meals at soup kitchens, food pantries and food banks; 
46,000 more bed-nights through vouchers at hotels and motels; 
336,000 more bed-nights at mass shelters; 14,000 fewer 
evictions; and 18,000 fewer utility cut-offs.

                      FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND

Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      $5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    FEMA requests a one-time appropriation of $5,000,000 to be 
supplemented with $58,000,000 in collections from a proposed 
$15 mortgage transaction fee that will support a multi-year 
effort to update and modernize FEMA's inventory of over 100,000 
flood maps. The maps are used to provide accurate and complete 
flood hazard information for the nation in a readily available 
format.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recognizes the importance of updating and 
modernizing FEMA flood maps. However, FEMA's proposal to 
implement a mortgage transaction fee to finance this initiative 
has not garnered support, and budgetary constraints prevent the 
Committee from funding this multi-year $900,000,000 requirement 
through discretionary appropriations. The Committee understands 
FEMA is exploring other options for financing this initiative. 
Therefore, the Committee has deferred action on the 
administration's request for a one-time appropriation of 
$5,000,000 to start up the flood map modernization fund.

                     national flood insurance fund


                          (transfers of funds)

                          program description

    The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 
authorizes the Federal Government to provide flood insurance on 
a national basis. Flood insurance may be sold or continued in 
force only in communities which enact and enforce appropriate 
flood plain management measures. Communities must participate 
in the program within 1 year of the time they are identified as 
flood-prone in order to be eligible for flood insurance and 
some forms of Federal financial assistance for acquisition or 
construction purposes. In 2000, the budget assumes collection 
of all the administrative and program costs associated with 
flood insurance activities from policyholders.
    Under the Emergency Program, structures in identified 
flood-prone areas are eligible for limited amounts of coverage 
at subsidized insurance rates. Under the regular program, 
studies must be made of different flood risks in flood prone 
areas to establish actuarial premium rates. These rates are 
charged for insurance on new construction. Coverage is 
available on virtually all types of buildings and their 
contents in amounts up to $350,000 for residential and 
$1,000,000 for other types.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has included bill language, providing up to 
$24,333,000 for administrative costs from the Flood Insurance 
Program for salaries and expenses. The Committee has also 
included bill language providing up to $78,710,000 for flood 
mitigation activities including up to $20,000,000 for expenses 
under section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act.
    The Committee has included requested bill language which 
extends the authorization through fiscal year 2000 for 
borrowing from the Treasury up to $1,000,000,000, and for flood 
mapping studies.

                  NATIONAL INSURANCE DEVELOPMENT FUND

    The National Insurance Development Fund (NIDF) was 
established from the proceeds of the Riot Reinsurance Program, 
which was terminated by the Congress on November 30, 1983. It 
was also used as the vehicle for funding the Federal Crime 
Insurance Program (FCIP), and it received deposits from crime 
insurance premiums and other receipts. The authorization for 
the FCIP expired September 30, 1995.
    The Committee has included language, as requested by the 
administration, that forgives outstanding borrowings of the 
NIDF and cancels the interest on the borrowings. This 
effectively eliminates the FCIP as a federally-sponsored 
government program.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND

Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     $12,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Through fee-generated funds transferred from the National 
Flood Insurance Fund, this fund would support activities to 
eliminate pre-existing, at-risk structures that are 
repetitively flooded, and provides flood mitigation assistance 
planning support to States.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not recommend funds for this new 
initiative, owing to budget constraints. The Committee 
recognizes the need to eliminate repetitive loss structures and 
acknowledges that buyouts are a way to accomplish this goal. 
Eliminating these properties would lower the net subsidy 
required to operate the NFIP, reduce claims on the Disaster 
Relief Fund, and reduce the number of individuals living in 
areas at significant risk of flooding. The Committee urges the 
Director to undertake changes through the regulatory process to 
reduce costs to the federal government associated with 
repetitive loss structures.

                    General Services Administration


                      consumer information center

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $2,619,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       2,622,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,622,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $2,622,000 for the Consumer 
Information Center, the same as the budget estimate and the 
enacted level.
    The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, 
user fees from the public, and other income. CIC's anticipated 
obligations for fiscal year 2000 will total approximately 
$6,289,000.
    CIC expects to distribute approximately 7,600,000 
publications in fiscal year 2000, the same level projected for 
the current year. In addition, CIC estimates there will be 
7,500,000 public accesses of CIC electronic information 
products.
    The Committee recognizes that the appropriation for CIC 
will result in a CIC fund balance of $230,000 by the end of 
fiscal year 2000. The fund balance has been steadily declining 
as CIC program expenses have exceeded income from 
appropriations, user fees, agency reimbursements and other 
income. The Committee believes the Fund balance should be 
stabilized and directs the administration to submit a budget 
for fiscal year 2001 that achieves a better balance between 
annual income and expenses.
    The Committee believes that the position of director of the 
CIC may warrant conversion to a permanent career reserved 
Senior Executive Service level position, in view of the 
mission, mandate, responsibility, budget authority, and status 
of the Consumer Information Center. Therefore, the Committee 
supports actions by the General Services Administration and the 
Office of Personnel Management to achieve this end.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


Appropriations, 1999

                                                         $13,646,700,000

Budget estimate, 2000

                                                          13,578,400,000

Committee recommendation

                                                          13,578,400,000

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request of 
$13,578,400,000 for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration for fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee strongly supports NASA's many activities and 
programs that underlie its mission of promoting civilian space 
flight, exploration, scientific advancement, and the 
development of next-generation technologies. NASA's success is 
highlighted through missions that allow us to picture the far 
reaches of the universe, to see the birth of stars and 
galaxies, and to imagine the possibility of life existing 
throughout the universe. NASA also is beginning the first 
stages of the construction in orbit of the International Space 
Station with the successful launch of the first 3 elements of 
the station, including the successful assembly of the Russian 
Zarya and the U.S. Unity pressurized node.
    Nevertheless, the Committee continues to be very troubled 
by cost overruns and unrealistic budgeting by NASA, especially 
those associated with the development and construction of the 
Space Station. This concern was highlighted most significantly 
by the independent cost assessment and validation [CAV] report 
issued last year by a review team headed by Jay Chabrow. The 
CAV report estimated that the final cost of the space station 
will be some $24,700,000,000, instead of the NASA estimate of 
$17,400,000,0000 and will take up to 38 months longer to build 
than previous NASA estimates. Many of these additional costs 
have been unfairly borne through budget reductions in other 
NASA programs and activities, most particularly programs and 
activities designed to add to our understanding of the space 
and earth sciences.
    Because of these concerns, and as provided in the fiscal 
year 1999 VA/HUD appropriations conference report (House Report 
105-769), the Committee has established a separate account for 
the International Space Station and an account for space 
shuttle activities. All activities related to the International 
Space Station will be funded under the ``International Space 
Station'' account, whereas the space shuttle activities, 
including upgrades, will be funded under the ``Launch Vehicles 
and Payload Operations'' account. Additional authority is 
provided to allow NASA to reprogram funding from the 
International Space Station account to the space shuttle 
program to ensure the availability of adequate funds for any 
needed safety upgrades. The Committee expects NASA to have 
resolved any financial accounting concerns associated with this 
restructuring during the last year.
    As is discussed throughout this report, the Committee 
believes that NASA must articulate a comprehensive agenda and 
strategy through an agency performance plan for each of NASA's 
primary centers that identifies a linkage between resources and 
activities in a way that guarantees an advanced technology 
strategy that will ensure the preeminence of NASA in the area 
of space transportation, the earth and space sciences, and 
aerospace technology, including aeronautical research and 
technology. The Committee expects a preliminary action plan on 
this agenda and strategy no later than April 15, 2000 with the 
plan targeted to the activities of NASA through the first 
decade of the next century. Moreover, it is expected that each 
primary center be vested with specific responsibilities and 
activities, and that these specific responsibilities and 
activities be clearly articulated. Within this plan, NASA 
should identify where a center has or is expected to develop 
the same or similar expertise and capacity as another center, 
including the justification for this need. The plan should also 
include a specific 10-year profile of flight missions, 
identifying the time frames for core missions and core mission 
elements. This profile should identify the primary NASA center 
responsible for each flight's mission management. The profile 
also clearly should articulate the criteria that is used and/or 
will be used to permit missions to be built intramurally, as 
well as the strategy for using industry and leading academic 
laboratories for mission development and execution.
    The Committee remains interested in the implementation of 
the Office of Management and Budget initiative to implement 
full cost accounting in all NASA programs and directs NASA to 
consult regularly with the Committee on all critical issues as 
well as the status of this initiative.
    As part of the Committee's efforts to understand NASA's 
long-term budgeting, the Committee is concerned about the 
varying cost structures among the NASA space centers. The 
Committee is aware that NASA's space centers have different 
cost structures. Full-time equivalent costs and the built-in 
overhead costs seem to vary from center to center. As NASA 
moves to full cost accounting, the Committee needs to have a 
better understanding of NASA's cost structures among the space 
centers. It also is expected that the costs of personnel and 
equipment among the centers reflect a comparable cost to NASA. 
The Committee directs the Administrator to report back to the 
Committee by April 1, 2000 with an analysis and comparison of 
the full-time equivalent and overhead costs at all of the space 
centers.
    The Committee also seeks to get a clearer picture about 
NASA's budget in the outyears. The Committee directs that NASA 
include the outyear budget impacts on all reprogramming 
requests and include the outyear budget impact of all missions 
in the annual operating plan. The budget also should include an 
accounting of all program/mission reserves.
    The Committee also expects NASA to continue to refine its 
implementation of the Government Performance and Reports Act 
[GPRA]. NASA needs to provide more coherence to its performance 
goals and the benchmarks it will use to assess its performance.
    In addition, because of the Committee's substantial concern 
regarding the need of all Federal agencies, as well as the 
private sector, to address fully the year 2000 computer crisis, 
the Committee directs NASA to continue to consult with the 
Committee on a regular basis regarding the status of NASA's 
efforts to resolve the year 2000 computer crisis. While the 
Committee understands NASA has made substantial progress 
towards completing this goal, the Committee remains concerned 
particularly with NASA's efforts because of the significant and 
complex technological nature of its activities and the 
international character of its varied missions. NASA is 
directed to consider this area a priority until such time as 
this issue is resolved fully.
    The Committee remains committed to promoting cost 
efficiencies within NASA's programs and activities through the 
commercialization of certain activities and programs. Part of 
this effort is reflected in the cost-saving potential of the 
Consolidated Space Operations Contract [CSOC]. The Committee 
expects NASA to report no later than April 30, 2000 on the 
progress made in implementing this program, and identifying 
other activities within NASA for commercialization, including 
estimates for savings. In particular, NASA also is expected to 
develop commercialization plans for all communication 
activities within NASA no later than August 30, 1999.
    The Committee remains very concerned about past reports and 
evidence as well as continuing risks regarding the illegal 
transfer and theft of sensitive technologies that can be used 
in the development of weapons by governments, entities and 
persons who may be hostile to the United States. While the 
Committee has confidence in NASA's and the NASA Inspector 
General's committement to ensure that NASA-related sensitive 
technologies will not be illegally transferred, the Committee 
believes that any risk of an illegal transfer must be 
eliminated. This is especially troubling since NASA, in 
developing and implementing space missions as an international 
program, has a difficult responsibility for ensuring sensitive 
technology does not end up in hostile hands.
    For example, there is the risk that Russia may be 
transferring sensitive missile technology to countries like 
Iraq, Iran and Communist China. Therefore, the Committee 
directs NASA, in conjunction with the NASA Inspector General, 
to conduct an annual assessment and report to the Congress on 
all procedures, protocols and policies governing the export or 
transfer of NASA-related technologies and to determine the 
extent to which NASA and NASA contractors are carrying out 
activities in compliance with Federal export control laws. The 
Committee also applauds the NASA IG's efforts in this area 
through its Technology Oversight Project.
    Moreover, the Committee directs NASA, in conjunction with 
the NASA IG, to report on an annual basis on any 
vulnerabilities within NASA to hostile attacks.

                           HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $5,480,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   5,638,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    Because of significant and continuing concerns with cost 
overruns, last year's conference report (House Report 105-769) 
required NASA to include a separate account for the 
International Space Station. These concerns continue and, 
therefore, the Committee has not provided funds for the ``Human 
space flight'' account. Instead, the Committee has created two 
new accounts, detailed below.

                      International Space Station

Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................  $2,482,700,000

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has provided $2,482,700,000 for the 
International Space Station program. This amount is consistent 
with the President's request for these activities in fiscal 
year 2000.
    The Committee continues its strong support of the 
International Space Station as a permanent space laboratory for 
the research of space and earth science and for unique 
investigations for humans living for long durations in a micro 
gravity environment. We expect the station to provide 
unparalled scientific research opportunities as well as 
permanent crew habitability by international teams in an 
advanced research facility located in the near zero-gravity 
environment of space. The results of this research are critical 
to our understanding of how to live and work in space, and will 
provide tangible benefits to us through advances in all aspects 
of science.
    Nevertheless, as previously discussed in this report, the 
Committee has established a new funding account for all 
activities related to the construction of the International 
Space Station because of continued concerns over cost overruns 
and unrealistic accounting. These concerns were highlighted by 
last year's release of the report issued by the independent 
cost assessment and validation team headed by Jay Chabrow. This 
report estimated that the final cost of the space station will 
be $24,700,000,000 instead of $17,400,000,000, as originally 
estimated by NASA, and will take up to 38 months longer to 
build than previous NASA estimates.
    The Committee understands that the nature of exploring 
space is an unprecedented and unpredictable activity, and that 
the costs associated with this activity also are uncertain and 
often subject to overruns. Nevertheless, NASA has 40 years of 
experience in leading mankind from the earth to the stars, and 
this Committee expects NASA to provide better estimates of 
costs, including the costs associated with reserves, to ensure 
that the success of its missions can be funded within 
understandable and realistic budgets.
    In the past, NASA has responded to the funding needs of the 
space station by raiding other important NASA programs for any 
needed funding. While NASA has allowed the space station to 
overshadow its other programs and activities, the Committee 
believes these other programs and activities are equally 
exciting, rewarding and unique, and remains concerned that 
these programs have been diminished for the benefit of the 
Space Station.
    The Committee also supports the international character of 
the Space Station as a symbol and tool for international 
cooperation and partnership. Nevertheless, the Committee 
continues to have substantial concerns regarding the ability of 
Russia to meet its financial commitment and partnership 
obligations to the Space Station.
    While the Committee has requested NASA to reduce reliance 
on Russia to meet the schedule for construction of the Space 
Station, it does not expect NASA to duplicate every activity 
which is the responsibility of Russia, even those in the 
critical path. This is not practical or responsible. The 
Committee is troubled especially by reports that currently 
estimate that the cost to protect against Russian 
nonperformance will be some $1,200,000,000. The Committee, 
therefore, directs NASA to identify and report to the Congress 
quarterly on each space station activity that is the 
responsibility of Russia, its status, the associated cost, and 
alternative options to ensure the timely completion of the 
activity per the schedule.
    The Committee is concerned about recent reports that 
international contributions with regard to hardware supporting 
external payloads may fall short of the original schedule and 
requirements. The Committee directs NASA to contract 
domestically for these external components, unless NASA can 
demonstrate with substantial certainty that the international 
partner can meet all schedule and hardware requirements. 
Further, NASA is directed to provide the Committee with a 
summary of all external hardware components needed for the 
Space Station that have been contracted for internationally, 
the schedule for delivery of these components, and the current 
status of each component with regard to completion and 
delivery.
    The Committee also is concerned about continuing cost 
overruns in the domestic component of the space station 
program. The Committee directs NASA through an independent 
committee to review and report to the Committee on a quarterly 
basis on the status of the Space Station consistent with the 
current schedule as proposed in the fiscal year 2000 NASA 
budget justifications. The report shall include a review of all 
increased costs associated with the Space Station, the reason 
for the costs, and an assessment of any unnecessary expenses. 
The Committee expects NASA to live within its budget and 
constrain major new and unnecessary expenses, such as those 
which would be associated with an inflatable habitation module.
    Because of these continuing and increasing concerns 
regarding cost overruns and the failure of Russia to meet its 
financial and mission commitments, the Committee directs NASA 
to undertake the recovery of additional cost savings within the 
International Space Station development and operations program. 
The Committee believes that NASA should accelerate the 
privatization and commercial development of the Space Station 
to generate long-term cost-savings so that the Space Station 
does not continue to impact negatively the rest of the NASA 
budget. The Committee, therefore, directs NASA to develop a 
plan to outsource the responsibility for Space Station 
communications, logistics and resupply services, and science 
facility and services to the extent these logistic needs can be 
provided effectively by the private sector and will result in 
savings. The Committee also expects that NASA use fixed price 
contracting instead of cost-plus contracting in contracting for 
these requirements. This action plan should be submitted to the 
Congress by March 1, 2000, and include a projection of all 
savings.
    This account includes legislative language that will permit 
NASA to seek reprogramming of Space Station funds to meet any 
safety requirements for the space shuttle deemed necessary and 
critical by NASA during fiscal year 2000. Since it is not 
likely that NASA nor the space industry will be able to provide 
cost-effective alternatives to the shuttle until late in the 
first decade of the 21st century, NASA may need to rephase its 
scheduled upgrades for the shuttle to meet a longer term 
commitment. Moreover, the United Space Alliance, the private 
contractor responsible for the administration of the shuttle 
program, has identified certain upgrades to improve safety and 
reliability, including such improvements as electric auxiliary 
power units, a Space Shuttle main engines advanced health 
management system, main propulsion system electromechanical 
actuators, and proton exchange membrane fuel cells. To the 
extent these upgrades are deemed appropriate and necessary for 
safety reasons, NASA is authorized to seek a reprogramming from 
the Space Station account to meet these needs. Further, the 
Committee understands that the Space Station funding for fiscal 
year 2000 can absorb these costs without a negative impact on 
the current Space Station construction schedule.
    The Committee also recognizes the funds appropriated by 
this Act for the development of the International Space Station 
may not be adequate to cover all potential contractual 
commitments should the program be terminated for the 
convenience of the Government. Accordingly, if the Space 
Station is terminated for the convenience of the Government, 
additional appropriated funds may be necessary to cover such 
contractual commitments. In the event of such termination, it 
would be the intent of the Committee to provide such additional 
appropriations as may be necessary to provide fully for 
termination payments in a manner which avoids impacting the 
conduct of other ongoing NASA programs.

                 launch vehicles and payload operations

Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................  $3,156,000,000

                          Program Description

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,156,000,000 
for the space shuttle and payload utilization activities. This 
amount is $700,000 above the President's budget request for 
these activities, and includes $2,986,700,000 for space shuttle 
operations and $169,100,000 for payload utilization and 
operations.
    This account includes all funding for safety and 
performance upgrades as well as the funds previously provided 
within the Payload and Utilization Operations Program component 
of the ``Human Space Flight'' account. The Committee remains 
concerned about safety upgrades as well as technological 
upgrades that will enhance the use of the shuttle and reduce 
costs over time. This concern must be highlighted since NASA 
recently acknowledged that it would be unable to meet the 
decisionmaking requirements associated with any transition to a 
reusable launch vehicle. The likely result is that the shuttle 
will be needed as the primary vehicle for manned space flight 
until at least late in the first decade of the 21st century.
    The Committee frequently has raised concerns about the need 
for NASA to make a longer commitment to the shuttle as the 
primary vehicle for manned space flight. NASA recently has 
raised concerns informally that additional funds may be needed 
for shuttle upgrades, including safety upgrades, beyond the 
amount requested in the budget request. The Committee expects 
NASA to provide a report by November 1, 1999 on any needed 
upgrades associated with the shuttle, including all costs and a 
proposed schedule for implementation. NASA also is expected to 
submit by May 15, 2000 a comprehensive report on a 10-year 
funding profile on shuttle costs, including upgrades and safety 
needs. As previously discussed, the Committee also has provided 
NASA with the authority to seek reprogramming from the 
``International Space Station'' account to pay for any needed 
safety upgrades for the shuttle.
    Eight flights have been planned for fiscal year 2000, 
including seven flights for the assembly of the International 
Space Station and one for the repair of the Hubble space 
telescope (Hubble). NASA expects to add another shuttle flight 
to complete repairs and improvements of the Hubble during 
fiscal year 2000. While the Committee supports this additional 
flight, the Committee remains concerned about the poor planning 
at NASA for Hubble needs and its cavalier use of Hubble 
reserves to pay for cost overruns associated with the Advanced 
X-Ray Astrophysics Facility (Chandra; AXAF). The Committee also 
expects NASA to add an additional shuttle research mission in 
fiscal year 2000, as required in the VA/HUD fiscal year 1999 
conference report.
    The Committee expects NASA to provide more accurate 
budgeting for all programs, including adequate reserve needs 
for contingencies. As a result, the Committee is including a 
legislative provision terminating all programs and activities 
which exceed either their overall budget or their annual budget 
by 15 percent. The International Space Station, the biggest 
offender of cost overruns and poor budgeting, will not be 
subject to this provision because of the sunk costs of this 
project and because the project is in its final stages.

                  SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, and TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $5,653,900,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   5,424,700,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,424,700,000

                          Program Description

    NASA's ``Science, aeronautics and technology'' account 
provides funding for science, research and development programs 
to extend knowledge of the Earth, its space environment, and 
the universe; to expand the practical applications of aerospace 
technology, launch services, and advanced space transportation 
technology; to promote and expand aeronautical research and 
technology; and to fund academic and education programs.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $5,424,700,000 for the Science, 
Aeronautics and Technology account, the same as the President's 
request and $229,200,000 below the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level. This funding recommendation includes $2,076,600,000 for 
Space Science, $256,200,000 for Life and Microgravity Sciences 
and Applications, $1,459,100,000 for Earth Science, 
$1,106,500,000 for Aero-Space Technology, $406,300,000 for 
Mission Communication Services, and $120,000,000 for Academic 
Programs. NASA is directed to make adjustments within each of 
the six identified enterprises within this account to 
accommodate the stated funding priorities and submit these 
adjustments as part of its fiscal year 2000 operating plan.
    Space Science.--The Committee has provided $2,076,600,000 
for space science activities. This amount is $120,000,000 less 
than the President's budget request and $42,600,000 less than 
the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level.
    NASA's Space Science program seeks to answer fundamental 
questions concerning the galaxy and the universe; the 
connection between the Sun, Earth, and heliosphere; the origin 
and evolution of planetary systems; and the origin and 
distribution of life in the universe. The Space Science program 
is comprised of a base program of research and development 
activities, including research and flight mission activities 
and major flight missions which provide major space-based 
facilities.
    The Committee supports the Space Science program and 
recognizes the many contributions this mission has made to our 
understanding of the universe and the solar system. 
Nevertheless, the program has been subject to some mixed 
successes and some outright failures, most recently the WIRE 
mission. Another issue of concern is the failure of NASA to 
control cost overruns and program delays in the Chandra 
program, and the current need to add an additional shuttle 
repair mission to the Hubble Space Telescope at a cost of some 
$136,000,000 estimated to be incurred during the fiscal years 
1999 through 2003 period.
    In addition, the Committee has become concerned that the 
drive to promote missions has not been balanced with a 
commensurate investment in the availability and analysis of the 
data collected under the various science missions, resulting in 
what has been called data mortuaries. Therefore, the Committee 
requests the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to 
assess the usefulness and the availability of the data 
collected from the Space Science missions, and report to the 
Committee by June 15, 2000 on the assessment, including 
recommendations to ensure that space science data is being made 
available to maximize its usefulness. OSTP and NASA should 
consider whether a data warehouse or data library should be 
developed as a way to ensure the availability and use of the 
space science data.
    The Committee also requests that NASA advise it on how 
missions are prioritized and whether they are prioritized based 
on benchmarks associated with the usefulness of the data being 
collected. The Committee also expects NASA to develop goals and 
benchmarks for its missions in a manner consistent with the 
Results Act.
    The Committee remains strongly supportive of continued 
investments in space science and its multi-disciplinary 
approach to scientific discovery and technological advancement. 
The Committee is concerned, however, about the need for the 
appropriate balance among the four themes in terms of future 
flight missions and advanced technology development [ATD]. The 
Committee directs the agency to submit a report on the global 
space science budget detailing: all flight projects in either 
phase B or phase C/D status; all mission operations and data 
analysis funding; all advanced technology funding by sub-
program activity and future flight project; and all civil 
service costs, including salary and expense costs charged 
against individual flight programs or technology budgets at the 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
    The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 Statement of 
Managers (House Report 105-297) outlined a critical change in 
the allocation of advanced technology development [ATD] funding 
for space science so that 75 percent of all such funding would 
be done competitively through the announcement of opportunity 
[AO] process. Despite nearly two years since that guidance, 
NASA has failed to issue its first competitive comprehensive 
ATD. The Committee wishes to make clear its strong desire to 
see the Congress' earlier directive implemented, without 
deviation or further delay. For this reason, the Committee 
expects the fiscal year 1999 AO to be issued shortly and for 
the Agency to report to the Committee by December 1, 1999 on 
how it intends to comply with the directives specified in H. 
Rpt. 105-297 for both fiscal year 1999 and 2000 at that time.
    The Committee strongly supports the Hubble Space Telescope 
as one of the most rewarding missions ever launched by NASA. 
Despite some serious problems with the primary mirror 
identified soon after the Hubble launch in 1990, the Hubble has 
provided almost a decade of exciting pictures and data 
regarding the formation and early development of the universe. 
While the Committee is very disappointed by the failure of NASA 
to budget and plan adequately for the current failures in the 
Hubble's gyroscope system, the Committee supports both the 
repair mission and the upgrade mission, both scheduled for 
fiscal year 2000. The Committee, therefore, includes an 
additional $26,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for costs 
associated with the mission to replace the gyroscopes in the 
Hubble Space Telescope, thereby enabling the observatory to 
keep operating without interruption.
    The Committee includes an additional $21,000,000 for Sun-
Earth Connections [SEC], including an additional $15,000,000 
for STEREO to guarantee a 2003 launch and an additional 
$6,000,000 for SEC advanced technology for post-STEREO 
missions. In addition, the Committee directs NASA to provide a 
long-term plan that provides funding for a robust SEC program 
in its fiscal year 2001 budget request. This plan should assume 
a continuous profile of launches on an 18-month time scale, the 
creation of an applications and space weather program that 
addresses all appropriate elements of space weather-related 
phenomena, and an SEC ATD profile to enable the development of 
new technologies for small, affordable spacecraft for future 
missions.
    NASA is directed to submit a report to the Committee by May 
1, 2000 detailing the extent to which lunar missions are being 
planned, including an assessment to what extent scientific 
exploration, both manned and unmanned, of the moon should be 
considered a priority. The Committee believes that a 
significant lunar initiative could result in a substantial 
contribution to space science and be a stepping stone to future 
planetary initiatives.
    The Committee recommendation supports the President's full 
budget request for the space infrared telescope facility 
[SIRTF].
    The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$3,000,000 for the development of an electrodynamic tether 
facility to place and manipulate satellites in their orbits 
without the use of chemical propellants. To the extent this is 
a viable and useful technology, it is expected that NASA will 
include the necessary funds in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
    The Committee recommendation also has provided $1,000,000 
for an astronomical satellite telescope operated at Western 
Kentucky University. This will complete the funding needed for 
this telescope.
    The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 in support 
of a hands-on science center at Huntsville, AL.
    Earth Science.--The Committee has provided $1,459,100,000 
for Earth science activities. This amount is the same as the 
President's budget request.
    The objective of NASA's Earth Science Program is to 
understand the total Earth system and the effects of natural 
and human-induced changes on the global environment. Earth 
science has three broad goals: to expand scientific knowledge 
of the Earth using NASA's unique capabilities from the vantage 
points of space, aircraft, and in other such platforms; to 
disseminate information about the Earth system; and to enable 
productive use of Earth science and technology in the public 
and private sectors.
    The Committee also directs NASA and OSTP to assess and 
report on the rate of collection and use of data associated 
with Earth Science missions to identify whether ``data 
mortuaries'' are being created. The Committee requests NASA and 
OSTP assess the usefulness and the availability of the data 
collected from the Space Science missions, and report to the 
Committee by June 15, 2000. Again, OSTP and NASA should 
consider whether a data warehouse or data library should be 
developed as a way to ensure the availability and usefulness of 
the data. The Committee requests that NASA advise it on how 
missions are prioritized and whether they are prioritized based 
on benchmarks associated with the usefulness of the data being 
collected. The Committee also expects NASA to develop goals and 
benchmarks for its missions in a manner consistent with the 
Results Act.
    The Committee recognizes the unique role that the Goddard 
Space Flight Center plays in earth and space science. The 
EOSDIS program is NASA's most ambitious data gathering program. 
While progress has been made in improving NASA's ability to 
analyze EOSDIS data, the Committee believes NASA should place a 
greater emphasis on commercializing EOSDIS data. Given the 
unprecedented amount of data that will be collected and the 
potential benefits from commercialization, the Committee 
directs NASA to report back to the Committee by March 15, 2000 
with a plan to commercialize EOSDIS data that specifies the 
role of Goddard Space Flight Center in implementing a 
commercialization plan.
    The Committee believes that NASA and its Office of Earth 
Science must articulate in the near term a comprehensive, post-
EOS agenda that guarantees, through its vision and the 
commitment of budgetary resources, that NASA will have a robust 
flight profile and advanced technology strategy to maintain its 
preeminence in the earth sciences. For this reason, the 
Committee expects an EOS-II strategy by February 1, 2000 that 
articulates in detail the Agency's earth science plans through 
fiscal year 2010.
    The strategy should determine how the Agency intends to 
capitalize on the $6,600,000,000 investment in the EOS-I series 
of missions, including the ground system developed to handle 
data for these initial spacecraft, so as to minimize a plan 
that ``reinvents the wheel'' on a wide range of systems and 
technologies.
    The Committee is interested in the development of a more 
focused applications effort that seeks to utilize fully the 
investment to date in the EOSDIS Core System (ECS) ground 
system and its network of distributed archive centers, and the 
newly created regional earth science applications centers, in 
developing new cutting-edge, higher level uses of earth science 
data for particular user groups like U.S. agriculture, forestry 
and natural resources, water resource management, disaster 
preparation and mitigation, and state and local government.
    The bill includes $32,000,000 for the EOSDIS core system 
(ECS) only, to supplement delivery of a full scale ECS to meet 
requirements that NASA and the ECS contractor have agreed to 
provide the EOS programs' eight distributed active archive 
centers (DAAC) and to cover costs necessary to guarantee the 
viability of flight operations software (FOS) developed for 
Landsat 7 and Terra spacecraft. The Committee also provides 
$7,000,000 to develop additional uses for NASA's earth 
observing system to make data more readily available for 
potential user communities. The Committee believes that the 
long-term utility of NASA's earth science program lies in 
identifying additional uses for data obtained by NASA's EOS 
program. Therefore, the Committee has provided sufficient 
funding to analyze data/service needs for the various EOS data 
user communities, including assessments of commercial viability 
or cost/benefit analysis for government entities. For the most 
promising candidate application, funding is included to 
identify existing technologies that would simplify the 
implementation of the required data mart, work with partners to 
develop the data mart, and develop the necessary interfaces to 
enable EOSDIS to act as the direct ``pipeline'' for the data.
    The Committee believes that the current ATD structure used 
by the Office of Earth Science is too disjointed and that the 
new millennium program (NMP) in particular has concentrated 
technology efforts at a single NASA center, discouraging 
competition among a broad range of institutions. The Committee 
reiterates that the ATP maintain the same threshold of true 
competition (75 percent) in earth science ATD via announcements 
of opportunity, including the NMP. Further, any remaining non-
competed funds should be distributed among NASA centers and 
academic laboratories in a manner to ensure that the nation has 
access to the best paths of technological advancement and 
discovery. Innovative management strategies, such as 
cooperative agreements and new center partnerships with 
academic labs or the private sector should be included in the 
ATD strategy as well.
    The Committee recommends up to $5,000,000 for NASA's 
LightSAR program to continue U.S. investment in this program, 
where appropriate, to help preserve the usefulness of this 
technology. While NASA is looking to terminate this program 
because of a lack of interest by private industry in the 
current structure of the program, LightSAR continues to have 
tremendous potential for a number of practical applications as 
spaceborne synthetic aperture radars [SARs] provide all-weather 
methods for remote sensing/monitoring of the earth's surface. 
This technology includes the capacity to monitor crops and 
natural vegetation, natural hazards, soil moisture, snow cover, 
land use, topographic mapping, oil/mineral exploration, 
oilspill detection, environmental monitoring, ocean waves and 
winds as well as ice on the seas, lakes and glaciers.
    The Committee also continues to support the specific 
programs aimed at fostering the development of a viable U.S. 
commercial remote sensing industry, including cooperative 
sponsored research projects with other Federal agencies and 
market-focused applications projects with commercial partners 
such as Mississippi State University, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, and the commercial sector for remote sensing 
applications in agriculture and forestry which are being 
carried out at Stennis Space Center, NASA's lead center for 
commercial remote sensing. The Committee continues to support 
the Commercial Remote Sensing program at Stennis and the 
Commercial Remote Sensing Partnership including research and 
cooperative research being conducted at Mississippi State 
University and the University of Mississippi.
    Because of the tremendous potential of the remote sensing 
industry for commercial applications and the wide variety of 
proposed projects and technologies currently becoming 
available, NASA is directed to host a forum, in conjunction 
with the National Science Foundation, on the challenges facing 
this industry as well as to make recommendations as to the role 
of the Federal/private partnership in developing these 
technologies and the manner in which these technologies should 
be supported by the Federal government. This forum also shall 
include state and local government participation in order to 
examine the usefulness of these technologies in land use 
planning, resources management and transportation 
infrastructure planning. In addition, NASA is directed to work 
(1) with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to develop a 
demonstration program for the use of these technologies in the 
mapping of flood plains, (2) with the Environmental Protection 
Agency to establish a demonstration program for monitoring and 
assessing water quality, soil erosion and vegetative 
biodiversity. The Committee directs these agencies to report to 
the Congress by April 15, 2000 on the structure of these 
demonstrations, including the resources to be committed by each 
agency.
    The Committee includes $2,000,000 for the Advanced 
Fisheries Management Information System (AFMIS) program at the 
University of Massachusetts and Dartmouth University, of which 
$500,000 is to be used to develop a companion program at the 
University of Alaska in Fairbanks. This funding will fund this 
vital research for the next three years.
    The Committee commends NASA's support of the Upper Midwest 
Aerospace Consortium (UMAC) in delivering practical benefits of 
the space program to farmers, ranches, educators and 
businesses, and urges NASA to consider a permanent and ongoing 
NASA-supported center to continue and expand UMAC's activities.
    Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications.--The 
Committee has provided $256,200,000 for Life and Microgravity 
Sciences and Applications. This amount is the same as the 
President's budget request.
    The Life and Microgravity Science Program uses the 
microgravity environment of space to conduct basic and applied 
research to understand the effect of gravity on living systems 
and to conduct research in the areas of fluid physics, 
materials science, and biotechnology. The Life and Microgravity 
Science Program will conduct research, and provide the 
opportunity to refine the definition, design, and development 
of experimental hardware planned for the International Space 
Station.
    The Committee supports the Administration's budget request 
for the Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications mission 
since much of the research associated with these activities are 
targeted to the International Space Station.
    The Committee recommendation has provided $2,000,000 for a 
center on life in extreme thermal environments at Montana State 
University in Bozeman. It is expected that NASA will include 
funding for this research as part of the fiscal year 2001 
Budget.
    Aero-Space Technology.--The Committee has provided 
$1,106,500,000 for Aero-Space Technology. This amount is 
$100,000,000 above the President's budget request.
    The objective of the Aero-Space Technology Mission is to 
pioneer long-term, high-risk, high-payoff technologies that are 
effectively transferred to industry and Government. The 
program's technology goals are grouped into three areas to 
reflect the national priorities for aeronautics and space: 
global civil aviation; revolutionary technology leaps; and 
access to space. The Aeronautics and Space Transportation 
Technology Program includes: Aeronautics, that addresses 
critical aeronautical safety, environmental, airspace 
productivity, and aircraft performance needs at national and 
global levels; space transportation technology, that will 
develop technology for the next generation space transportation 
system, with a target of reducing vehicle development and 
operational costs dramatically; and commercial technology, that 
consists of conducting a continuous inventory of newly 
developed NASA technologies, maintaining a searchable data base 
of this inventory, assessing the commercial value of each 
technology, disseminating knowledge of these NASA technology 
opportunities to the private sector, and supporting an 
efficient system for licensing NASA technologies to private 
companies. This program also includes the operation of the 
Small Business Innovation Research Program which is designed to 
enhance NASA's use of small business technology innovators.
    While the Committee supports NASA's budget for the 
Aeronautical Research and Technology mission, the Committee is 
concerned with the termination of the High-Speed Research and 
Advanced Subsonic Technology programs and requests that the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy independently review 
this decision and report to the Committee no later than July 1, 
2000 on the impact these terminations will have on aviation 
safety and the aviation industry in the United States. NASA 
also is directed to report to the Committee on what steps NASA 
is taking to ensure that the information gained in these 
programs is preserved and not lost because of these 
terminations.
    The Committee urges NASA to work with the Federal Aviation 
Administration and the Airworthiness Assurance Center for 
Excellence (AACE) on the use of composite materials in 
aircraft. Because of the increasing use of composite materials 
in aircraft, it is important to increase our understanding of 
structural degradation due to long-term use and aging.
    The Committee also is concerned about the potential safety 
risks of poor aircraft cabin air quality on flight crews, 
particularly as air contamination stemming from neurotoxins 
found in lubricants and hydraulic fluids affects a pilot's 
ability to operate safely commercial aircraft. Therefore, the 
Committee has provided $500,000 to conduct a study of aircraft 
cabin air quality at the Education and Research Center for 
Occupational Safety and Health in Baltimore, Maryland. In 
addition, the Committee directs NASA to work with the Center to 
expand the Aviation Safety Reporting System to include data on 
health complaints related to air travel. The Committee expects 
NASA to include funding for continuation of this important 
study in its fiscal year 2001 budget request.
    The Committee intends that the Ultra Efficient Engine 
Technology program be funded at the President's budget.
    The Committee includes $3,000,000 for enhanced visions 
system technology development.
    The Committee recommendation supports the President's 
budget request for the independent verification and validation 
[IV&V] facility and $7,200,000 for the National Technology 
Transfer Center.
    Beyond the key issue of safety for all astronauts in NASA's 
Space Shuttle program, the highest priority at NASA must be the 
development of new aero-space technologies that will allow 
inexpensive access to space, and move NASA closer to a true 
partnering with the private sector that will allow for the 
commercialization of space. Within the Advanced Space 
Transportation Technology program, NASA is developing new 
technologies in conjunction with the aerospace industry to 
reduce dramatically launch costs, improve the safety and 
reliability of current launch vehicles as well as expand our 
concepts of next generation launch vehicles, and improve the 
performance of in-space transportation systems to reduce the 
cost of space missions.
    NASA is currently working with industry to develop a 
reusable launch vehicle (RLV) program that would be considered 
as a replacement program for the shuttle. Nevertheless, because 
of set-backs within this program, NASA has been unable to make 
a decision on the future of the shuttle, with the shuttle now 
expected to remain the primary manned space vehicle through at 
least the end of the first decade of the 21st century. 
Nevertheless, the Committee is encouraged by NASA's and 
industry's efforts to develop alternate space transportation 
technologies that will move us past the frontier of space. And 
despite the challenges of the X-33 and X-34 programs, the 
Committee supports these programs as well as the other X 
vehicle programs.
    Moreover, the Committee is aware that, over the last 
decade, the United States commercial space launch industry has 
lost its technological advantage, and now holds only 30 percent 
of the worldwide space launch market. This reduction in the use 
of U.S. launch capability is the direct result of the high cost 
of U.S. commercial space transportation relative to subsidized 
foreign competition. The growth of commercial space 
opportunities will be critical to our Nation's economic health 
and national security in the next millennium. NASA's Future 
Planning strategy envisions a reduction in space transportation 
costs by at least ten-fold in 10 years, and up to one hundred-
fold within 25 years. In order to reach the factor of a one 
hundred-fold reduction in the cost of space access, important 
investments must be made now in leap-ahead technologies, 
detailed hardware design and facility enhancements. These leap-
ahead technology investments will be incorporated into NASA's 
Space Transportation Architecture Roadmap to support future 
decisions on third- and fourth-generation reusable launch 
vehicle technologies. To support these efforts and related 
activities, the Committee directs NASA to provide an additional 
$110,000,000 for the Aero-Space Technology Program for the 
design, development and testing of future launch technologies, 
including ultra-efficient engines and advanced structures and 
materials.
    The Committee urges NASA to continue support of the 
Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) 
program, including the solar-electric airplane program 
(Centurion/Helios). The technologies obtained through these 
aircraft will assist in reducing the cost of access to space. 
The Committee urges NASA to continue its flight testing 
missions of the solar electric aircraft in Hawaii at the 
Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMFR). Existing infrastructure 
at the PMFR, the Maui High Performance Computing Center, the 
Pacific Disaster Center, the Air Force Maui Optical Site, the 
University of Hawaii and others, are well suited to support 
collaborative efforts with NASA toward opening new air and 
space frontiers.
    NASA has determined that facilities located in New Mexico 
are well-suited for the unpowered vehicle flights and 
stationary vehicle propulsion testing of the X-34 program. NASA 
plans to conduct five unpowered X-34 flights at White Sands to 
validate key X-34 control systems. These flights will be 
entirely within White Sands air space. The differential Global 
Positioning System (GPS) ground stations supporting planned X-
34 tests will remain at White Sands Space Harbor (WSSH) for use 
in later programs. Horizontal stationary propulsion system 
firings of the X-34 Main Propulsion System will be conducted at 
the Horizontal Test Facility at Holloman Air Force Base (HAFB). 
Two X-34 vehicles will be tested--first the A-2, and later the 
A-3. Horizontal Test Facility upgrades at HAFB will also remain 
at that location.
    The HAFB runway will be used only for the L-1011 takeoff 
and landings, whereas all X-34 landings will be at WSSH. White 
Sands will be included as an alternative in the Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) addressing proposed X-34 powered flights 
that NASA is preparing. The EIS will document the environmental 
impacts of X-34 powered flights for the alternatives 
considered. The EIS may also constitute a step towards 
establishing the feasibility and desirability of flight testing 
other future NASA experimental vehicles in New Mexico.
    Mission Communications Services and Academic Programs.--The 
Committee has included $1,500,000 for ongoing NASA aerospace 
projects at MSE-Technology Applications, Western Environmental 
Technology Office, Butte, MT, to allow the continuation of 
ongoing research and development projects on high-priority 
aerospace technology; and $2,000,000 for MSU in Bozeman, MT, to 
carry out research into advanced hardware and software 
technologies for development of advanced optoelectronic 
materials. The Committee expects NASA to include these research 
endeavors to be included in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
    The Committee has provided $120,000,000 for academic 
programs. This amount is $20,000,000 above the President's 
budget request.
    The objective of NASA's academic programs is to promote 
excellence in America's education system through enhancing and 
expanding scientific and technological competence. Activities 
conducted within academic programs capture the interest of 
students in science and technology, develop talented students 
at the undergraduate and graduate levels, provide research 
opportunities for students and faculty members at NASA centers, 
and strengthen and enhance the research capabilities of the 
Nation's colleges and universities. NASA's education programs 
span from the elementary through graduate levels, and are 
directed at students and faculty. Academic programs includes 
the Minority University Research Program, which expands 
opportunities for talented students from underrepresented 
groups who are pursuing degrees in science and engineering, and 
to strengthen the research capabilities of minority 
universities and colleges.
    The Committee has included $19,100,000 for the National 
Space Grant College and Fellowship Program. This funding is the 
same as the fiscal year 1999 level, but $5,600,000 more than 
the President's request for fiscal year 2000. This program is a 
valuable tool in developing educational partnerships in support 
of science, mathematics, technology, engineering and geography. 
NASA is directed to priortize funding to lower tier ``phase 2'' 
programs to enable these programs to meet ``designated'' 
status.
    The Committee recommendation has included $12,000,000 for 
the NASA EPSCoR Program, $7,400,000 above the budget request 
and $2,000,000 over the fiscal year 1999 level. The Committee 
expects NASA to conduct a new solicitation in fiscal year 2000. 
It also expects NASA EPSCoR to support a broad range of 
research areas in each EPSCoR State, drawn from Earth science, 
space science, aeronautics and space transportation technology, 
and human exploration and development of space, and to 
distribute the awards, competitively, to the largest number of 
eligible States possible.
    The Committee has provided $36,200,000 for NASA's minority 
university research and education activities. This amount is 
the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $8,200,000 
above the President's budget request. These funds should be 
allocated in the same proportion as last year's funds were 
allocated in order to strengthen graduate science, mathematics, 
engineering, and technology education at historically black 
colleges and universities. The Committee notes that African-
Americans are severely underrepresented at the doctoral level 
in many sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology 
fields.
    The Committee recommendation has provided $2,000,000 for 
the NASA International Earth Observing System [EOS] Natural 
Resource Training Center at the University of Montana, 
Missoula, MT; $1,500,000 for the Franklin Institute to develop 
a national model planetarium for Fels planetarium; $2,300,000 
for the Jason Foundation for the development of an education 
program for school children on the exploration of space; 
$2,000,000 for the institute for research in commercial remote 
sensing applications at the University of Missouri-Columbia; 
$2,500,000 for the Bishop Museum/Mauna Kea Astronomy Education 
Center; $2,500,000 for the completion of a science learning 
center in Kenai, AK; $5,000,000 for the National Center for 
Space Research and Technology, a continuing partnership between 
NASA and the University of Alabama at Huntsville; the full-
budget request of $2,000,000 for the classroom of the future; 
$1,000,000 for the pipelines project at Iowa State University/
Southern University--Baton Rouge; $1,000,000 for the Chabot 
Observatory and Science Center, Oakland, CA; $4,000,000 for an 
education and visitor center for the Green Bank Radio Astronomy 
Observatory; $14,000,000 for infrastructure needs for the Life 
Sciences building at the University of Missouri-Columbia; 
$1,000,000 for the development of the Spelman College Science 
Center; and $1,000,000 for the Field Museum for the 
``Underground Adventure,'' an outreach exhibit using satellite 
and internet communication to educate schools and communities 
about soil ecosystems, soil conservation, and sustainable 
agriculture; and the full budget request of $2,000,000 for the 
Classroom of the Future. NASA is directed to make appropriate 
adjustments within each of the six identified enterprises 
within this account to accommodate the stated funding 
priorities in this paragraph and submit these adjustments as 
part of its fiscal year 2000 operating plan.
    The Committee includes $2,000,000 for the Lewis and Clark 
Rediscovery Web Technology Project which will provide K-12 and 
university level teachers in internet and interactive web 
teaching technologies through a partnership between the 
University of Idaho, Wheeling Jesuit College and the University 
of Montana.

                            MISSION SUPPORT

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $2,511,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   2,494,900,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,495,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $2,495,000,000 for mission 
support activities. This amount is $100,000 above the 
President's budget request for these activities.
    The Committee supports the budget request for test facility 
modernization and other enhancements at Stennis as a center of 
excellence for propulsion testing in support of growing test 
requirements of both government and commercial propulsion 
programs. Also supported is funding for modifications to the A-
2 test stand at Stennis in support of the Space Shuttle Main 
Engine program, for modernizing and improving data acquisition 
and control systems, critical spare valves and other components 
at Stennis, and for upgrading and maintaining test support 
infrastructure.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      20,800,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, 
$800,000 below the President's budget request. The Committee 
believes that the NASA IG must be much more proactive in 
identifying areas of concern at NASA as well as alerting 
Congress with regard to these concerns. The Committee directs 
the NASA IG to prioritize its activities to ensure the security 
of NASA programs and technologies and to ensure the appropriate 
use of funds by NASA contractors and grantees. In particular, 
there are significant costs overrun and expensing issues 
associated with the International Space Station as well as a 
number of other programs. It is critical that controls be 
instituted that ensure that all costs are appropriate and that 
NASA is receiving an adequate return on these taxpayer 
investments.

                       Administrative Provisions

    The Committee recommendation includes a series of 
provisions, proposed by the administration, which are largely 
technical in nature, concerning the availability of funds. 
These provisions have been carried in prior-year appropriation 
acts.

                  National Credit Union Administration


                       central liquidity facility


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Direct loan       Administrative
                                        limitation          expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999..............       $600,000,000           $176,000
Budget estimate, 2000.............        600,000,000            257,000
Committee recommendation..........  .................            257,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of limiting 
administrative expenses for the Central Liquidity Fund [CLF] to 
$257,000 in fiscal year 2000. This legislation does not provide 
a limitation on the principal amount of new direct loans to 
member credit unions since the cap was increased to 
$18,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 in the fiscal year 1999 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. The cap was lifted 
in that bill solely to provide adequate time for planning and 
available funds to address any Y2K concerns, however unlikely.

                      National Science Foundation

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $3,671,200,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   3,921,450,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,921,450,000

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,921,450,000 for the National 
Science Foundation for fiscal year 2000. This amount is 
$250,250,000 more than the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and 
the same as the budget request.

                    RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $2,770,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   3,004,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,007,300,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,007,300,000 
for research and related activities. This amount is 
$237,300,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and 
$3,300,000 more than the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation also includes $55,000,000 for the Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, which is transferred 
from the Education and Human Resources account.
    The Committee commends the agency for establishing national 
goals in the areas of information technology, biocomplexity, 
and education. The Committee also applauds NSF's recent efforts 
to provide a budget justification for fiscal year 2000 that 
meets the requirements of the Government Performance and 
Results Act. NSF should continue these efforts by working with 
the Office of Inspector General and General Accounting Office 
to ensure full compliance with the Results Act.
    While the Committee has been a consistent strong supporter 
of NSF's role in advancing computer and information science 
engineering research and development, the Committee has 
numerous concerns about the Administration's information 
technology initiative dubbed ``Information Technology for the 
21st Century'' or IT\2\. This six-agency initiative where NSF 
has been designated as the lead agency would significantly 
boost the federal government's funding for software research, 
terascale computing equipment development, and understanding 
the social, economic, and workforce impact of information 
technologies. The Committee is concerned about creating a major 
new structure within NSF when the agency already has existing 
structures that can be used to boost information technology 
research. NSF's involvement in information technology 
activities totaled almost $700,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 
alone. Many of the activities proposed under IT\2\ are already 
currently funded through existing federal programs such as the 
Next Generation Initiative (NGI), High Performance Computing 
and Communications (HPCC) initiative, NSF's Knowledge and 
Distributed Intelligence (KDI) program, and other activities 
under NSF's Computer and Information Science and Engineering 
(CISE) directorate.
    The Committee is also concerned about investing in research 
and development activities that the private sector may be 
involved in. The President's Information Technology Advisory 
Committee (PITAC) recently noted that ``Federal R&D programs 
must be well designed and must not subsidize activities best 
left to the private sector.'' It is unclear how the 
Administration's initiative would address these concerns.
    Lastly, the Committee is concerned about NSF's ability to 
administer a major multiagency initiative. As part of a recent 
``management challenges'' letter, the NSF Inspector General 
(IG) raised concerns about substantially increasing the role of 
NSF in administering new programs such as IT\2\. The IG also 
raised concerns about the ability of NSF program staff to 
fulfill its oversight responsibilities due to the high workload 
and lack of adequate travel funds. While the Committee does not 
have any significant concerns about NSF's ability to manage its 
current activities and believes that NSF's financial operations 
are sound, the Committee believes that NSF needs to review 
carefully its current management structure, staff resources, 
and support needs such as travel funds before embarking on 
major new initiatives such as IT\2\.
    Given the budget constraints and the Committee's concerns 
about the information technology initiative, no funding is 
provided for IT\2\ in fiscal year 2000. The Committee, however, 
remains very supportive of NSF's current basic research efforts 
in the information technology area and recommends an additional 
$100,000,000 to enhance NSF's computer and information science 
and engineering activities consistent with the PITAC 
recommendations in its February 1999 report. The Committee 
expects NSF to use these additional funds in the area of 
software research and scalable information infrastructure, such 
as the Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative. NSF also 
should use these additional funds for fundamental research on 
software design, stability, security, and reliability and for 
acquiring high-end computing equipment. The Committee 
recommends that NSF utilize its existing Partnerships for 
Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI) program in 
developing new computer hardware equipment and for testing new 
software designs. The Committee also encourages NSF to continue 
its efforts under the NGI program in providing high-speed 
networking access to remote and hard to reach areas such as 
those in Alaska, Hawaii, and rural states like Montana and 
Missouri.
    The Committee expects the Foundation's fiscal year 2000 
operating plan will outline the distribution of these 
additional resources within the existing subactivities of the 
computer and information science and engineering activity in a 
manner that is consistent with the PITAC report.
    The Committee also supports NSF funding of longer term and 
larger sized grants than what is typically funded. Many 
investigators have complained about the size of NSF research 
grants and the administrative burden associated with grant 
applications. Further, PITAC has raised concerns that 
``promising long-term research is being passed over in order to 
meet the goals of short-term technology development.'' 
Therefore, the Committee expects NSF to address these concerns 
by using at least 25 percent of these additional funds for 
grants that are of a minimum of 3 years in duration and a 
minimum funding level of $750,000 per grant and to focus these 
grants on long-term research and technology development. The 
Committee further directs NSF to provide an update on the types 
of research funded by the CISE directorate, including the KDI 
program, the impact of providing these longer term and larger 
size grants, and a five-year strategic plan detailing the 
information technology areas of research and estimated funding 
needs. This report should be provided by January 21, 2000.
    The Committee is also concerned about the impact of 
information technology on society and the economy. While it is 
clear that there are significant benefits to on-going advances 
in information technology, the incredible pace of new 
technologies may create problems that we have yet to identify. 
For example, one area identified by PITAC is privacy. As noted 
by the PITAC report, personal information can be beneficial to 
various service providers but its benefits can be severely 
limited if individuals cannot be guaranteed that their 
information is truly protected. The Committee is providing an 
additional $5,000,000 to the CISE Directorate's existing 
``Computing and Social Impact'' program to study privacy and 
access to information and to further our understanding of the 
impact information technology advances have on issues that are 
of significant societal, ethical, and economical importance.
    Since its inception in fiscal year 1998, the Plant Genome 
Research Program has already made great advances in 
understanding the structure, organization, and function of the 
genomes of economically significant plants that are important 
to our economic and environment interests. The Committee has 
been a strong supporter of this important program and commends 
the Administration for its continued support. Data from NSF has 
revealed a growing interest and competition in the plant genome 
program. Further, the number and quality of grant proposals 
seem to be higher according to NSF. For fiscal year 1999, 72 
full proposals requesting approximately $339,000,000 have been 
received by NSF for this program. Due to the growing interest 
and success of this program, the Committee has included an 
additional $10,000,000 to the program to meet this important 
need. This would boost program funding to a total of 
$60,000,000.
    To complement the plant genome program and the growth and 
advances in biotechnology, the Committee is also supportive of 
NSF's ``biocomplexity in the environment'' activities in 
fostering research in environmental science, engineering, and 
education. NSF's proposal to expand this focused multi-
disciplinary initiative is of great interest to the Committee. 
This field of research may help advance our understanding of 
environmental systems and its role in vital natural resources. 
An interdisciplinary approach that encompasses a wide range of 
fields such as biology, chemistry, and engineering greatly 
enhances our ability to understand the makeup of plants and may 
lead to new biotechnology advances that will help transform 
crops into hardier, pest-resistant crops. The Committee has 
included $50,000,000 for the biocomplexity initiative as 
requested by the Administration. The Committee expects NSF to 
work with institutions that have close ties to the 
biotechnology industry and evidence of interdisciplinary 
efforts in the molecular biosciences.
    As discussed in previous years, the Committee is concerned 
about how NSF funds are distributed to universities and 
colleges, as well as to various areas of the country. A recent 
NSF survey of Federal research and development funds indicated 
that the top 50 recipients of university-based research 
received about 60 percent of all available Federal research 
dollars. These large institutions also received a large amount 
of federal funds to manage research and development centers for 
various Federal agencies. PITAC's recent report raised the 
importance of promoting the full participation of institutions 
and individuals that are underrepresented in research 
opportunities. For example, high-speed network connections to 
advanced technology resources was cited as a way of assisting 
underrepresented areas and institutions participate in research 
partnerships. While the agency has done a commendable job in 
delivering high-speed network connections to underrepresented 
areas, the Committee encourages NSF to continue these efforts.
    Accordingly, the Committee has included a provision to 
create a focal point for support and outreach to institutions 
that do not normally fall in the top 50 in federal research and 
development support. This new office, which will include the 
highly successful Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research (EPSCoR), is to focus on increasing the Foundation's 
competitive, merit-based support and outreach to these smaller 
institutions. The Committee expects NSF to build on its current 
programmatic and outreach efforts to improve the participation 
of these institutions and states. The Committee expects the 
Foundation to submit a detailed proposal for the innovation 
partnership activity as part of the fiscal year 2000 operating 
plan.
    To startup this new office, the Committee has provided 
$10,000,000 to this new entity and $55,000,000 to the EPSCoR 
program. The Committee also supports the co-funding proposal of 
the Foundation in which the EPSCoR funding is leveraged with an 
additional $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 from within the 
disciplinary research programs of the Foundation.
    The Committee remains committed to the U.S. Arctic Research 
Program and recommends $25,000,000 for arctic logistics needs. 
These funds are to be provided directly to the Arctic Research 
Commission, which will be responsible for allocating arctic 
logistics funds. The Committee expects NSF to build on the 
funding increases in fiscal year 1999 and complement the 
logistical and science support provided from the agency's Polar 
Programs and other NSF activities. The Committee also expects 
NSF to continue its funding in arctic logistics and research 
needs that are consistent with the 1997 U.S. Arctic Research 
Commission report, Logistics Recommendations for an Improved 
U.S. Arctic Research Capability.
    The Committee strongly supports NSF's participation in the 
National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). The 
Committee recommends that up to $5,000,000 be made available 
for NOPP-related activities for fiscal year 2000. The Committee 
also recommends that NSF and other NOPP partner agencies 
continue to provide an appropriate level of operational support 
for meritorious ocean science research projects, including 
NOPP-related activities.
    The Committee continues to be a strong supporter of NSF's 
astronomical sciences research program and supports the 
Administration's budget requests of $32,500,000 for the 
National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) and $29,700,000 for 
the National Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO). The 
Committee supports NSF's proposal to use the NRAO funds to 
enhance support for operations and maintenance and development 
of new instrumentation at the Very Large Array and the Very 
Long Baseline Array in New Mexico and to continue the 
construction of the Greenbank Telescope in West Virginia. The 
Committee also supports NSF's plans to use the requested NOAO 
funds for the National Solar Observatory at Sacramento Peak, 
New Mexico.
    The Committee remains concerned about NSF's merit-review 
process and directs NSF to provide $750,000 to the National 
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to carry out a review 
of the merit-review process. The Committee further directs NAPA 
to consult with the Committee in establishing the parameters of 
this review. NSF is directed to cooperate fully with NAPA to 
meet these parameters.
    While the Committee recognizes the many benefits from NSF 
funded research in the social, behavioral, and economic (SBE) 
sciences area, the Committee is concerned about funding certain 
activities that may be duplicating research more appropriately 
funded by other agencies. The Committee is especially concerned 
about funding research in economic and related fields that is 
also funded by agencies devoted to studies of the economy, such 
as the Federal Reserve Board. A recent study found that 
economists who received NSF funding published no more new 
articles than their peers who did not receive NSF funding. The 
study did recognize that the productivity of investigators 
early in their careers seemed to increase with NSF funding and 
the Committee urges NSF to support these young investigators.
    The Committee encourages NSF to review its SBE research 
activities and to focus its funding towards activities more 
directly related to NSF's core mission of promoting an 
understanding of the physical sciences. The Committee 
recognizes the promise of breakthroughs in a number of 
particular behavioral and social science areas such as learning 
and memory, visual and auditory perception, behavioral and 
cognitive neuroscience, social cognition, decision making, and 
human development and strongly supports NSF's proposed plans to 
increase funding for this area. The Committee directs NSF to 
provide a report on the status of its social, behavioral, and 
economic sciences research by February 3, 2000.
    The Committee is aware that in March 2002 the lease for the 
R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer, an Antarctic research vessel, will 
terminate. As such, a procurement for its possible replacement 
will need to take place in fiscal year 2000. The Committee has 
included bill language that will ensure a fair competition with 
respect to this upcoming procurement. The language is similar 
to provisions enacted previously by the Congress concerning the 
procurements of the R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer and the R/V 
Laurence M. Gould.
    Finally, the Committee notes that the National Science 
Board has recently formed a task force that will, among other 
things, review the NSF role in fostering international 
cooperation in fundamental science and engineering research and 
education. The Committee believes that fostering international 
cooperation in science and engineering is an important issue, 
and looks forward to reviewing the Board's recommendations for 
the Foundation when they are ultimately released. In the 
meantime, the Committee urges NSF to look for ways to 
strengthen its activities with respect to international 
cooperation in research and education.

                        MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      85,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      70,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $70,000,000 
for major research equipment. This amount is $20,000,000 less 
than the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $15,000,000 below 
the budget request.
    The Committee has provided the request for the continued 
polar support aircraft upgrades and south pole station 
modernization efforts. The Committee has also provided funding 
for the Large Hadron Collider and the Millimeter Array. The 
Committee has also provided $21,000,000 for Terascale Computing 
Systems and $7,700,000 for the Network for Earthquake 
Engineering Simulation.

                     EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $662,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     678,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     688,600,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $688,600,000 
for education and human resources (EHR). This amount is 
$26,600,000 more than the fiscal year 1999 level and 
$10,600,000 more than the budget request. The Committee also 
notes that NSF expects to receive an additional $30,000,000 
from the H-1B Visa account which will further supplement its 
EHR activities.
    The Committee is troubled by the latest NSF report on 
women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and 
engineering. While the report cites some significant progress 
in some areas such as women receiving engineering doctoral 
degrees, there continues to be a concern with minority women in 
science and engineering fields. The Committee encourages NSF to 
address these problems.
    The Committee has been a strong supporter of historically 
black colleges and universities and continues its support by 
providing $8,000,000 for grants to these institutions under the 
underrepresented population undergraduate reform initiative. 
These funds are to be matched by an additional $2,000,000 in 
funds from the research and related activities account for a 
total funding level of $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee also supports NSF's programs targeted to aid 
minority students entering the fields of mathematics, science 
and engineering. The Committee urges NSF to provide adequate 
funding for the following programs: Louis Stokes Alliance for 
Minority Participation; the Border Rural Systemic Initiative; 
the Regional Alliance for Science, Engineering, and Mathematics 
for Students with Disabilities; and the Collaborative for 
Excellence in Teacher Preparation Program.
    The Committee also strongly supports the informal science 
education (ISE) program. This program has acted as a catalyst 
for increasing the public's appreciation and understanding of 
science and technology in settings such as science centers, 
museums, zoos, aquariums, and public television. The ISE 
program has also been involved in the professional development 
of science teachers. The Committee supports NSF's continued 
support for this program and its fiscal year 2000 focus on 
increasing access to informal learning opportunities in inner 
cities and rural areas that have not been exposed to science 
and technology. The Committee continues its support for this 
program by providing $50,000,000 and urges NSF to expand its 
program to underserved areas.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $144,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     149,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     150,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $150,000,000 
for salaries and expenses. The increase of $1,000,000 above the 
budget request is provided in response to concerns raised by 
the IG regarding the lack of available travel funds for NSF 
program officers in overseeing grant awards effectively. The 
Committee directs NSF to fund program travel only from its 
salaries and expenses account and not use program funds for 
travel purposes.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $5,200,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       5,450,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,550,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,550,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General in fiscal year 2000. This 
amount is $350,000 more than the fiscal year 1999 enacted level 
and $100,000 more than the budget request. The Committee is 
providing these additional funds to support the work of the 
Office of Inspector General in the areas of cost-sharing, 
indirect costs, and misconduct in scientific research.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      90,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      60,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by 
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the 
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public 
Law 95-557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment helps 
local communities establish working partnerships between 
residents and representatives of the public and private 
sectors. The partnership-based organizations are independent, 
tax-exempt, nonprofit entities: often known as Neighborhood 
Housing Services [NHS] or mutual housing associations. 
Collectively, these organizations are known as the 
NeighborWorks network.
    Nationally, the 184 NeighborWorks organizations 
serve 825 communities in 45 states. Of the neighborhoods, 70 
percent of the people served are in the very low and low-income 
brackets.
    The NeighborWorks network improves the quality of 
life in distressed neighborhoods for current residents, 
increases homeownership through targeted lending efforts, 
exerts a long-term, stabilizing influence on the neighborhood 
business environment, and reverses neighborhood decline. 
NeighborWorks organizations have been positively 
impacting urban communities for over two decades, and more 
recent experience is demonstrating the success of this approach 
in rural communities when adequate resources are available.
    Neighborhood Reinvestment will continue to provide grants 
to Neighborhood Housing Services of America [NHSA], the 
NeighborWorks network's national secondary market. 
The mission of NHSA is to utilize private sector support to 
replenish local NeighborWorks organizations' 
revolving loan funds. These loans are used to back securities 
which are placed with private sector social investors.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation, $30,000,000 less than the budget 
request and the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. This 
recommendation matches the Corporation's fiscal year 1998 
funding level prior to the initiation of two demonstration 
programs that were to be completed by the end of fiscal year 
1999.

                        Selective Service System


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $24,176,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      25,250,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,250,000

                          Program Description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,250,000 
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as 
the budget request for fiscal year 2000 and an increase of 
$1,074,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends inclusion of 25 general provisions 
previously enacted in the 1999 appropriations act. They are 
standard limitations which have been carried in the VA, HUD, 
and Independent Agencies appropriations bill in the past. There 
is an additional requirement that HUD operate within its budget 
estimates and its appropriation. There also are two amendments 
to the Fair Housing Act that would give publications 72 hours 
to take remedial action where a published item is alleged to be 
discriminatory. After 72 hours, civil or administrative 
enforcement may be pursued. In addition, the bill prohibits the 
use of funds for litigation or lobbying. Finally, a provision 
would exempt state and local law enforcement agencies from 
responsibility for the clean-up of methamphetamine sites.

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

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

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    Housing Certificate Fund: $11,051,135,000.
    Fair housing activities: $40,000.
    HOME Investment Partnerships Program: $1,600,000.
    Indian housing loan guarantee fund: $6,000.
    Government National Mortgage Association (credit 
limitation): $200,000,000,000.
    Homeless assistance grants: $1,020,000,000.
    Community development block grants: $4,800,000,000.
    Rural housing and economic development: $25,000,000.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

    Community Development Financial Institutions Fund: 
$80,000,000.

                   CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

    Salaries and expenses: $49,500,000.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Environmental programs and management: $1,885,000,000.
    Science and technology: $642,483,000.
    State and tribal assistance grants: $3,240,000,000.
    Superfund: $1,400,000,000.

                  FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

    Salaries and expenses: $180,000,000.
    Emergency management planning and assistance: $250,850,000.
    Emergency food and shelter: $100,000,000.

                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Consumer Information Center: $2,622,000.

             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    International space station: $2,482,700,000.
    Launch vehicles and payload operations: $3,156,000,000.
    Science, aeronautics, and technology: $5,424,700,000.
    Mission support: $2,495,000,000.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee 
ordered reported, S. 1596, an original Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
Agencies appropriations bill, 2000 and subject to amendment and 
subject to its budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 28-0, 
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Kyl
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin

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

    Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports 
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute 
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or 
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a 
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution 
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof 
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and 
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical 
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the 
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by 
the committee.''
    As otherwise discussed, the dramatic and unprecedented 
constraints on domestic discretionary spending has made 
necessary inclusion of a considerable volume of legislative 
reforms and other changes in existing statutes in the Committee 
recommendation. This is particularly in evidence in title II, 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development portion of this 
bill, in which cost-saving and cost-avoidance measures for 
discretionary housing and community development activities 
require modification of programs governed a large body of 
detailed and complex statutory provisions.
    The Committee has included substantial explanatory material 
in this report which attempts to detail fully both the intent 
and practical effect of these statutory provisions. In view of 
the extensive nature of these changes, however, preparation of 
a comparative print detailing each of these statutory 
amendments would delay prompt availability of this report. In 
the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to dispense with 
the requirements of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI to expedite the 
business of the Senate.

TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER 42--LOW-INCOME HOUSING PRESERVATION AND RESIDENT HOMEOWNERSHIP

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



 SUBCHAPTER I--PREPAYMENT OF MORTGAGES INSURED UNDER NATIONAL HOUSING 
ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 4113. Assistance for displaced tenants

(a) Section 1437f assistance

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(e) Regional pools

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Enhanced Voucher Assistance for Certain Tenants.--
            (1) Authority.--In lieu of benefits under 
        subsections (b), (c), and (d), and subject to the 
        availability of appropriated amounts, each family 
        described in paragraph (2) shall be offered enhanced 
        voucher assistance under section 8(t) of the United 
        States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)).
            (2) Eligible families.--A family described in this 
        paragraph is a family that is--
                    (A) a low-income family or a moderate-
                income family;
                    (B) an elderly family, a disabled family, 
                or residing in a low-vacancy area; and
                    (C) residing in eligible low-income housing 
                on the date of the prepayment of the mortgage 
                or voluntary termination of the insurance 
                contract.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER 45--FAIR HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SUBCHAPTER I--GENERALLY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 3610. Administrative enforcement; preliminary matters

(a) Complaints and answers
    (1)(A)(i) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (iii) The Secretary may also investigate housing practices 
to determine whether a complaint should be brought under this 
section. Before filing a complaint arising under section 
3604(c) of this Act, a prospective complainant shall serve on 
each prospective respondent a written notice that identifies 
the alleged violation in sufficient detail to allow remedial 
action by the prospective respondent. If the prospective 
respondent acts to cease publication of the alleged item in 
violation within 72 hours of receipt of the notice or prior to 
the next publication, whichever is greater, no administrative 
action arising from section 3606(c) may be brought by the 
prospective complainant, acting for himself or on behalf of an 
aggrieved person.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 3613. Enforcement by private persons

(a) Civil action
    (1)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) An aggrieved person may not commence a civil action 
under this subsection with respect to an alleged discriminatory 
housing practice which forms the basis of a charge issued by 
the Secretary if an administrative law judge has commenced a 
hearing on the record under this subchapter with respect to 
such charge.
    (4) An aggrieved person may not commence a civil action 
arising from Section 3604(c) unless the prospective 
complainant, acting for himself or on behalf of an aggrieved 
person, serves written notice on the prospective respondent 
identifying the alleged violation in sufficient detail to allow 
remedial action by the prospective respondent and the 
prospective respondent failed to take remedial action within 72 
hours of receipt of the notice or prior to the next 
publication, whichever is greater.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968


TITLE XIII--NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER I--THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                               financing

    Sec. 1309. (a) All authority which was vested in the 
Housing and Home Finance Administrator by virtue of section 
15(e) of the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 
1084) (pertaining to the issue of notes or other obligations or 
the Secretary of the Treasury), as amended by subsections (a) 
and (b) of section 1303 of this Act, shall be available to the 
Director for the purpose of carrying out the flood insurance 
program under this title; except that the total amount of notes 
and obligations which may be issued by the Director pursuant to 
such authority (1) without the approval of the President, may 
not exceed $500,000,000, and (2) with the approval of the 
President, may not exceed $1,500,000,000 through September 30, 
[1999] 2000, and $1,000,000,000 thereafter. The Director shall 
report to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate at any time when he 
requests the approval of the President in accordance with the 
preceding sentence.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 1376. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
may be necessary through [September 30, 1999] September 30, 
2000, for studies under this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



             TITLE I--HOUSING RENOVATION AND MODERNIZATION


                       administrative provisions

      Section 1. The powers conferred by this Act shall be 
exercised by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Secretary'').
      In order to carry out the provisions of this title and 
titles II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and XI, the Secretary may 
establish such agencies, accept and utilize such voluntary and 
uncompensated services, utilize such Federal officers and 
employees, and, with the consent of the State, such State and 
local officers and employees, and appoint such other officers 
and employees as he may find necessary, and may prescribe their 
authorities, duties, responsibilities, and tenure and fix their 
compensation. The Secretary may delegate any of the functions 
and powers conferred upon him under this title and titles II, 
III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and XI, to such officers, agents, 
and employees as he may designate or appoint and may make such 
expenditures (including expenditures for personal services and 
rent at the seat of government and elsewhere for law books and 
books of reference, and for paper, printing, and binding) as 
are necessary to carry out the provisions of this title and 
titles II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and XI without regard to 
any other provisions of law governing the expenditure of public 
funds. All such compensation, expenses, and allowances shall be 
paid out of funds made available by this Act: Provided, That, 
notwithstanding any other provisions of law except provisions 
of law hereafter enacted expressly in limitation hereof, all 
expenses of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 
connection with the examination and insurance of loans or 
investments under any title of this Act, all properly 
capitalized expenditures, and other necessary expenses not 
attributable to general overhead in accordance with generally 
accepted accounting principles shall be considered 
nonadministrative and payable from funds made available by this 
Act, except that, unless made pursuant to specific 
authorization by the Congress therefor, expenditures made in 
any fiscal year pursuant to this proviso, other than the 
payment of insurance claims and other than expenditures 
(including services on a contract or fee basis, but not 
including other personal services) in connection with the 
acquisition, protection, completion, operation, maintenance, 
improvement, or disposition of real or personal property of the 
Department acquired under authority of this Act, shall not 
exceed 35 per centum of the income received by the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development from premiums and fees during 
the preceding fiscal year. The Secretary shall, in carrying out 
the provisions of this title and titles II, III, V, VI, VII, 
VIII, IX, and XI be authorized, in his official capacity to sue 
and be sued in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or 
Federal. For the purposes of this section, the term 
``nonadministrative'' shall not include contract expenses that 
are not capitalized or routinely deducted from the proceeds of 
sales, and such expenses shall not be payable from funds made 
available by this Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         insurance of mortgages

      Sec. 203. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (b) * * *
            (1) * * *
                    (A) * * *
                            (i) * * *
                            (ii) 87 percent of the dollar 
                        amount limitation determined under 
                        section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home 
                        Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a 
                        residence of the applicable size; 
                        except that the dollar amount 
                        limitation in effect for any area under 
                        this subparagraph may not be less than 
                        the greater of the dollar amount 
                        limitation in effect for the area on 
                        the date of enactment of the 
                        Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
                        Housing and Urban Development, and 
                        Independent Agencies Appropriations 
                        Act, 1999 48 percent of the dollar 
                        limitation determined under section 
                        305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan 
                        Mortgage Corporation Act for a 
                        residence of the applicable size; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


        RENTAL AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING FOR LOWER INCOME FAMILIES

      Sec. 236. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (g) The project owner shall, as required by the 
Secretary, accumulate, safeguard, and periodically pay the 
Secretary or such other entity as determined by the Secretary 
and upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems 
appropriate, all rental charges collected on a unit-by-unit 
basis in excess of the basic rental charges. Unless otherwise 
directed by the Secretary, such excess charges shall be 
credited to a reserve used by the Secretary to make additional 
assistance payments as provided in paragraph (3) of subsection 
(f). Notwithstanding any other requirements of this subsection, 
an owner of a project with a mortgage insured under this 
section, or a project previously assisted under subsection (b) 
but without a mortgage insured under this section if the 
project mortgage was insured under section 207 of this Act 
before July 30, 1998 pursuant to section 223(f) of this Act and 
assisted under subsection (b), or a project owner with a 
mortgage formerly insured under this section (if such mortgage 
is held by the Secretary and such project owner is current with 
respect to the mortgage obligation), may retain some or all of 
such excess charges for project use if authorized by the 
Secretary and upon such terms and conditions as established by 
the Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE III--NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



 [partial payment of claims on multifamily housing projects and health 
 care facilities] partial payment of claims on defaulted mortgages and 
               in connection with mortgage restructuring

    Sec. 541. (a)* * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) Existing Mortgages.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the Secretary, in connection with a mortgage 
restructuring under section 514 of the Multifamily Assisted 
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, may make a one 
time, nondefault [partial payment of the claim under the 
mortgage insurance contract] partial or full payment of claim 
under one or more mortgage insurance contracts, which shall 
include a determination by the Secretary or the participating 
administrative entity, in accordance with the Multifamily 
Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, of the 
market value of the project and a restructuring of the 
mortgage, under such terms and conditions as are permitted by 
section 517(a) of such Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


          United States Housing Act of 1937, Public Law 93-383


TITLE I--GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                    lower income housing assistance

    Sec. 8. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (s) In selecting families for the provision of assistance 
under this section (including subsection (o)), a public housing 
agency may not exclude or penalize a family solely because the 
family resides in a public housing project.
    (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) subject only to subparagraph (D), the 
                assisted family shall pay as rent no less than 
                the amount the family was paying on the date of 
                the eligibility event for the project in which 
                the family was residing on such date;
                    (B) during any period that the assisted 
                family continues residing in the same unit 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);
                    (C) subparagraph (B) of this paragraph 
                shall not apply and the payment standard for 
                the dwelling unit occupied by the family shall 
                be determined in accordance with subsection (o) 
                if--
                            (i) the assisted family moves, at 
                        any time, from such project; or
                            (ii) the voucher is made available 
                        for use by any family other than the 
                        original family on behalf of whom the 
                        voucher was provided; and
                    (D) if the income of the assisted family 
                declines to a significant extent, the 
                percentage of income paid by the family for 
                rent shall not exceed the greater of 30 percent 
                or the percentage of income paid at the time of 
                the eligibility event for the project.
            (2) Eligibility event.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term ``eligibility event'' means, with 
        respect to a multifamily housing project, the 
        prepayment of the mortgage on such housing project, the 
        voluntary termination of the insurance contract for the 
        mortgage for such housing project, or the termination 
        or expiration of the contract for rental assistance 
        under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 
        1937 for such housing project, that, under paragraphs 
        (3) and (4) of section 515(c) or section 524(b) of the 
        Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability 
        Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) or section 223(f) of 
        the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident 
        Homeownership Act of 1990 (12 U.S.C. 4113(f)), results 
        in tenants in such housing project being eligible for 
        enhanced voucher assistance under this subsection.
            (3) Treatment of enhanced vouchers provided under 
        other authority.--
                    (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other 
                provision of law, any enhanced voucher 
                assistance provided under any authority 
                specified in subparagraph (D) shall be treated, 
                and subject to the same requirements, as 
                enhanced voucher assistance under this 
                subsection.
                    (B) Identification of other authority.--The 
                authority specified in this subparagraph is the 
                authority under--
                            (i) the 10th, 11th, and 12th 
                        provisos under the ``Preserving 
                        Existing Housing Investment'' account 
                        in title II of the Departments of 
                        Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
                        Development, and Independent Agencies 
                        Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 
                        104-204; 110 Stat. 2884), pursuant to 
                        such provisos, the first proviso under 
                        the ``Housing Certificate Fund'' 
                        account in title II of the Departments 
                        of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
                        Urban Development, and Independent 
                        Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 
                        (Public Law 105-65; 111 Stat. 1351), or 
                        the first proviso under the ``Housing 
                        Certificate Fund'' account in title II 
                        of the Departments of Veterans Affairs 
                        and Housing and Urban Development, and 
                        Independent Agencies Appropriations 
                        Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-276; 112 
                        Stat. 2469); and
                            (ii) paragraphs (3) and (4) of 
                        section 515(c) of the Multifamily 
                        Assisted Housing Reform and 
                        Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 
                        1437f note), as in effect before the 
                        enactment of this Act.
            (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 
        2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 such sums as may be 
        necessary for enhanced voucher assistance under this 
        subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    eligibility for assisted housing

    Sec. 16. (a) Income Eligibility for Public Housing.--
            (1) Income mix within projects.--A public housing 
        agency may establish and utilize income-mix criteria 
        for the selection of residents for dwelling units in 
        public housing projects, subject to the requirements of 
        this section
            (2) PHA income mix.--
                    (A) Targeting.--Except as provided in 
                paragraph (4), of the public housing dwelling 
                units of a public housing agency made available 
                for occupancy in any fiscal year by eligible 
                families, not less than 40 percent shall be 
                occupied by families whose incomes at the time 
                of commencement of occupancy do not exceed 30 
                percent of the area median income, as 
                determined by the Secretary with adjustments 
                for smaller and larger families; except that 
                the Secretary may establish income ceilings 
                higher or lower than 30 percent of the area 
                median income on the basis of the Secretary's 
                findings that such variations are necessary 
                because of unusually high or low family 
                incomes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Income Eligibility for Project-Based Section 8 
Assistance.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Targeting.--For each project assisted under a 
        contract for project-based assistance, of the dwelling 
        units that become available for occupancy in any fiscal 
        year that are assisted under the contract, not less 
        than 40 percent shall be available for leasing only by 
        families whose incomes at the time of commencement of 
        occupancy do not exceed 30 percent of the area median 
        income, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments 
        for smaller and larger families; except that the 
        Secretary may establish income ceilings higher or lower 
        than 30 percent of the area median income on the basis 
        of the Secretary's findings that such variations are 
        necessary because of unusually high or low family 
        incomes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101-625

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE II--INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle A--HOME Investment Partnerships

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 212. ELIGIBLE USES OF INVESTMENT.

    (a) Housing Uses.--
            (1) In general.--Funds made available under this 
        subtitle may be used by participating jurisdictions to 
        provide incentives to develop and support affordable 
        rental housing and homeownership affordability through 
        the acquisition, new construction, reconstruction, or 
        moderate or substantial rehabilitation of affordable 
        housing, including real property acquisition, site 
        improvement, conversion, demolition, and other 
        expenses, including financing costs, relocation 
        expenses of any displaced persons, families, 
        businesses, or organizations, to provide for the 
        payment of reasonable administrative and planning 
        costs, to provide for the payment of operating expenses 
        of community housing development organizations, to 
        preserve housing assisted or previously assisted with 
        section 8 assistance, and to provide tenant-based 
        rental assistance. For the purpose of this subtitle, 
        the term ``affordable housing'' includes permanent 
        housing for disabled homeless persons, transitional 
        housing, and single room occupancy housing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101-625

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE VIII--HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle D--Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 854. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Allocation of Resources.--
            (1) Formula allocation.--The Secretary shall 
        allocate 90 percent of the amounts approved in 
        appropriation Acts under section 863 among States and 
        cities whose most recent comprehensive housing 
        affordability strategy (or abbreviated strategy) has 
        been approved by the Secretary under section 105 of 
        this Act. Such amounts shall be allocated as follows:
                    (A) 75 percent among--
                            (i) cities that are the most 
                        populous unit of general local 
                        government in a metropolitan 
                        statistical area having a population 
                        greater than 500,000 and more than 
                        1,500 cases of acquired 
                        immunodeficiency syndrome; and
                            (ii) States with more than 1,500 
                        cases of acquired immunodeficiency 
                        syndrome outside of metropolitan 
                        statistical areas described in clause 
                        (i), or States that received an 
                        allocation under this clause in a prior 
                        fiscal year; and
                    (B) 25 percent among cities that (i) are 
                the most populous unit of general local 
                government in a metropolitan statistical area 
                having a population greater than 500,000 and 
                more than 1,500 cases of acquired 
                immunodeficiency syndrome, and (ii) have a 
                higher than average per capita incidence of 
                acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
        A single city may receive assistance allocated under 
        subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (B). For purposes of 
        allocating amounts under this paragraph for any fiscal 
        year, the number of cases of acquired immunodeficiency 
        syndrome shall be the number of such cases reported to 
        and confirmed by the Director of the Centers for 
        Disease Control of the Public Health Service as of 
        March 31 of the fiscal year immediately preceding the 
        fiscal year for which the amounts are appropriated and 
        to be allocated.
            [(2) Minimum grant.--Subject only to the 
        availability of amounts pursuant to appropriations Acts 
        under section 863, for each fiscal year each eligible 
        grantee under paragraph (1) shall receive funding 
        according to its proportionate share of the total, 
        except that each entity shall receive a minimum 
        allocation of $200,000 from subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
        of paragraph (1) combined, and any increase this 
        entails from the formula amount will be deducted from 
        all other allocations exceeding $200,000 on a pro rata 
        basis. If allocation under subparagraph (A) of 
        paragraph (1) would allocate less than $200,000 for any 
        State, the allocation for such State shall be $200,000 
        and the amount of the increase under this sentence 
        shall be deducted on a pro rata basis from the 
        allocations of the other States, except that a 
        reduction under this subparagraph may not reduce the 
        amount allocated to any eligible entity to less than 
        $200,000.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 856. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRANTEES.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Administrative Expenses.--
            (1) Grantees.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of this subtitle, each grantee may use not more than 3 
        percent of the grant amount for administrative costs 
        relating to administering grant amounts and allocating 
        such amounts to project sponsors.
            (2) Project sponsors.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of this subtitle, each project sponsor 
        receiving amounts from grants made under this title may 
        use not more than 7 percent of the amounts received for 
        administrative costs relating to carrying out eligible 
        activities under section 855, including the costs of 
        staff necessary to carry out eligible activities.
    (h) Environmental Review.--For purposes of environmental 
review, decisionmaking, and action pursuant to the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other provisions of law 
that further the purposes of such Act, 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 (42 U.S.C. 3547), and 
shall be subject to the regulations issued by the Secretary to 
implement such section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550


TITLE V--MORTGAGE INSURANCE AND SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      Subtitle C--Improvement of Financing for Multifamily Housing

SEC. 541. SHORT TITLE.

    This subtitle may be cited as the ``Multifamily Housing 
Finance Improvement Act''.

SEC. 542. [12 U.S.C. 1707 NOTE] MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE CREDIT 
                    DEMONSTRATIONS.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Risk-Sharing Pilot Program.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (5) Funding.--Using any authority provided in 
        appropriation Acts to insure loans under the National 
        Housing Act, the Secretary may enter into commitments 
        under this subsection for risk sharing with respect to 
        mortgages on not more than 7,500 units [during fiscal 
        year 1999] in each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The 
        demonstration authorized under this subsection shall 
        not be expanded until the reports required under 
        subsection (d) are submitted to Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Housing Finance Agency Pilot Program.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) Limitation on insurance authority.--Using any 
        authority provided by appropriations Acts to insure 
        mortgages under the National Housing Act, the Secretary 
        may enter into commitments under this subsection with 
        respect to mortgages on not more than 12,000 units 
        [during fiscal year 1999] in each of fiscal years 1999 
        and 2000 and not more than an additional 7,500 units 
        during fiscal year 1997. The demonstration authorized 
        under this subsection shall not be expanded until the 
        reports required under subsection (d) are submitted to 
        the Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, Public Law 104-204

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                       administrative provisions

    Sec. 204. Flexible Authority.--During [fiscal years 1997, 
1998 and 1999] fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and fiscal years 
thereafter, the Secretary may manage and dispose of multifamily 
properties owned by the Secretary and multifamily mortgages 
held by the Secretary on such terms and conditions as the 
Secretary may determine, notwithstanding any other provision of 
law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law 105-65

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 514. MORTGAGE RESTRUCTURING AND RENTAL ASSISTANCE SUFFICIENCY 
                    PLAN.

    (a) In General.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) Exemptions From Restructuring.--The following 
categories of projects shall not be covered by a mortgage 
restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan--
            [(1) the primary financing or mortgage insurance 
        for the multifamily housing project that is covered by 
        that expiring contract was provided by a unit of State 
        government or a unit of general local government (or an 
        agency or instrumentality of a unit of a State 
        government or unit of general local government);]
            (1) the primary financing for the project was 
        provided by a unit of State government or a unit of 
        general local government (or an agency or 
        instrumentality of either) and the primary financing 
        involves mortgage insurance under the National Housing 
        Act, such that the implementation of a mortgage 
        restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan 
        under this Act would be in conflict with applicable law 
        or agreements governing such financing;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
    Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law 105-65


TITLE V--HUD MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REFORM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 510. SHORT TITLE.

    This title may be cited as the ``Multifamily Assisted 
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997''.

   Subtitle A--FHA-Insured Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Housing 
Assistance Restructuring

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 515. SECTION 8 RENEWALS AND LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY COMMITMENT BY 
                    OWNER OF PROJECT.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) * * *
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            [(4) Rents for families receiving tenant-based 
        assistance.--
                    [(A) In general.--Notwithstanding 
                subsection (c)(1) or (o)(1) of section 8 of the 
                United States Housing Act of 1937, in the case 
                of any family described in paragraph (3) that 
                resides in a project described in section 
                512(2)(B) in which the reasonable rent (which 
                rent shall include any amount allowed for 
                utilities and shall not exceed comparable 
                market rents for the relevant housing market 
                area) exceeds the fair market rent limitation 
                or the payment standard, as applicable, the 
                amount of assistance for the family shall be 
                determined in accordance with subparagraph (B).
                    [(B) Maximum monthly rent; payment 
                standard.----With respect to the certificate 
                program under section 8(b) of the United States 
                Housing Act of 1937, the maximum monthly rent 
                under the contract (plus any amount allowed for 
                utilities) shall be such reasonable rent for 
                the unit. With respect to the voucher program 
                under section 8(o) of the United States Housing 
                Act of 1937, the payment standard shall be 
                deemed to be such reasonable rent for the 
                unit.]
            (4) Assistance through enhanced vouchers.--In the 
        case of any family described in paragraph (3) that 
        resides in a project described in section 512(2)(B), 
        the tenant-based assistance provided shall be enhanced 
        voucher assistance under section 8(t) of the United 
        States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 517. RESTRUCTURING TOOLS.

    (a) Mortgage Restructuring.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (5) * * *
            (6) The second mortgage under this section may be a 
        first mortgage if no restructured or new first mortgage 
        will meet the requirement of paragraph (1)(A).
    (b) * * *
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Mortgage insurance.--providing FHA multifamily 
        mortgage insurance, reinsurance or other credit 
        enhancement alternatives, including multifamily risk-
        sharing mortgage programs, as provided under section 
        542 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
        1992. The Secretary shall give a priority to risk-
        shared financing under section 542(c) of the Housing 
        and Community Development Act of 1992 for any mortgage 
        restructuring, rehabilitation financing, or debt 
        refinancing included as part of a mortgage 
        restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan if 
        the terms and conditions will result in reduced risk of 
        loss to the federal government. Any limitations on the 
        number of units available for mortgage insurance under 
        section 542 shall not apply to eligible multifamily 
        housing projects. Any credit subsidy costs of providing 
        mortgage insurance shall be paid from the Liquidating 
        Accounts of the General Insurance Fund or the Special 
        Risk Insurance Fund and shall not be subject to any 
        limitation on appropriations;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 524. SECTION 8 CONTRACT RENEWALS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) Enhanced Voucher Assistance for Covered Residents.--
            (1) In general.--In the case of a contract for 
        project-based assistance under section 8 for a covered 
        project that is not renewed under subsection (a) of 
        this section (or any other authority), to the extent 
        that amounts for assistance under this subsection are 
        provided in advance in appropriation Acts, upon the 
        date of the expiration of such contract the Secretary--
                    (A) shall make enhanced voucher assistance 
                under section 8(t) of the United States Housing 
                Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)) available on 
                behalf of each covered resident of the covered 
                project; and
                    (B) may make enhanced voucher assistance 
                under such section available on behalf of any 
                other low-income family who, upon the date of 
                such expiration, is residing in an assisted 
                dwelling unit in the covered project.
            (2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, 
        the following definitions shall apply:
                    (A) Assisted dwelling unit.--The term 
                ``assisted dwelling unit'' means a dwelling 
                unit that--
                            (i) is in a covered project; and
                            (ii) is covered by rental 
                        assistance provided under the contract 
                        for project-based assistance for the 
                        covered project.
                    (B) Covered project.--The term ``covered 
                project'' means any housing that--
                            (i) consists of more than 4 
                        dwelling units;
                            (ii) is covered in whole or in part 
                        by a contract for project-based 
                        assistance under--
                                    (I) the new construction or 
                                substantial rehabilitation 
                                program under section 8(b)(2) 
                                of the United States Housing 
                                Act of 1937 (as in effect 
                                before October 1, 1983),
                                    (II) the property 
                                disposition program under 
                                section 8(b) of the United 
                                States Housing Act of 1937,
                                    (III) the moderate 
                                rehabilitation program under 
                                section 8(e)(2) of the United 
                                States Housing Act of 1937 (as 
                                in effect before October 1, 
                                1991);
                                    (IV) the loan management 
                                assistance program under 
                                section 8 of the United States 
                                Housing Act of 1937,
                                    (V) section 23 of the 
                                United States Housing Act of 
                                1937 (as in effect before 
                                January 1, 1975),
                                    (VI) the rent supplement 
                                program under section 101 of 
                                the Housing and Urban 
                                Development Act of 1965, or
                                    (VII) section 8 of the 
                                United States Housing Act of 
                                1937, following conversion from 
                                assistance under section 101 of 
                                the Housing and Urban 
                                Development Act of 1965,
                        which contract will under its own terms 
                        expire during the period consisting of 
                        fiscal years 2000 through 2004;
                            (iii) is not housing for which 
                        residents are eligible for enhanced 
                        voucher assistance pursuant to section 
                        223(f) of the Low-Income Housing 
                        Preservation and Resident Homeownership 
                        Act of 1990 (12 U.S.C. 4113(f)); and
                            (iv) is not housing for which 
                        residents are eligible for enhanced 
                        voucher assistance pursuant to 
                        paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 
                        515(c) of the Multifamily Assisted 
                        Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 
                        1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
                    (C) Covered resident.--The term ``covered 
                resident'' means a family who--
                            (i) upon the date of the expiration 
                        of the contract for project-based 
                        assistance for a covered project, is 
                        residing in an assisted dwelling unit 
                        in the covered project; and
                            (ii) as a result of a rent increase 
                        occurring after the date of such 
                        contract expiration is subject to a 
                        rent for such unit that exceeds 30 
                        percent of adjusted income.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
   Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-276


TITLE V--PUBLIC HOUSING AND TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE REFORM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle A--General Provisions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 508. DETERMINATION OF ADJUSTED INCOME AND MEDIAN INCOME.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (1) * * *
    ``(f) Availability of Income Matching Information.--
            ``(1) Disclosure to pha.--A public housing agency, 
        or the owner responsible for determining the 
        participant's eligibility or level of benefits, shall 
        require any family described in paragraph (2) who 
        receives information regarding income, earnings, wages, 
        or unemployment compensation from the Department of 
        Housing and Urban Development pursuant to income 
        verification procedures of the Department to disclose 
        such information, upon receipt of the information, to 
        the public housing agency that owns or operates the 
        public housing dwelling unit in which such family 
        resides or that provides the housing assistance under 
        this Act on behalf of such family, as applicable, or to 
        the owner responsible for determining the participant's 
        eligibility or level of benefits.
            ``(2) Families covered.--A family described in this 
        paragraph is a family that resides in a dwelling unit--
                    ``(A) that is a public housing dwelling 
                unit; [or]
                    ``(B) for which tenant-based assistance is 
                provided under section 8[.], or''.
                    ``(C) for which project-based assistance is 
                provided under section 8, section 202, or 
                section 811.''
            (2) Protection of applicants and participants.--
        Section 904 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
        Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 3544) is 
        amended--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            ``(4) only in the case of an applicant or 
        participant that is a member of a family described in 
        section 3(f)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 
        1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(f)(2)), sign an agreement under 
        which the applicant or participant agrees to provide to 
        the appropriate public housing agency, or the owner 
        responsible for determining the participant's 
        eligibility or level of benefits, the information 
        required under section 3(f)(1) of such Act for the sole 
        purpose of [the public housing agency verifying income] 
        verifying income information pertinent to the 
        applicant's or participant's eligibility or level of 
        benefits, and comply with such agreement.''

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       Subtitle B--Public Housing

PART 1--CAPITAL AND OPERATING ASSISTANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 519. PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL AND OPERATING FUNDS.

    (a) In General.--Section 9 of the United States Housing Act 
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 9. PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL AND OPERATING FUNDS.

    ``(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [``(k) Emergency Reserve and Use of Amounts.--
            [``(1) Set-asides.--In each fiscal year after 
        fiscal year 1999, the Secretary shall set aside, for 
        use in accordance with this subsection, not more than 2 
        percent of the total amount made available to carry out 
        this section for such fiscal year. In addition to 
        amounts set aside under the preceding sentence, in each 
        fiscal year the Secretary may set from the total amount 
        made available to carry out this section for such 
        fiscal year not more than $20,000,000 for the Operation 
        Safe Home program administered by the Office of the 
        Inspector General of the Department of Housing and 
        Urban Development, for law enforcement efforts to 
        combat violent crime on or near the premises of public 
        and federally assisted housing.
            [``(2) Use of funds.--Amounts set aside under 
        paragraph (1) shall be available to the Secretary for 
        use for assistance, as provided in paragraph (3), in 
        connection with--
                    [``(A) emergencies and other disasters; and
                    [``(C) housing needs resulting from any 
                settlement of litigation; and
            [``(3) Eligible uses.--In carrying out this 
        subsection, the Secretary may use amounts set aside 
        under this subsection to provide--
                    [``(A) assistance for any eligible use 
                under the Operating Fund or the Capital Fund 
                established by this section; or
                    [``(B) tenant-based assistance in 
                accordance with 
                section 8.
            [``(4) Limitation.--With respect to any fiscal 
        year, the Secretary may carry over not more than a 
        total of $25,000,000 in unobligated amounts set aside 
        under this subsection for use in connection with the 
        activities described in paragraph (2) during the 
        succeeding fiscal year.
            [``(5) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish 
        the use of any amounts allocated under this subsection 
        relating to emergencies (other than disasters and 
        housing needs resulting from any settlement of 
        litigation) in the Federal Register.]
    ``[(l)] (k) Treatment of Nonrental Income.--A public 
housing agency that receives income from nonrental sources (as 
determined by the Secretary) may retain and use such amounts 
without any decrease in the amounts received under this section 
from the Capital or Operating Fund. Any such nonrental amounts 
retained shall be used only for low-income housing or to 
benefit the residents assisted by the public housing agency.
    ``[(m)] (l) Provision of Only Capital or Operating 
Assistance.--
            ``(1) Authority.--In appropriate circumstances, as 
        determined by the Secretary, a public housing agency 
        may commit capital assistance only, or operating 
        assistance only, for public housing units, which 
        assistance shall be subject to all of the requirements 
        applicable to public housing except as otherwise 
        provided in this subsection.
            ``(2) Exemptions.--In the case of any public 
        housing unit assisted pursuant to the authority under 
        paragraph (1), the Secretary may, by regulation, reduce 
        the period under subsection (d)(3) or (e)(3), as 
        applicable, during which such units must be operated 
        under requirements applicable to public housing. In 
        cases in which there is commitment of operating 
        assistance but no commitment of capital assistance, the 
        Secretary may make section 8 requirements applicable, 
        as appropriate, by regulation.
    ``[(n)] (m) Treatment of Public Housing.--
            ``(1) Certain state and city funded housing.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any 
                other provision of this section--
                            ``(i) for purposes of determining 
                        the allocations from the Operating and 
                        Capital Funds pursuant to the formulas 
                        under subsections (d)(2) and (e)(2) and 
                        determining assistance pursuant to 
                        section 519(e) of the Quality Housing 
                        and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 and 
                        under section 9 or 14 of the United 
                        States Housing Act of 1937 (as in 
                        effect before the date of the enactment 
                        of this Act), for any period before the 
                        implementation of such formulas, the 
                        Secretary shall deem any covered 
                        locally developed public housing units 
                        as public housing units developed under 
                        this title and such units shall be 
                        eligible for such assistance; and
                            ``(ii) assistance provided under 
                        this section, under such section 
                        518(d)(3), or under such section 9 or 
                        14 to any public housing agency may be 
                        used with respect to any covered 
                        locally developed public housing units.
                    ``(B) Covered units.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term `covered locally developed 
                public housing units' means--
                            ``(i) not more than 7,000 public 
                        housing units developed pursuant to 
                        laws of the State of New York and that 
                        received debt service and operating 
                        subsidies pursuant to such laws; and
                            ``(ii) not more than 5,000 dwelling 
                        units developed pursuant to section 34 
                        of chapter 121B of the General Laws of 
                        the State of Massachusetts.
            ``(2) Reduction of asthma incidence.--
        Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
        the New York City Housing Authority may, in its sole 
        discretion, from amounts provided from the Operating 
        and Capital Funds, or from amounts provided for public 
        housing before amounts are made available from such 
        Funds, use not more than exceeding $500,000 per year 
        for the purpose of initiating, expanding or continuing 
        a program for the reduction of the incidence of asthma 
        among residents. The Secretary shall consult with the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
        and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
        identify and consider sources of funding for the 
        reduction of the incidence of asthma among recipients 
        of assistance under this title.
            ``(3) Services for elderly residents.--
        Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
        the New York City Housing Authority may, in its sole 
        discretion, from amounts provided from the Operating 
        and Capital Funds, or from amounts provided for public 
        housing before the amounts are made available from such 
        Funds, use not more than $600,000 per year for the 
        purpose of developing a comprehensive plan to address 
        the need for services for elderly residents. Such plan 
        may be developed by a partnership created by such 
        Housing Authority and may include the creation of a 
        model project for assisted living at one or more 
        developments. The model project may provide for 
        contracting with private parties for the delivery of 
        services.
            ``(4) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply 
        to fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter.''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount  of   Committee    Amount  of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
 Resolution for 2000: Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
 Independent Agencies:
    General purpose discretionary...........................       69,633       69,618       82,545   \1\ 82,291
    Violent crime reduction fund............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Mandatory...............................................       21,713       21,307       21,496       21,140
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2000....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 52,822
    2001....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       22,378
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        7,171
    2003....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,882
    2004 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,719
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2000           NA       24,998           NA        4,426
 in bill....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2000
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                   Committee              compared with (+ or -)
                        Item                          1999 appropriation    Budget estimate     recommendation   ---------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  1999 appropriation    Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       TITLE I

           DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

          Veterans Benefits Administration

Compensation and pensions...........................         21,857,058          21,568,364          21,568,364            -288,694   ..................
Readjustment benefits...............................          1,175,000           1,469,000           1,469,000            +294,000   ..................
Veterans insurance and indemnities..................             46,450              28,670              28,670             -17,780   ..................
Veterans housing benefit program fund program                   300,266             282,342             282,342             -17,924   ..................
 account (indefinite)...............................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................               (300)               (300)               (300)  ..................  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................            159,121             156,958             156,958              -2,163   ..................
Education loan fund program account.................                  1                   1                   1   ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................                 (3)                 (3)                 (3)  ..................  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................                206                 214                 214                  +8   ..................
Vocational rehabilitation loans program account.....                 55                  57                  57                  +2   ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................             (2,401)             (2,531)             (2,531)              (+130)  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................                400                 415                 415                 +15   ..................
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account                515                 520                 520                  +5   ..................
Guaranteed Transitional Housing Loans for Homeless    ..................             48,250              48,250             +48,250   ..................
 Veterans program account...........................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................  ..................           (100,000)           (100,000)          (+100,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Veterans Benefits Administration.......         23,539,072          23,554,791          23,554,791             +15,719   ..................

           Veterans Health Administration

Medical care........................................         16,528,000          16,671,000          17,771,000          +1,243,000          +1,100,000
    Delayed equipment obligation....................            778,000             635,000             635,000            -143,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................         17,306,000          17,306,000          18,406,000          +1,100,000          +1,100,000

    (Transfer to general operating expenses)........           (-27,420)  ..................            (25,930)           (+53,350)           (+25,930)

Medical care cost recovery collections:
    Offsetting receipts.............................           -583,000            -608,000            -608,000             -25,000   ..................
    Appropriations (indefinite).....................            583,000             608,000             608,000             +25,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total available...............................        (17,889,000)        (17,914,000)        (19,014,000)        (+1,125,000)        (+1,100,000)

Medical and prosthetic research.....................            316,000             316,000             316,000   ..................  ..................
Medical administration and miscellaneous operating               63,000              61,200              60,703              -2,297                -497
 expenses...........................................
General Post Fund, National Homes:
    Loan program account (by transfer)..............                 (7)                 (7)                 (7)  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................                (70)                (70)                (70)  ..................  ..................
    Administrative expenses (by transfer)...........                (54)                (54)                (54)  ..................  ..................
General post fund (transfer out)....................               (-61)               (-61)               (-61)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Veterans Health Administration.........         17,685,000          17,683,200          18,782,703          +1,097,703          +1,099,503

             Departmental Administration

General operating expenses..........................            855,661             912,353             912,594             +56,933                +241
    Offsetting receipts.............................            (38,960)            (36,754)            (36,754)            (-2,206)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Program Level..........................           (894,621)           (949,107)           (949,348)           (+54,727)              (+241)

    (Transfer from medical care)....................            (27,420)  ..................  ..................           (-27,420)  ..................
    (Transfer from national cemetery)...............                (90)  ..................  ..................               (-90)  ..................
    (Transfer from inspector general)...............                (30)  ..................  ..................               (-30)  ..................
National Cemetery Administration....................             92,006              97,000              97,256              +5,250                +256
    (Transfer to general operating expenses)........               (-90)  ..................  ..................               (+90)  ..................
Office of Inspector General.........................             36,000              43,200              43,200              +7,200   ..................
    (Transfer to general operating expenses)........               (-30)  ..................  ..................               (+30)  ..................
Construction, major projects........................            142,300              60,140              70,140             -72,160             +10,000
Construction, minor projects........................            175,000             175,000             175,000   ..................  ..................
Grants for construction of State extended care                   90,000              40,000              90,000   ..................            +50,000
 facilities.........................................
Grants for the construction of State veterans                    10,000              11,000              25,000             +15,000             +14,000
 cemeteries.........................................
Capital asset fund..................................  ..................             10,000   ..................  ..................            -10,000
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental Administration............          1,400,967           1,348,693           1,413,190             +12,223             +64,497
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department of Veterans Affairs         42,625,039          42,586,684          43,750,684          +1,125,645          +1,164,000
          (By transfer).............................                (61)                (61)            (25,991)           (+25,930)           (+25,930)
          (Limitation on direct loans)..............             (2,774)           (102,904)           (102,904)          (+100,130)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Consisting of:
              Mandatory.............................        (23,378,774)        (23,396,626)        (23,396,626)           (+17,852)  ..................
              Discretionary.........................        (19,246,265)        (19,190,058)        (20,354,058)        (+1,107,793)        (+1,164,000)

                      TITLE II

     DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

              Public and Indian Housing

Housing Certificate Fund............................         10,326,542           7,322,095           6,851,135          -3,475,407            -470,960
    (By transfer)...................................  ..................           (183,000)           (183,000)          (+183,000)  ..................
    Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001.........  ..................          4,200,000           4,200,000          +4,200,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total funding.................................         10,326,542          11,522,095          11,051,135            +724,593            -470,960

Housing set-asides:
    Expiring section 8 contracts....................         (9,600,000)        (10,640,135)        (10,855,135)        (+1,255,135)          (+215,000)
    Section 8 relocation assistance.................           (433,542)           (156,000)           (156,000)          (-277,542)  ..................
    Regional opportunity counseling.................            (10,000)            (20,000)  ..................           (-10,000)           (-20,000)
    Welfare to work housing vouchers................           (283,000)           (144,400)  ..................          (-283,000)          (-144,400)
    Contract administration.........................  ..................           (209,000)  ..................  ..................          (-209,000)
    Incremental vouchers............................  ..................           (346,560)  ..................  ..................          (-346,560)
    Administrative fee change.......................  ..................             (6,000)  ..................  ..................            (-6,000)
    Voucher for disabled............................            (40,000)  ..................            (40,000)  ..................           (+40,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal......................................        (10,366,542)        (11,522,095)        (11,051,135)          (+684,593)          (-470,960)

    Section 8 (rescission)..........................         -1,650,000   ..................  ..................         +1,650,000   ..................
Public housing capital fund.........................          3,000,000           2,555,000           2,555,000            -445,000   ..................
Public housing operating fund.......................          2,818,000           3,003,000           2,900,000             +82,000            -103,000
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal......................................          5,818,000           5,558,000           5,455,000            -363,000            -103,000

Drug elimination grants for low-income housing......            310,000             310,000             310,000   ..................  ..................
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing            625,000             625,000             500,000            -125,000            -125,000
 (HOPE VI)..........................................
Indian housing block grant..........................            620,000             620,000             620,000   ..................  ..................
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account..              6,000               6,000               6,000   ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)................            (68,881)            (71,956)            (71,956)            (+3,075)  ..................

         Community Planning and Development

Rural housing and economic development..............             25,000              20,000              25,000   ..................             +5,000
Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS.........            225,000             240,000             225,000   ..................            -15,000
    Additional provisions--Division A, Public Law                10,000   ..................  ..................            -10,000   ..................
     105-277........................................
Community development block grants..................          4,750,000           4,775,000           4,800,000             +50,000             +25,000
    Emergency funding...............................            250,000   ..................  ..................           -250,000   ..................
Section 108 loan guarantees:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)................         (1,261,000)         (1,261,000)         (1,261,000)  ..................  ..................
    Credit subsidy..................................             29,000              29,000              29,000   ..................  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................              1,000               1,000               1,000   ..................  ..................
Brownfields redevelopment...........................             25,000              50,000              25,000   ..................            -25,000
Regional connections................................  ..................             50,000   ..................  ..................            -50,000
Regional empowerment zone initiative................  ..................             50,000   ..................  ..................            -50,000
Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities                     45,000   ..................  ..................            -45,000   ..................
 Additional provisions--Division A, Public Law 105-
 277................................................
America's private investment companies:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)................  ..................         (1,000,000)  ..................  ..................        (-1,000,000)
    Credit subsidy..................................  ..................             37,000   ..................  ..................            -37,000
Redevelopment of abandoned buildings initiative.....  ..................             50,000   ..................  ..................            -50,000
HOME investment partnerships program................          1,600,000           1,610,000           1,600,000   ..................            -10,000
Homeless assistance grants..........................            975,000           1,020,000           1,020,000             +45,000   ..................
Homeless assistance demonstration project...........  ..................              5,000   ..................  ..................             -5,000
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Community planning and development.....          7,935,000           7,937,000           7,725,000            -210,000            -212,000
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, Public and Indian Housing (excl                 23,990,542          22,378,095          21,467,135          -2,523,407            -910,960
       advances)....................................

                  Housing Programs

Housing for special populations.....................            854,000             854,000             904,000             +50,000             +50,000
    Housing for the elderly.........................           (660,000)           (660,000)           (710,000)           (+50,000)           (+50,000)
    Housing for the disabled........................           (194,000)           (194,000)           (194,000)  ..................  ..................

           Federal Housing Administration

FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)................       (110,000,000)       (120,000,000)       (120,000,000)       (+10,000,000)  ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................           (100,000)            (50,000)           (100,000)  ..................           (+50,000)
    Administrative expenses.........................            328,888             330,888             330,888              +2,000   ..................
    Offsetting receipts.............................           -529,000   ..................  ..................           +529,000   ..................
    Administrative contract expenses................  ..................            160,000             160,000            +160,000   ..................
    Additional contract expenses....................  ..................              4,000               4,000              +4,000   ..................
FHA--General and special risk program account:
    Program costs...................................             81,000   ..................  ..................            -81,000   ..................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)................        (18,100,000)        (18,100,000)        (18,100,000)  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................            (50,000)            (50,000)            (50,000)  ..................  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................            211,455              64,000              64,000            -147,455   ..................
    Administrative expenses (unobligated balances)..  ..................           (147,000)           (147,000)          (+147,000)  ..................
    Subsidies for fiscal year 1999..................           -125,000   ..................  ..................           +125,000   ..................
    Negative subsidy................................  ..................            -75,000             -75,000             -75,000   ..................
    Subsidy (unobligated balances)..................  ..................           (153,000)           (153,000)          (+153,000)  ..................
    Non-overhead administrative expenses............  ..................            144,000             144,000            +144,000   ..................
    Additional contract expenses....................  ..................              7,000               7,000              +7,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Housing Administration.........            -32,657             634,888             634,888            +667,545   ..................

      Government National Mortgage Association

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan
 guarantee program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)................       (150,000,000)       (200,000,000)       (200,000,000)       (+50,000,000)  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................              9,383              15,383              15,383              +6,000   ..................
    Offsetting receipts.............................           -370,000            -422,000            -422,000             -52,000   ..................

           Policy Development and Research

Research and technology.............................             47,500              50,000              35,000             -12,500             -15,000

         Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair housing activities.............................             40,000              47,000              40,000   ..................             -7,000

            Office of Lead Hazard Control

Lead hazard reduction...............................             80,000              80,000              80,000   ..................  ..................

            Management and Administration

Salaries and expenses...............................            456,843             502,000             457,093                +250             -44,907
    (By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds)           (518,000)           (518,000)           (518,000)  ..................  ..................
    (By transfer, GNMA).............................             (9,383)             (9,383)             (9,383)  ..................  ..................
    (By transfer, Community Planning and                         (1,000)             (1,000)             (1,000)  ..................  ..................
     Development)...................................
    (By transfer, Title VI).........................               (200)               (150)               (150)               (-50)  ..................
    (By transfer, Indian Housing)...................               (400)               (200)               (200)              (-200)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and expenses..................           (985,826)         (1,030,733)           (985,826)  ..................           (-44,907)

    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)..............             12,200   ..................  ..................            -12,200   ..................
Office of Inspector General.........................             49,567              38,000              63,567             +14,000             +25,567
    (By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds)            (22,343)            (22,343)            (22,343)  ..................  ..................
    (By transfer from Drug Elimination Grants)......            (10,000)            (10,000)            (10,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of Inspector General............            (81,910)            (70,343)            (95,910)           (+14,000)           (+25,567)

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight......             16,000              19,493              16,000   ..................             -3,493
    Offsetting receipts.............................            -16,000             -19,493             -16,000   ..................             +3,493

              Administrative Provisions

Single Family Property Disposition..................           -400,000   ..................  ..................           +400,000   ..................
Sec. 212, calculation of downpayment................             15,000   ..................  ..................            -15,000   ..................
FHA increase in loan amounts........................            -83,000   ..................  ..................            +83,000   ..................
GSE user fee........................................  ..................            -10,000   ..................  ..................            +10,000
Sec. 214, general transfer authority................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
Sec. 208 FHA........................................  ..................           -319,000            -319,000            -319,000   ..................
Annual contribution (transfer out)..................  ..................           (-79,000)           (-79,000)           (-79,000)  ..................
Annual contributions (transfer out).................  ..................          (-104,000)          (-104,000)          (-104,000)  ..................
    Section 236(g) amendment........................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, administrative provisions..............           -468,000            -329,000            -319,000            +149,000             +10,000
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of Housing and             24,669,378          28,048,366          27,156,066          +2,486,688            -892,300
       Urban Development............................

          Current year, fiscal year 2000............        (24,669,378)        (23,848,366)        (22,956,066)        (-1,713,312)          (-892,300)
              Appropriations........................        (26,057,178)        (23,848,366)        (22,956,066)        (-3,101,112)          (-892,300)
              Rescission............................        (-1,650,000)  ..................  ..................        (+1,650,000)  ..................
              Emergency appropriations..............           (262,200)  ..................  ..................          (-262,200)  ..................

          Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001...  ..................         (4,200,000)         (4,200,000)        (+4,200,000)  ..................

          (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........       (279,361,000)       (340,361,000)       (339,361,000)       (+60,000,000)        (-1,000,000)
          (Limitation on corporate funds)...........           (561,326)           (561,076)           (561,076)              (-250)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
                      TITLE III

                INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

        American Battle Monuments Commission

Salaries and expenses...............................             26,431              26,467              26,467                 +36   ..................

   Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

Salaries and expenses...............................              6,500               7,500               6,500   ..................             -1,000

             Department of the Treasury

    Community Development Financial Institutions

Community development financial institutions fund                80,000             110,000              80,000   ..................            -30,000
 program account....................................
    Microenterprise technical assistance............  ..................             15,000   ..................  ..................            -15,000
    Additional provisions--Division A, Public Law                15,000   ..................  ..................            -15,000   ..................
     105-277........................................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................             95,000             125,000              80,000             -15,000             -45,000

         Consumer Product Safety Commission

Salaries and expenses...............................             47,000              50,500              49,500              +2,500              -1,000

   Corporation for National and Community Service

National and community service programs operating               425,500             545,500             423,500              -2,000            -122,000
 expenses...........................................
    Additional provisions--Division A, Public Law                10,000   ..................  ..................            -10,000   ..................
     105-277........................................
    Rescission......................................  ..................  ..................            -80,000             -80,000             -80,000
Office of Inspector General.........................              3,000               3,000               5,000              +2,000              +2,000
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................            438,500             548,500             348,500             -90,000            -200,000

 United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Salaries and expenses...............................             10,195              11,450              11,450              +1,255   ..................

            Department of Defense--Civil

              Cemeterial Expenses, Army

Salaries and expenses...............................             11,666              12,473              12,473                +807   ..................

           Environmental Protection Agency

Science and Technology..............................            650,000             642,483             642,483              -7,517   ..................
    Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund.....             40,000              37,271              38,000              -2,000                +729
    Additional provisions--Division A, Public Law                10,000   ..................  ..................            -10,000   ..................
     105-277........................................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science and Technology..............            700,000             679,754             680,483             -19,517                +729

Environmental Programs and Management...............          1,846,700           2,046,993           1,885,000             +38,300            -161,993
Office of Inspector General.........................             31,154              29,409              32,409              +1,255              +3,000
    Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund.....             12,237              10,753              10,753              -1,484   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, OIG.................................             43,391              40,162              43,162                -229              +3,000

Buildings and facilities............................             56,948              62,630              25,930             -31,018             -36,700

Hazardous Substance Superfund.......................          1,400,000           1,500,000           1,300,000            -100,000            -200,000
    Delay of obligation.............................            100,000   ..................            100,000   ..................           +100,000
    Transfer to Office of Inspector General.........            -12,237             -10,753             -10,753              +1,484   ..................
    Transfer to Science and Technology..............            -40,000             -37,271             -38,000              +2,000                -729
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Hazardous Substance Superfund.......          1,447,763           1,451,976           1,351,247             -96,516            -100,729

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program............             72,500              71,556              71,556                -944   ..................
Oil spill response..................................             15,000              15,618              15,000   ..................               -618

State and Tribal Assistance Grants..................          2,506,750           1,953,000           2,355,000            -151,750            +402,000
    Categorical grants..............................            880,000             884,957             895,000             +15,000             +10,043
    Additional provisions--Division A, Public Law                20,000   ..................  ..................            -20,000   ..................
     105-277........................................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, STAG................................          3,406,750           2,837,957           3,250,000            -156,750            +412,043
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, EPA....................................          7,589,052           7,206,646           7,322,378            -266,674            +115,732

          Executive Office of the President

Office of Science and Technology Policy.............              5,026               5,201               5,201                +175   ..................
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of                    2,675               3,020               2,675   ..................               -345
 Environmental Quality..............................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................              7,701               8,221               7,876                +175                -345

        Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Office of Inspector General (transfer)..............            (34,666)            (33,666)            (34,666)  ..................            (+1,000)

         Federal Emergency Management Agency

Disaster relief.....................................            307,745             300,000             300,000              -7,745   ..................
    (Transfer out)..................................  ..................            (-2,900)            (-2,900)            (-2,900)  ..................
    Emergency funding...............................            906,000           2,480,425   ..................           -906,000          -2,480,425
Pre-disaster mitigation.............................  ..................             30,000   ..................  ..................            -30,000
    (Transfer out)..................................  ..................             (2,500)  ..................  ..................            (-2,500)
Disaster assistance direct loan program account:
    State share loan................................              1,355               1,295               1,295                 -60   ..................
        (Limitation on direct loans)................            (25,000)            (25,000)            (25,000)  ..................  ..................
    Administrative expenses.........................                440                 420                 420                 -20   ..................
Salaries and expenses...............................            171,138             189,720             180,000              +8,862              -9,720
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)..............              3,641   ..................  ..................             -3,641   ..................
Office of Inspector General.........................              5,400               8,015               8,015              +2,615   ..................
Emergency management planning and assistance........            240,824             250,850             255,850             +15,026              +5,000
    (By transfer)...................................  ..................             (5,400)             (2,900)            (+2,900)            (-2,500)
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)..............              3,711   ..................  ..................             -3,711   ..................
Radiological emergency preparedness fund............             12,849   ..................  ..................            -12,849   ..................
    Collection of fees..............................            -12,849   ..................  ..................            +12,849   ..................
    New language....................................  ..................             -1,000              -1,000              -1,000   ..................
Emergency food and shelter program..................            100,000             125,000             110,000             +10,000             -15,000
Flood map modernization fund........................  ..................              5,000   ..................  ..................             -5,000
National insurance development fund.................  ..................             (3,730)             (3,730)            (+3,730)  ..................
National Flood Insurance Fund (limitation on
 administrative expenses):
    Salaries and expenses...........................            (22,685)            (24,131)            (24,333)            (+1,648)              (+202)
    Flood mitigation................................            (78,464)            (78,912)            (78,710)              (+246)              (-202)
    (Transfer out)..................................  ..................           (-20,000)           (-20,000)           (-20,000)  ..................
National flood mitigation fund......................  ..................             12,000   ..................  ..................            -12,000
    (By transfer)...................................  ..................            (20,000)            (20,000)           (+20,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Emergency Management Agency....          1,740,254           3,401,725             854,580            -885,674          -2,547,145

          Appropriations............................           (826,902)           (921,300)           (854,580)           (+27,678)           (-66,720)
          Emergency funding.........................           (913,352)         (2,480,425)  ..................          (-913,352)        (-2,480,425)

           General Services Administration

Consumer Information Center Fund....................              2,619               2,622               2,622                  +3   ..................

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Human space flight..................................          5,480,000           5,638,000   ..................         -5,480,000          -5,638,000
International Space Station.........................  ..................  ..................          2,482,700          +2,482,700          +2,482,700
Launch vehicles and payload operation...............  ..................  ..................          3,156,000          +3,156,000          +3,156,000
Science, aeronautics and technology.................          5,653,900           5,424,700           5,424,700            -229,200   ..................
Mission support.....................................          2,511,100           2,494,900           2,495,000             -16,100                +100
Office of Inspector General.........................             20,000              20,800              20,000   ..................               -800
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NASA...................................         13,665,000          13,578,400          13,578,400             -86,600   ..................

        National Credit Union Administration

Central liquidity facility:
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................           (600,000)           (600,000)  ..................          (-600,000)          (-600,000)
    (Limitation on administrative expenses,                        (176)               (257)               (257)               (+81)  ..................
     corporate funds)...............................
    Revolving loan program..........................              2,000   ..................  ..................             -2,000   ..................

             National Science Foundation

Research and related activities.....................          2,770,000           3,004,000           3,007,300            +237,300              +3,300
Major research equipment............................             90,000              85,000              70,000             -20,000             -15,000
Education and human resources.......................            662,000             678,000             688,600             +26,600             +10,600
Salaries and expenses...............................            144,000             149,000             150,000              +6,000              +1,000
Office of Inspector General.........................              5,200               5,450               5,550                +350                +100
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NSF....................................          3,671,200           3,921,450           3,921,450            +250,250   ..................

        Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation             90,000              90,000              60,000             -30,000             -30,000

              Selective Service System

Salaries and expenses...............................             24,176              25,250              25,250              +1,074   ..................
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)..............                250   ..................  ..................               -250   ..................
    Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2001........  ..................             25,250   ..................  ..................            -25,250
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................             24,426              50,500              25,250                +824             -25,250
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title III, Independent agencies........         27,427,544          29,041,454          26,307,446          -1,120,098          -2,734,008

          Appropriations............................        (26,513,942)        (26,561,029)        (26,307,446)          (-206,496)          (-253,583)
              Rescission............................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
          Emergency funding.........................           (913,602)         (2,480,425)  ..................          (-913,602)        (-2,480,425)
          (Limitation on administrative expenses)...           (101,149)           (103,043)           (103,043)            (+1,894)  ..................
          (Limitation on direct loans)..............           (625,000)           (625,000)            (25,000)          (-600,000)          (-600,000)
          (Limitation on corporate funds)...........               (176)               (257)               (257)               (+81)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Grand total...................................         94,721,961          99,676,504          97,214,196          +2,492,235          -2,462,308

          Current year, fiscal year 2000............        (94,721,961)        (95,476,504)        (93,014,196)        (-1,707,765)        (-2,462,308)
              Appropriations........................        (96,846,159)        (92,970,829)        (93,094,196)        (-3,751,963)          (+123,367)
              Rescission............................        (-1,650,000)  ..................  ..................        (+1,650,000)  ..................
              Emergency funding.....................         (1,175,802)         (2,480,425)  ..................        (-1,175,802)        (-2,480,425)
          Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001...  ..................         (4,200,000)         (4,200,000)        (+4,200,000)  ..................

          (By transfer).............................            (34,727)           (236,727)           (263,657)          (+228,930)           (+26,930)
          (Transfer out)............................               (-61)          (-198,061)          (-203,061)          (-203,000)            (-5,000)
          (Limitation on administrative expenses)...           (101,149)           (103,043)           (103,043)            (+1,894)  ..................
          (Limitation on direct loans)..............           (846,655)           (899,860)           (349,860)          (-496,795)          (-550,000)
          (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........       (279,361,000)       (340,361,000)       (339,361,000)       (+60,000,000)        (-1,000,000)
          (Limitation on corporate funds)...........           (561,502)           (561,333)           (561,333)              (-169)  ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




