[House Report 107-159]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-159

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



 
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

                                _______
                                

 July 25, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2620]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs....................     2
                                                                      4
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development......    21
                                                                     22
Title III--Independent Agencies............................    54
                                                                     46
        American Battle Monuments Commission...............    54
                                                                     46
        Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.....    55
                                                                     48
        Community Development Financial Institutions.......    56
                                                                     48
        Consumer Product Safety Commission.................    57
                                                                     49
        Corporation for National and Community Service.....    57
                                                                     49
        U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims..........    58
                                                                     50
        Department of Defense--Civil, Cemeterial Expenses, 
            Army...........................................    58
                                                                     50
        National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences    59
                                                                     51
        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry...    59
                                                                     51
        Environmental Protection Agency....................    60
                                                                     52
        Office of Science and Technology Policy............    68
                                                                     71
        Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
            Environmental Quality..........................    68
                                                                     71
        Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation..............    69
                                                                     72
        Federal Emergency Management Agency................    69
                                                                     73
        Federal Consumer Information Center................    74
                                                                     79
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration......    75
                                                                     80
        National Credit Union Administration...............    80
                                                                     91
        National Science Foundation........................    80
                                                                     91
        Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation..............    83
                                                                     97
        Selective Service System...........................    83
                                                                     98
Title IV--General Provisions...............................    84
                                                                     98

                          Summary of the Bill

    The Committee recommends $112,616,553,000 in new budget 
(obligational) authority for the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 20 independent 
agencies and offices. This is $7,483,225,000 above the 2001 
appropriations level.
    The following table summarizes the amounts recommended in 
the bill in comparison with the appropriations for fiscal year 
2001 and budget estimates for fiscal year 2002.


                                TITLE I

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.....................     $51,353,821,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation......................  \1\ 47,948,336,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.....................      50,686,213,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation......      +3,364,485,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.....       +667,608,000

\1\ Includes supplemental requests for Compensation and Readjustment
  benefits totaling $936,413,000.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs is the third largest 
Federal agency in terms of employment with an average 
employment of approximately 205,000. It administers benefits 
for more than 25,000,000 veterans, and 45,500,000 family 
members of living veterans and survivors of deceased veterans. 
Thus, close to 70,000,000 people, comprising about 25 percent 
of the total population of the United States, are potential 
recipients of veterans benefits provided by the Federal 
Government.
    A total of $51,353,821,000 in new budget authority is 
recommended by the Committee for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs in fiscal year 2002. The funds recommended 
provide for compensation payments to 2,681,132 veterans and 
survivors of deceased veterans with service-connected 
disabilities; pension payment for 587,448 non-service-connected 
disabled veterans, widows and children in need of financial 
assistance; education training tuition assistance, and 
vocational assistance of 672,200 veterans, servicepersons, and 
reservists, and 50,320 eligible dependents of deceased veterans 
or seriously disabled veterans; housing credit assistance in 
the form of 240,000 guaranteed loans provided to veterans and 
servicepersons; administration or supervision of life insurance 
programs with 4,289,330 policies for veterans and active duty 
servicepersons providing coverage of $554,273,500,000; 
inpatient care and treatment of beneficiaries in 172 medical 
centers, 43 domiciliaries, 135 nursing homes and 876 outpatient 
clinics which includes independent, satellite, community-based, 
and rural outreach clinics involving 40,634,000 visits; and the 
administration of the National Cemetery Administration for 
burial of eligible veterans, servicepersons, and their 
survivors.

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


                       compensation and pensions

                     (including transfers of funds)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.....................     $24,944,288,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation......................  \1\ 23,355,689,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.....................      24,944,288,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation......      +1,588,599,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.....                  0

\1\ Includes a supplemental request of $589,413,000.

    This appropriation provides funds for service-connected 
compensation payments to an estimated 2,681,132 beneficiaries 
and pension payments to another 587,448 beneficiaries with non-
service-connected disabilities. The average cost per 
compensation case in 2002 is estimated at $8,131, and pension 
payments are projected at a unit cost of $5,050. The estimated 
caseload and cost by program for 2001 and 2002 are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2001                2002             Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
    Compensation:
        Veterans....................................           2,324,225           2,371,834             +47,609
        Survivors...................................             306,842             308,316              +1,474
        Children....................................                 936                 982                 +46
        Clothing allowance (non-add)................            (76,285)            (76,234)               (-51)
    Pensions:
        Veterans....................................             360,724             352,033              -8,691
        Survivors...................................             249,142             235,415             -13,727
        Minimum income for widows (non-add).........               (558)               (523)               (-35)
        Vocational training (non-add)...............                 (5)                 (3)                (-2)
        Burial allowances...........................              91,740              93,740              +2,000
                                                     ===========================================================
Funds:
    Compensation:
        Veterans....................................     $16,621,523,000     $17,939,507,000     +$1,317,984,000
        Survivors...................................       3,676,267,000       3,805,051,000        +128,784,000
        Children....................................          13,431,000          14,808,000          +1,377,000
        Clothing allowance..........................          41,687,000          41,652,000             -35,000
        Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and 102-           1,266,000           1,286,000             +20,000
         568).......................................
        Medical exams pilot program (Public Law 104-          26,701,000          28,749,000          +2,048,000
         275).......................................
    Pensions:
        Veterans....................................       2,312,739,000       2,306,208,000          -6,531,000
        Survivors...................................         683,736,000         656,848,000         -26,888,000
        Minimum income for widows...................           3,585,000           3,444,000            -141,000
        Vocational training.........................               6,000               4,000              -2,000
        Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-              8,521,000           8,564,000             +43,000
         568, and 103-446)..........................
    Payment to medical care (Public Laws 101-508 and           7,632,000           8,090,000            +458,000
     102-568).......................................
    Payment to medical facilities (non-add).........         (2,207,000)         (2,320,000)          (+113,000)
    Burial benefits.................................         129,837,000         130,300,000            +463,000
    Other assistance................................           3,212,000           3,221,000              +9,000
    Unobligated balance and transfers...............        -174,455,000          -3,444,000        +171,011,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation \1\.......................      23,355,689,000      24,944,288,000     +1,588,599,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals do not add due to rounding.

    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee is recommending the 
budget estimate of $24,944,288,000 for compensation and 
pensions. The bill also includes requested language not to 
exceed $17,940,000 in reimbursements of which $9,850,000 is 
transferred to the General Operating Expenses account and 
$8,090,000 to the Medical Care account for administrative 
expenses of implementing cost saving provisions required by the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-508, 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992, Public Law 102-568, and the 
Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Public Law 103-
446. These cost savings provisions include verifying pension 
income against Internal Revenue Service and Social Security 
Administration (SSA) data; establishing a match with the SSA to 
obtain verification of Social Security numbers; and the $90 
monthly Department pension cap for Medicaid-eligible single 
veterans and surviving spouses alone in Medicaid-covered 
nursing homes. Also, the bill includes requested language 
permitting this appropriation to reimburse such sums as may be 
earned to the Medical Facilities Revolving Fund to help defray 
the operating expenses of individual medical facilities for 
nursing home care provided to pensioners.
    The Administration has proposed language that would provide 
indefinite 2002 supplemental appropriations for compensation 
and pension payments. The Committee believes the current 
funding procedures are adequate and has not included the 
requested language in the bill.

                         READJUSTMENT BENEFITS




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.....................      $2,135,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation......................   \1\ 1,981,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.....................       2,135,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation......        +154,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.....                  0

\1\ Includes a supplemental request of $347,000,000.

    This appropriation finances the education and training of 
veterans and servicepersons whose initial entry on active duty 
took place on or after July 1, 1985. These benefits are 
included in the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance 
Program. Eligibility to receive this assistance began in 1987. 
Basic benefits are funded through appropriations made to the 
readjustment benefits appropriation and transfers from the 
Department of Defense. Supplemental benefits are also provided 
to certain veterans through education assistance to certain 
members of the Selected Reserve and is funded through transfers 
from the Departments of Defense and Transportation. In 
addition, certain disabled veterans are provided with 
vocational rehabilitation, specially adapted housing grants, 
and automobile grants with approved adaptive equipment. This 
account also finances educational assistance allowances for 
eligible dependents of those veterans who died from service-
connected causes or have a total and permanent service-
connected disability as well as dependents of servicepersons 
who were captured or missing-in-action.
    The Committee recommends the budget estimates of 
$2,135,000,000 for readjustment benefits in fiscal year 2002. 
The Administration has proposed language that would provide 
indefinite 2002 supplemental appropriations for readjustment 
benefits. The Committee believes the current funding procedures 
are adequate and has not included the requested language in the 
bill.
    The estimated number of trainees and costs by program for 
2001 and 2002 are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2001                2002             Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
    Education and training: dependents..............              47,107              50,320              +3,213
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons.................             324,300             334,300             +10,000
        Reservists..................................              71,500              70,500              -1,000
    Vocational rehabilitation.......................              53,250              53,400                +150
    Tuition assistance..............................             161,000             214,000             +53,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................             657,157             722,520             +65,363
                                                     ===========================================================
Funds:
    Education and training: dependents..............        $173,694,000        $186,036,000        +$12,342,000
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons.................       1,356,150,000       1,444,752,000         +88,602,000
        Reservists..................................         115,850,000         123,504,000          +7,654,000
        Vocational rehabilitation...................         419,200,000         432,100,000         +12,900,000
        Tuition assistance..........................          24,900,000          34,500,000          +9,600,000
        Licensing and certification tests...........           2,860,000          16,860,000         +14,000,000
        Housing grants..............................          22,805,000          22,805,000                   0
        Automobiles and other conveyances...........           7,947,000           7,947,000                   0
        Adaptive equipment..........................          27,500,000          27,500,000                   0
        Work-study..................................          50,500,000          49,500,000          -1,000,000
        Payment to States...........................          14,000,000          14,000,000                   0
        Reporting fees..............................           3,052,000           3,500,000            +448,000
        Unobligated balance and other adjustments           -237,458,000        -228,004,000          +9,454,000
         \1\........................................
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation...........................       1,981,000,000       2,135,000,000       +154,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes offsetting collections.

                   VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $26,200,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        19,850,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        26,200,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +6,350,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Veterans Insurance and Indemnities appropriation is 
made up of the former appropriations for military and naval 
insurance, applicable to World War I veterans; national service 
life insurance (NSLI), applicable to certain World War II 
veterans; servicemen's indemnities, applicable to Korean 
conflict veterans; and the veterans mortgage life insurance, 
applicable to individuals who have received a grant for 
specially adapted housing.
    The budget estimate of $26,200,000 for veterans insurance 
and indemnities in fiscal year 2002 is included in the bill. 
The amount provided will enable the Department to transfer more 
than $18,760,000 to the service-disabled veterans insurance 
fund and transfer $8,260,000 in payments for the 3,250 policies 
under the veterans mortgage life insurance program. These 
policies are identified under the veterans insurance and 
indemnity appropriation since they provide insurance to 
service-disabled veterans unable to qualify under basic NSLI.
    The Administration has proposed language that would 
eliminate the need for a supplemental request. The Committee 
believes the current funding procedures are adequate and has 
not included the requested language in the bill.

         VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 recommendation...........................      $203,278,000          $300,000      $164,497,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation............................       165,740,000           300,000       162,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request...........................       203,278,000           300,000       164,497,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation............       +37,538,000                 0        +2,497,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the VA home loan guaranty program is to 
facilitate the extension of mortgage credit on favorable terms 
by private lenders to eligible veterans. This appropriation 
provides for all costs, with the exception of the native 
American veterans housing loan program, of the Department's 
direct and guaranteed loans programs. The Federal Credit Reform 
Act of 1990 requires budgetary resources to be available prior 
to incurring a direct loan obligation or a loan guarantee 
commitment. In addition, the Act requires all administrative 
expenses of a direct or guaranteed loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    VA loan guaranties are made to servicemembers, veterans, 
reservists and unremarried surviving spouses for the purchase 
of homes, condominiums, manufactured homes and for refinancing 
loans. The Department guarantees part of the total loan, 
permitting the purchaser to obtain a mortgage with a 
competitive interest rate, even without a downpayment if the 
lender agrees. The Department requires that a downpayment be 
made for a manufactured home. With a Department guaranty, the 
lender is protected against loss up to the amount of the 
guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the loan.
    The Committee recommends such sums as may be necessary 
(estimated to total $203,278,000) for funding subsidy payments, 
$300,000 for the limitation on direct loans, and $164,497,000 
for administrative expenses which is the budget request. The 
appropriation for administrative expenses may be transferred to 
and merged with the General Operating Expenses account.
    The Committee does not recommend the Administration's 
proposal to eliminate the Secretary's authority (38 U.S.C. 
3733) to finance the sale of acquired properties.

                  EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 recommendation...........................            $1,000            $3,400           $64,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation............................             1,000             3,400           220,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request...........................             1,000             3,400            64,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation............                 0                 0          -156,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This appropriation covers the cost of direct loans for 
eligible dependents and, in addition, it includes 
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct loan 
program. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires 
budgetary resources to be available prior to incurring a direct 
loan obligation. In addition, the Act requires all 
administrative expenses of a direct loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    The bill includes the budget requests of $1,000 for funding 
subsidy program costs, $3,400 as the limitation on direct 
loans, and $64,000 for administrative expenses. The 
appropriation for administrative expenses may be transferred to 
and merged with the General Operating Expenses account.

            VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 recommendation...........................           $72,000        $3,301,000          $274,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation............................            52,000         2,726,000           432,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request...........................            72,000         3,301,000           274,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation............           +20,000          +575,000          -158,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This appropriation covers the funding subsidy cost of 
direct loans for vocational rehabilitation of eligible veterans 
and, in addition, it includes administrative expenses necessary 
to carry out the direct loan program. Loans of up to $866 
(based on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are 
available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in 
vocational rehabilitation programs when the veteran is 
temporarily in need of additional assistance. Repayment is made 
in 10 monthly installments, without interest, through 
deductions from future payments of compensation, pension, 
subsistence allowance, educational assistance allowance, or 
retirement pay. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires 
budgetary resources to be available prior to incurring a direct 
loan obligation. In addition, the Act requires all 
administrative expenses of a direct loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    The bill includes the budget requests of $72,000 for 
funding subsidy program costs and $274,000 for administrative 
expenses. The administrative expenses may be transferred to and 
merged with the General Operating Expenses account. In 
addition, the bill includes requested language limiting program 
direct loans to $3,301,000. It is estimated that the Department 
will make 5,400 loans in fiscal year 2002, with an average 
amount of $611.

          NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Administrative expenses:
    Fiscal year 2002 recommendation...................          $544,000
    Fiscal year 2001 appropriation....................           532,000
    Fiscal year 2002 budget request...................           544,000
    Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation....           +12,000
    Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request...                 0


    This program is testing the feasibility of authorizing the 
Department to make direct home loans to native American 
veterans who live on U.S. trust land. This is a pilot program 
which began in 1993 and expires on December 31, 2001. The bill 
includes the budget request of $544,000 for administrative 
expenses, which may be transferred to and merged with the 
General Operating Expenses account.

  GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS PROGRAM 
                                ACCOUNT

    This program was established by Public Law 105-368, the 
Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. All funds authorized 
for this program were appropriated in fiscal year 2000. 
Therefore, no appropriation request has been included for 
fiscal year 2002. Bill language is included allowing the use of 
funds in Medical Care and General Operating Expenses to 
administer this program.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                              MEDICAL CARE




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................   $21,281,587,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................    20,281,587,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................    20,979,742,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........    +1,000,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......      +301,845,000


    The Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest 
Federal medical care delivery system in the country, with 172 
medical centers, 43 domiciliaries, 135 nursing homes, and 876 
outpatient clinics which include independent, satellite, 
community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
    This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment 
of eligible beneficiaries in VA medical centers, nursing homes, 
domiciliaries, and outpatient clinic facilities; contract 
hospitals; State domiciliaries, nursing homes and hospitals; 
contract community nursing homes; and outpatient programs on a 
fee basis. Hospital and outpatient care are also provided by 
the private sector for certain dependents and survivors of 
veterans under the civilian health and medical programs for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. Funds are also used to train 
medical residents, interns, and other professional, paramedical 
and administrative personnel in health-science fields to 
support the Department's medical programs.
    The bill includes $21,281,587,000 for medical care in 
fiscal year 2002, an increase of $1,000,000,000 above the 
enacted level and $301,845,000 over the budget request. In 
addition, the Committee estimates $812,000,000 will be 
collected and available from the Medical Care Collections Fund 
(MCCF).
    The Committee is providing two-year spending authority for 
$500,000,000 of the Medical Care appropriation to provide the 
Department more planning flexibility year to year. The 
Committee emphasizes that the two-year funding provision is not 
meant to create ``emergency funds'' and that all resources 
should be spent in a timely and responsible manner addressing 
veterans health needs.
    The bill includes language delaying the availability of 
$900,000,000 of funds requested for the equipment and land and 
structures object classifications until August 1, 2002. The 
budget requested the delayed availability of $675,000,000 of 
such funds. The bill also includes requested language in the 
Compensation and Pensions appropriation transferring $8,090,000 
for administrative expenses of implementing cost saving 
provisions required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990, and the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992.
    The Committee has again included bill language limiting the 
amount the VA may obligate for maintenance and operations of 
medical facilities to $3,000,000,000, which should be allocated 
on a system other than VERA. The Committee strongly supports 
the Department's Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced 
Services (CARES) initiative and believes that the Department 
desperately needs to address the issue of facility resource 
management.
    The Committee, however, did not include the 
Administration's proposal to set-aside $30,000,000 in Medical 
Care to fund CARES projects. Instead, the Committee directed 
the set-aside of funds in both Major Construction and Minor 
Construction to address any construction projects resulting 
from the final CARES decisions. The Committee recommends that 
the $30,000,000 be redirected to support core VA treatment 
services in the areas of mental health, spinal cord injury, 
blindness, homelessness, substance abuse, physical 
rehabilitation, long-term care, traumatic brain injury, and 
women's health.
    For a number of years GAO and the Committees on Veterans 
Affairs and Appropriations have been encouraging the VA and the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to work together to find ways to 
share resources and provide better health care for our Nation's 
military, military retirees, and veterans. The number and scope 
of cooperative efforts in this area is under whelming. The 
Committee directs the VA, in cooperation with DOD, to submit to 
the Committees on Appropriations a credible plan by September 
1, 2002 for no less than three demonstration sites where the VA 
and DOD will fully integrate operations, billing and records, 
and treatment. Further, the Committee directs the VA to include 
in the plan VA/DOD sharing options that complement CARES 
principles.
    Additionally, the Committee strongly urges the VA to 
continue working with DOD to create a shared computer-based 
patient record system.
    The Committee is again extremely concerned this year about 
the lack of progress made by the VA on collection efforts for 
``third party/first party'' revenues. Continuing on this course 
that permits millions of dollars of revenue from third parties 
to go uncollected is not acceptable. The Committee has included 
funding for the VA to initiate a demonstration for a minimum 
period of two years of a total Patient Financial Services 
system that will be compatible with the existing VA financial 
system and will supplement it to overcome the existing system 
shortcomings. The Secretary shall undertake this effort by 
obtaining a private sector contractor to install and operate 
this system as a prototype at the hospitals and clinics of a 
single VISN. The demonstration shall include the software, 
hardware, networks, interfaces, and other resources to provide 
all the functionality necessary to solve the current 
deficiencies, including: the capability to verify other 
coverage or other responsibility to pay for treatment, the 
capability to determine what the nature of the third party 
coverage, the capability to accurately accumulate all charges 
for services provided, the capability to insure that the 
treatment provided is properly coded, the capability to produce 
timely and accurate bills, and the capability to adequately 
manage the entire collection processes. Cost sharing with the 
contractor combined with cost recovery incentives may be 
considered in the development of this demonstration. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs that the effort of this 
demonstration be not less than $3,000,000.
    The Secretary is required by law, when determining the VA's 
enrollment capabilities, to ``ensure that the provision of care 
to enrollees is timely and acceptable in quality.'' In this 
regard, the Committee is extremely concerned that enrolled 
veterans, especially those veterans in priority categories 1-6, 
are not able to access health care in a reasonably timely 
manner. Therefore, the Committee directs the VA to continue 
providing medical care for all upper-priority veterans and 
those veterans already enrolled in the VA medical care system. 
The Committee further directs that the Secretary, prior to 
making the fiscal year 2002 enrollment decision, report to the 
Committees on Appropriations the enrollment decision and 
justification. The Committee strongly urges the Secretary to 
limit the enrollment of new priority seven veterans in VISNs 
where receipt collection is below 50 percent of the billed 
amounts.
    The Committee is aware the President signed the Veteran's 
Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2001, (Public Law 107-14) 
on June 5, 2001. The benefits included in that legislation were 
not included in the Department's fiscal year 2002 budget 
request and no funds in this Act have been identified to 
provide those benefits. The Committee recommends that the 
Administration deliver an official budget amendment to the 
Committees on Appropriation prior to any conference activities 
to ensure that this new legislation is adequately funded in 
fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee expects the VA to ensure that its medical 
facilities consistently make testing for hepatitis C broadly 
available to veterans and use all available funds and therapies 
in the most clinically appropriate manner. The Committee urges 
the VA to work closely with veterans' service organizations and 
other entities to mount a comprehensive public service 
education and outreach campaign to screen veterans who may have 
been exposed. Further, the Committee directs the leadership of 
VHA to communicate this expectation with every VISN and 
facility director in the veterans health care system.
    The Committee believes that the funding level for mental 
health treatment and services should not be less than that 
provided in fiscal year 2001. In addition, the Committee 
strongly encourages the Department to establish two new Mental 
Illness Research, Education and Clinical Centers in fiscal year 
2002.
    The Committee strongly urges the Department to expand its 
mental health intensive case management program and report 
semi-annually, beginning four months after the date of 
enactment, on the number of veterans covered by case management 
programs. The expansion of this very successful program should 
not come from funds already identified in the budget 
justification materials for mental health services.
    The Committee directs the Department to immediately suspend 
the fail first policy as applied to anti-psychotic medications 
and to stop the promulgation of any new schizophrenia treatment 
guidelines until the National Institute of Mental Health 
presents the results of the Clinical Anti-Psychotic Trials of 
Intervention Effectiveness Project, which is studying whether, 
and the circumstances in which, certain atypical anti-psychotic 
medications may have significant advantages over the others.
    The Committee is concerned that VISN directors are ignoring 
simple population statistics when moving or consolidating 
medical services from one facility to another. Critical care 
services should remain at the facility serving the greater 
number of enrolled and vested veterans and not moved to a 
facility serving fewer enrolled and vested patients. The 
Committee strongly discourages the VA from permitting the 
transfer of critical care services away from one central 
location serving the larger portion of veterans in the VISN.
    The Committee continues to support the Joslin Diabetes 
Center and VA deployment and refinement of the Joslin Vision 
Network (JVN) in several VISNs across the VA health care 
system. The Committee has been informed of the VA's intent to 
incorporate the JVN as a telemedicine platform component within 
VA medical protocol in the near future. Therefore, the 
Committee encourages the VA to initiate new pilot sites and 
assist wiith further technical advancement of the JVN 
technology and software compatibility toward off-the-shelf 
deployment and integration into the VA health care system.
    The Committee has become increasingly concerned that as the 
veterans population ages and more facilities are integrating 
and consolidating services, transportation to VA facilities 
becomes a greater obstacle for veterans. The Committee requests 
that the Department report on the transportation options 
available to veterans and the adequacy of those options four 
months from the date of enactment of this Act.
    The Committee encourages the Department to submit a report 
within four months of enactment of this Act on the cost and 
effectiveness of the hospital contract program in east central 
Florida and the feasibility of expanding such a program to 
other locations with similar conditions.
    The Committee urges the Department to address the critical 
problem of periodontal disease among the veterans population.
    The Committee encourages the VA to increase the number of 
VA Centers for Women Veterans and other women's health 
initiatives.
    The Committee urges the Department to create two new 
Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Centers (GRECC) in 
fiscal year 2002, giving first priority to those VISNs that 
currently do not have a GRECC.
    The Committee encourages the Department to establish 
community based outpatient clinics in Toledo, Ohio; St. Tammany 
Parish, Louisiana; Passaic County, New Jersey; and Montrose, 
Pennsylvania; and Storm Lake, Iowa.
    The Committee encourages the development of a dementia-
related illness treatment program in North Carolina and a 
hydrotherapy treatment program in Connecticut.
    Last year the Committee expressed its concern that many of 
the antibiotics upon which modern medicine relies are becoming 
ineffective and suggested that VA hospitals and clinics can 
serve as innovators and examples for other hospitals on this 
important public health matter. The Committee strongly urges 
the VA to develop, implement and evaluate innovative 
antibiotic-use practices, including the routine use of 
vaccinations against streptococcus pneumonia among elderly and 
immunocompromised veterans and their dependents.
    The Committee stands behind the commitments Congress made 
in the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act (P.L. 
106-117) to provide veterans with additional long-term care and 
emergency care services. The Committee is concerned that the 
budget request may not adequately take into account the demand 
for these enhanced services. The Committee urges the 
Administration to include full funding for the Veterans 
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act in its Fiscal Year 2003 
budget request. The Committee directs the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
to report by December 1, 2001, on the steps being taken to 
ensure adequate funding and full implementation of the Veterans 
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act.

                     Medical Care Collections Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

    The Committee expects the Department to collect 
$812,000,000 from first and third party payers in fiscal year 
2002. Bill language is included transferring those receipts to 
the Medical Care account to remain available until expended.

                    MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $371,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       351,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       360,237,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........       +20,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......       +10,763,000


    This account includes medical, rehabilitative and health 
services research. Medical research is an important aspect of 
the Department's programs, providing complete medical and 
hospital services for veterans. The prosthetic research program 
is also essential in the development and testing of prosthetic, 
orthopedic and sensory aids for the purpose of improving the 
care and rehabilitation of eligible disabled veterans, 
including amputees, paraplegics and the blind. The health 
service research program provides unique opportunities to 
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care 
delivery system. In addition, budgetary resources from a number 
of areas including appropriations from the medical care 
account; reimbursements from the Department of Defense; and 
grants from the National Institutes of Health, private 
proprietary sources, and voluntary agencies provide support for 
the Department's researchers.
    The Committee recommends $371,000,000 for medical and 
prosthetic research in fiscal year 2002. This funding level is 
$20,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 appropriation and 
$10,763,000 over the budget request.
    The Committee encourages the Department to expand research 
opportunities in the areas of integrative neuroscience, mental 
illness, substance abuse, lymphoid malignancies and Agent 
Orange-related conditions.
    The Committee is encouraged by the progress made by the VA 
and the National Technology Transfer Center during the past 
year in identifying promising VA technological advances that 
offer the potential for commercial applications. The Committee 
strongly urges that this partnership should be continued at the 
current level of effort and that a targeted partnership 
identification process is essential to the successful marketing 
and licensing process.

      MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $66,731,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        62,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        67,628,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +4,731,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......          -897,000


    This appropriation provides funds for central office 
executive direction (Under Secretary for Health and staff), 
administration and supervision of all Department medical and 
construction programs, including development and implementation 
of policies, plans, and program objectives.
    The bill provides $66,731,000, an increase of $4,731,000 
from the fiscal year 2001 funding level and $897,000 below the 
budget request which reflects the Department's decision to move 
the function of asset management to the Office of the Chief 
Financial Officer which is funded in the General Operating 
Expenses account.
    The Committee is concerned that in the momentum to 
decentralize the veterans health care system, the VA is not 
providing the leadership necessary to guarantee quality 
healthcare and sound fiscal management across the system. Three 
examples are in the areas of hepatitis C, National Reserve Fund 
allocations, and collections.
    As GAO recently pointed out in the report, ``Observations 
on VA's Assessment of Hepatitis C Budgeting and Funding,'' VISN 
directors reported that they were not aware that funding had 
been requested for hepatitis C related programs in the 
Department's fiscal year 2001 budget and subsequently provided 
in the appropriation or that the VA was strongly advocating 
screening and testing of affected veterans. The Committee 
applauds the Department's decision to move the hepatitis C 
program to the office of public health and recognizes that more 
veterans are now being screened, but the Committee is 
incredulous that hepatitis C screening, education and treatment 
was not made a part of each VISN director's 2001 performance 
agreement.
    Similarly, the Committee is deeply concerned about how the 
Department is going to assist those VISNs which requested 
supplemental funding for a second consecutive year. The 
Committee supports the National Reserve and the process to 
evaluate those needs. However, the Committee questions the 
rationale for giving loans requiring repayment from the 
National Reserve to VISNs needing supplemental funding the year 
before.
    Finally, the VA has never consistently met its anticipated 
collections goals. Much of the receipt short-fall was 
attributed to collections and billing being a new 
responsibility for the VA system, the inability of VA to bill 
for reasonable charges and the lack of Medicare subvention. 
However, further investigation shows that many VISNs and 
facilities have still not developed the systems required to 
fully collect on medical billing, leaving some VISNs with a 
large sum of accounts receivable, but a very small balance in 
the collections fund.
    The Committee directs the VA to accept immediate authority 
and responsibility for providing guidance and definite 
performance measures in the areas of fiscal management and 
maintaining core service to veterans. The VA is further 
directed to submit with the fiscal year 2002 operating plan the 
signed performance agreements of all 22 VISN directors, action 
plans for each VISN on how that VISN will improve collection 
rates, and financial reports from the three VISNs which 
received supplemental loans and funding for the second 
consecutive year summarizing how those VISNs have become 
financially sound.

                      Departmental Administration


                       GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $1,195,728,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     1,050,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     1,194,831,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      +145,728,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......          +897,000


    The General Operating Expenses appropriation provides for 
the administration of non-medical veterans benefits through the 
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and top management 
direction and support. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 
changed the accounting of Federal credit programs and required 
that all administrative costs associated with such programs be 
included within the respective credit accounts. Beginning in 
fiscal year 1992, costs incurred by housing, education, and 
vocational rehabilitation programs for administration of these 
credit programs are reimbursed by those accounts. The bill 
includes the budget requests totaling $165,379,000 in other 
accounts for these credit programs. In addition, $9,850,000 is 
transferred from the Compensation and Pensions account for 
administrative costs of implementing cost saving provisions 
required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992. Section 107 of the 
administrative provisions provides requested language which 
permits excess revenues in three insurance funds to be used for 
administrative expenses. The Department estimates that 
$37,170,000 will be utilized for such purposes in fiscal year 
2002. Prior to fiscal year 1996, such costs were included in 
the general operating expenses appropriation. Thus, in total, 
$1,639,437,000 is requested in fiscal year 2002 for 
administrative costs of non-medical benefits.
    The Committee recommends $1,195,728,000 for General 
Operating Expenses in fiscal year 2002. This amount represents 
an increase of $145,728,000 above the current level and 
$897,000 above the budget request. The bill includes requested 
language allowing $60,000,000 of the funds appropriated to be 
available for obligation for two years, the purchase of four 
motor vehicles for the VBA office in Manila, Philippines, and a 
travel limitation of $15,665,000.
    The Committee directs the VBA to be funded at not less than 
$955,352,000 as proposed in the budget justification. The 
Committee trusts that this budget request provides for the 
maximum number of new claims processors, both for compensation 
and pension and education, VBA could hire and train in fiscal 
year 2002. The Committee supports VBA's hiring initiative in 
both program and expects VBA to achieve the FTE increases 
requested in the budget request.
    The recent legislation enacted at the beginning of fiscal 
year 2001 presented some challenges to the already strained 
benefits processing system. The Committee is in the process of 
providing supplemental funding from Medical Care in the pending 
supplemental legislation. However, the claims processing delay 
forecasted for fiscal year 2002 is unacceptable. The Committee 
is encouraged by the formation of the claims processing task 
force and is cautiously optimistic on hearing its findings. The 
Committee directs the Secretary, with the VBA leadership and 
recommendations of the task force, to present a plan to the 
Committees on Appropriations on how the Department will improve 
processing times, without sacrificing accuracy, by May 2002.
    The Committee is concerned about GAO's findings published 
in the report, ``Training for Claims Processors Needs 
Evaluation.'' The expeditious training of new veterans service 
representatives is essential to VBA's plan for reducing 
processing times. The Committee directs the Department to 
submit a comprehensive training plan by January 1, 2002. In the 
report, the Department should include a timeline detailing how 
long the training program will last for new employees and by 
which standards the Department will use to determine the 
effectiveness of the training.
    The Committee urges the Department to find a way to greatly 
reduce the administrative expenses of the various loan 
programs.
    The Committee fully supports the new Office of Asset 
Enterprise Management and has provided $897,000 over the budget 
request to fund this function in the Office of the Chief 
Financial Officer. The Committee encourages the new office to 
catalog and evaluate all current leases held by the Department. 
The Committee directs that the Office create a policy for all 
VA leasing activities and communicate that policy to all VISN 
and office directors.

                        NATIONAL CEMETERY SYSTEM




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $121,169,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       109,889,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       121,169,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........       +11,280,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The National Cemetery Administration was established in 
accordance with the National Cemeteries Act of 1973. It has a 
fourfold mission: to provide for the interment in any national 
cemetery with available grave space the remains of eligible 
deceased service persons and discharged veterans, together with 
their spouses and certain dependents, and to permanently 
maintain their graves; to mark graves of eligible persons in 
national and private cemeteries; to administer the grant 
program for aid to States in establishing, expanding, or 
improving State veterans' cemeteries; and to administer the 
Presidential Memorial Certificate Program. This appropriation 
provides for the operation and maintenance of 152 cemeterial 
installations in 39 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico.
    The Committee recommends $121,169,000 for the National 
Cemetery Administration in fiscal year 2002. This funding level 
is $11,280,000 over the 2001 level and the same as the budget 
request. The Committee is providing funds to meet needs 
associated with new cemeteries and the increased workload 
projected by the Department.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $52,308,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        46,464,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        48,308,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +5,844,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......        +4,000,000


    The Office of Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit, 
investigation and inspection of all Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs and operations. The overall operational 
objective is to focus available resources on areas which would 
help improve services to veterans and their beneficiaries, 
assist managers of Department programs to operate economically 
in accomplishing program goals, and prevent and deter recurring 
and potential fraud, waste and inefficiencies.
    The Committee has provided $52,308,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General in fiscal year 2002. This amount is an 
increase of $5,844,000 above the current year appropriation and 
$4,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee has provided 
additional funding for the Office of Inspector General to hire 
up to its statutory floor. The Committee directs the IG to use 
the additional funds for increased oversight and review of the 
VA health care system.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $183,180,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        66,040,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       183,180,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      +117,140,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The construction, major projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
Department, including planning, architectural and engineering 
services, Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services 
(CARES) activities, and site acquisition where the estimated 
cost of a project is $4,000,000 or more. Emphasis is placed on 
correction of life/safety code deficiencies in existing 
Department medical facilities.
    The Department proposes a change in the appropriation 
language to allow available funds to be expended for activities 
related to the ongoing CARES studies. The Committee directs 
that $60,000,000 of the funds made available in this account be 
used for CARES activities. This will enable VA to fund advance 
planning, design development, construction documents, and 
construction for major capital initiatives stemming from the 
CARES recommendations. Any CARES related major construction 
project would continue to meet authorization (medical 
facilities $4,000,000 and over) and budgetary requirements 
(approved by Congress in the budgetary process). Ten million 
dollars of the $60,000,000 dedicated to CARES in the major 
construction fund has been included to accomplish the Phase III 
studies (the remaining 14 networks) to begin in FY 2002. If 
less than $10,000,000 is needed to perform the Phase III 
studies, the remaining balance may be used to fund other major 
construction CARES needs. However, none of the CARES studies or 
construction funds may be used for unplanned, site-specific, 
contractor-conducted ``studies'' to justify a project or series 
of projects at a facility or site which has not already been 
reviewed in a larger CARES study.
    Appropriation language is included providing up to 
$20,000,000 for costs associated with land acquisitions for 
national cemeteries in the vicinity of Sacramento, California; 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Detroit, Michigan. The Veterans 
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, Public Law 106-177, 
directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish six 
national cemeteries to serve veterans and their families.
    The bill provides $183,180,000 for construction, major 
projects, in fiscal year 2002 as requested in the budget 
justification an increase of $117,140,000 over last year's 
funding level.
    The specific amounts recommended by the Committee are as 
follows:

                                            DETAIL OF BUDGET REQUEST
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Available                             House
                 Location and description                     through 2001      2002 request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Program:
    General: Miami, FL Utility Plant and Electrical                        0            28,000            28,000
     Distribution.........................................
    Advance planning fund: various stations...............                 0             5,000             5,000
    CARES Fund............................................                 0            60,000            60,000
    Asbestos abatement: various stations..................                 0            18,000            18,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, medical programs..........................                 0           111,000           111,000
                                                           =====================================================
Veterans Benefits Administration: Advance planning fund...                 0             1,500             1,500
National Cemetery Administration:
    Atlanta, GA Phase I Development.......................                 0            28,200            28,200
    Massachusetts National Cemetery Columbaria Expansion/                  0             9,200             9,200
     Cemetery Improvement.................................
    Miami, FL National Cemetery Design....................            15,000             2,000             2,000
    Tahoma, WA, National Cemetery Columbaria Expansion/                    0             6,900             6,900
     Cemetery Improvements................................
    Land Acquisition......................................                 0            18,000            18,000
    Design Fund...........................................                 0             5,180             5,180
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, NCA.......................................            15,000            69,480            69,480
                                                           =====================================================
Claims Analyses: various stations.........................                 0             1,200             1,200
                                                           =====================================================
      Total construction, major projects..................           $15,000           183,180         183,180 '
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee expects the Department to deliver the report 
outlining the country's veteran cemetery needs by the due date 
of December 31, 2001. The Committee further expects that the 
needs of New Mexico and Tennessee will be addressed in that 
report.

                      Facility Rehabilitation Fund




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $300,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      +300,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......      +300,000,000


    The Committee recommends $300,000,000 for a new 
construction account to provide for safety and seismic repairs 
to VA medical facilities and the rehabilitation of VA research 
facilities as authorized by H.R. 811, the Veterans Hospital 
Emergency Repair Act, as passed by the House of Representatives 
on March 27, 2001. No funds were provided in fiscal year 2001 
or requested in the fiscal year 2002 budget request for this 
account. The bill language provides $30,000,000 exclusively for 
the rehabilitation of research facilities and $270,000,000 for 
safety and seismic repairs to medical facilities. The Committee 
recommends that all projects considered for funding also be 
subject to CARES criteria.
    The bill includes language prohibiting new building 
construction without the Department first submitting a report 
to the Committees on Appropriations detailing how the 
construction of a new building will be the most cost-effective 
means of correcting infrastructure safety and seismic 
deficiencies at a specific location. The report should be 
submitted at least 30 days prior to the award of a design or 
construction contract.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $178,900,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       170,840,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       178,900,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +8,060,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
Department, including planning, CARES activities, assessment of 
needs, architectural and engineering services, and site 
acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is less than 
$4,000,000. Program focus is placed on outpatient care 
projects. Public Law 106-117, gave VA the authority to make 
capital contributions from minor construction in enhanced-use 
leases.
    The Committee recommends $178,900,000 for the construction, 
minor projects appropriation in fiscal year 2002, the same 
level as the budget request and an increase of $8,060,000 over 
the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.
    The Committee directs that VHA's minor construction 
resources should be utilized in a manner that is consistent 
with current CARES initiative. All VHA minor construction 
projects must be reviewed by a central office work group that 
will consist of both VHA and other Department officials. For 
evaluation purposes, the work group is to utilize criteria that 
is consistent with those developed for CARES. If total costs of 
projects being initiated at any facility exceeds $4 million 
(the Capital Investment Board threshold), the recommendations 
of the work group must be approved by the Deputy Secretary.

                         PARKING REVOLVING FUND




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................        $4,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................         4,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +4,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    This appropriation provides funds for the construction, 
alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking 
garages at Department medical facilities. The Secretary is 
required under certain circumstances to establish and collect 
fees for the use of such garages and parking facilities. 
Receipts from the parking fees are to be deposited in the 
revolving fund and can be used to fund future parking garage 
initiatives.
    In addition to the collected parking fees, the Committee 
recommends the budget request of $4,000,000 to be derived from 
the General Fund of the Treasury.

       GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $100,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       100,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        50,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......       +50,000,000


    This program provides grants to assist States to construct 
State home facilities for furnishing domiciliary or nursing 
home care to veterans, and to expand, remodel or alter existing 
buildings for furnishing domiciliary, nursing home or hospital 
care to veterans in State homes. A grant may not exceed 65 
percent of the total cost of the project.
    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for grants for 
construction of State extended care facilities in fiscal year 
2002. This amount is equal to last year's funding level and 
$50,000,000 over the budget request.
    The Committee encourages the Department to work with the 
State of Louisiana as that state applies for a grant to 
construct a home in the southern part of the state.

          GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $25,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        25,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        25,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    This program provides grants to assist States with the 
establishment, expansion, and improvement of State veterans' 
cemeteries which are operated and permanently maintained by the 
States. Grants under this program fund up to 100 percent of 
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.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $25,000,000 
for grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries in 
fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee encourages the Department to work with the 
States of California and Louisiana as those States apply for 
grants.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

                     (including transfer of funds)

    The bill continues the existing seven administrative 
provisions as proposed in the budget and includes four new 
administrative provisions.
    For simplicity in accounting and scorekeeping, the 
Committee included section 108 which deposits all receipts 
collected under the Health Services Improvement into the 
Medical Care Collection Fund. Section 109 extends the 
Department's authority to operate Franchise Funds. Section 110 
allows the Department to deduct administrative expenses from 
proceeds of enhanced-use lease authority receipts. Section 111 
allows the Department to use the services of the Office of 
Resolution Management (ORM) and the Office of Employment and 
Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (OEDCA) on a reimbursable 
fee basis with a fund limitation of $28,555,000 for ORM and 
$2,383,000 for OEDCA.

                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.....................     $29,979,968,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation......................  \1\ 28,590,735,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.....................      30,580,617,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation......  \1\ +1,389,233,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.....       -600,649,000

\1\ Fiscal year 2001 totals in this title reflect the amounts
  appropriated in the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
  Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001
  (Public Law 106-377), and do not reflect the 0.22% rescission enacted
  pursuant to Public Law 106-566. The totals also reflect the technical
  reclassification of mutual mortgage insurance fund receipts pursuant
  to an agreement between the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of
  Management and Budget, and the House and Senate Budget Committees.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was 
established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-174). HUD is the principal Federal 
agency responsible for administering and regulating programs 
and industries concerned with the Nation's housing needs, 
economic and community development, and fair housing 
opportunities.
    In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and 
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who 
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan 
insurance programs, rental and homeownership subsidy programs 
for low-income families, neighborhood rehabilitation programs, 
and community development programs.
    The Committee recommends $29,979,968,000 for the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, a $1,389,233,000 increase 
above the fiscal year 2001 level, and $600,649,000 below the 
request.

                       Public and Indian Housing


                        HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

              (including transfer and rescission of funds)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.....................     $15,694,242,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation......................      13,940,907,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.....................      15,717,392,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation......      +1,753,335,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.....         -23,150,000


    The Housing Certificate Fund (HCF) provides funding for the 
renewal of expiring section 8 contracts, amendments to existing 
section 8 contracts, new ``incremental'' section 8 vouchers 
including enhanced vouchers, relocation assistance, and the 
costs associated with the administration of section 8 
contracts.
    The Committee recommends a total of $16,334,242,000 for the 
HCF in fiscal year 2002, of which $15,694,242,000 is provided 
as a direct appropriation, and $640,000,000 is derived from 
fiscal year 2001 carryover. Consistent with the fiscal year 
2002 budget resolution, the Committee recommends $4,200,000,000 
in advance appropriations. This amount represents an increase 
of $1,753,335,000 over the amount appropriated for the HCF in 
fiscal year 2002. The recommendation includes the following:
    Renewal of expiring section 8 contract: $15,725,153,031 to 
fully fund the renewal of all expiring section 8 housing 
assistance contracts and contracts entered into pursuant to 
section 441 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. 
Included in this amount is $46,400,000 for continued funding of 
the Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators program. Funds are not 
provided in the HCF for the renewal of section 811 tenant-based 
assistance, but instead the Committee has included funding 
under the Housing for special populations account. Pursuant to 
the budget request, no new funding is provided for section 8 
contract amendments for fiscal year 2002, and instead amendment 
requirements are to be funded through recaptures in fiscal year 
2002.
    ``Incremental'' section 8 vouchers: $197,246,000 to fund 
34,000 new section 8 vouchers. Of this amount, $157,344,000 is 
provided for 26,086 new vouchers to be distributed on a fair 
share basis to those PHAs which have a 97% voucher utilization 
rate. The remaining $39,912,000 is provided for 7,914 new 
vouchers for distribution to non-elderly, disabled residents 
who are affected by the designation of public and assisted 
housing as ``elderly-only'' developments. The Committee 
recognizes that persons with disabilities who are dependent on 
Supplemental Security Income or have very low paying jobs are 
often unable to find affordable housing absent section 8 
tenant-based rental assistance. Therefore, language is included 
in the bill earmarking these amounts for this purpose to enable 
people with disabilities to live integrated lives in their home 
communities.
    Tenant protection vouchers: $202,842,070 for new tenant 
protection vouchers to replace lost project-based section 8 
assistance with tenant-based assistance. Funding for new 
vouchers under the HOPE VI program is provided within the 
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing (HOPE VI) 
account as requested.
    Section 8 contract administrators: $195,600,730 for section 
8 contract administrators. Language is included in the bill, as 
requested and carried in prior years, that precludes HUD from 
paying increased administrative fee costs in the tenant-based 
section 8 program as a result of the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act of 1998.
    Voucher Utilization: The recommendation brings to 223,000 
the total number of new section 8 vouchers provided over the 
last four years. In the past, the Committee has expressed 
concern over both the Department's and the PHAs' abilities to 
award and utilize these vouchers in a timely fashion. In fiscal 
years 1999 and 2000, HUD was provided $629,650,000 to fund 
110,000 new vouchers. However, in each of those years, HUD 
failed to award those vouchers in a timely fashion, resulting 
in none of those funds being used. At the same time, PHAs' 
underutilization of vouchers continues to be a significant 
problem as evidenced by a drop in the national utilization rate 
average from 96.7 percent in fiscal year 1999 to an estimated 
92.4 percent in fiscal year 2001. As a result, a significant 
amount of unused funding has been recaptured each year. The 
Committee believes it is critical that the Department and the 
PHAs take steps to increase the timely award and utilization of 
section 8 vouchers. Therefore, language is included in the bill 
requiring that new vouchers be distributed only to those PHAs 
that have a voucher utilization rate of 97 percent. The 
Committee directs that HUD award the new fair share vouchers 
provided in the bill within four months of enactment of this 
Act, and report to the Committee no later than February 15, 
2002, on its compliance with this direction. The Committee also 
expects that implementation of the Section Eight Management 
Assessment Program (SEMAP) in fiscal year 2002 will assist HUD 
in identifying troubled PHAs and providing remediation services 
to rectify this problem. Funding has been provided under the 
Public housing capital fund as requested for SEMAP remediation 
activities. HUD is requested to provide the Committee a report, 
no later than February 28, 2002, which identifies those PHAs 
designated as ``troubled'' under the SEMAP system, and the 
remediation activities planned for each PHA identified.
    In addition, the Committee recommends a rescission of 
$886,000,000 from this account to be derived from the recapture 
of section 8 funds provided in fiscal year 2001 and prior 
years.
    PHA Reserve Funds: As requested, the Committee 
recommendation assumes that $640,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 
carryover will be derived by reducing from two months to one 
month the amount of reserve funding available to PHAs. Adoption 
of this change will still provide PHAs a $640,000,000 reserve, 
in addition to their regular full year appropriation, to 
address any unforeseen cost increases. It is the Committee's 
understanding that in fiscal year 2000, PHAs only utilized 
$46,190,228 in reserve funding. Further, the fiscal year 2002 
budget reflects a change in the calculation of the cost per 
voucher to more accurately reflect PHA's actual costs and local 
inflation rates. Therefore, the Committee does not believe this 
reduction will have an adverse impact on PHAs ability to assist 
their clients.
    Language is included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior Acts, which: (1) transfers funds to the 
Working Capital Fund; (2) designates amounts available for 
incremental section 8 vouchers for certain purposes; (3) 
prohibits payment of increased administrative fees; (4) reduces 
reserve funds; and (5) rescinds excess funds from prior years.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $2,555,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     3,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     2,293,400,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      -445,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......      +261,600,000


    The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for all 
public housing capital programs, like public housing 
development, modernization, and amendments. Examples of capital 
modernization projects include replacing roofs and windows, 
improving common spaces, upgrading electrical and plumbing 
systems, and renovating the interior of an apartment.
    The Committee recommends funding this program at 
$2,555,000,000, which is $445,000,000 below the fiscal year 
2001 level, and $261,600,000 above the request.
    The Committee appreciates the need to modernize public 
housing. To this end, the Committee has increased funding for 
this account over and above the budget request for each of the 
last three years. However, the Committee must acknowledge that 
there is a significant pipeline of these funds which remains 
unspent. It is the Committee's understanding, based on data 
provided by the PHAs to HUD, that as of June 2001, PHAs had not 
yet spent $4,687,962,000 of the funds provided in fiscal years 
1998, 1999, and 2000, of which $2,717,194,528 had not yet been 
obligated, i.e. put under contract by the PHAs for repair and 
modernization work. The Committee understands that 
$733,423,311, or 27 percent, of these unobligated funds are 
from funds provided in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 with 25 PHAs 
accounting for 73 percent of these unobligated funds.
    The Committee believes that residents of public housing 
deserve timely improvements to the public housing stock, as 
Congress intends and has funded. The Committee would note that 
Congress' concern over lengthy delays in the expenditure of 
funds provided for modernization and repair work led to the 
inclusion of several provisions in the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act (QHWRA) of 1998 to compel more timely 
utilization of these funds. Under section 9(j) of QHWRA, PHAs 
are required to obligate their funds within 24 months and must 
fully spend such funds within 48 months. Sanctions for failure 
to comply with the law include a complete withholding of all 
capital funds from any PHA in violation of this requirement and 
the recapture of funds provided in prior years from a non-
compliant PHA. Under QHWRA, these withheld and recaptured funds 
are to be redistributed to PHAs which have proven capable of 
utilizing their funds. The Committee understands that last year 
HUD decided to delay implementation of the provisions of QHWRA, 
a position that the Committee finds clearly inconsistent with 
the statute and congressional intent.
    The Committee expects HUD to hold the PHAs accountable for 
their compliance with the statute. The Committee also believes 
that additional funds under this account should be directed to 
those PHAs which are capable of utilizing these funds in a 
timely fashion. Therefore, the Committee recommends that 
$262,000,000 be allocated only to those PHAs which have met the 
24-month statutory requirement to obligate their funds in 
accordance with QHWRA. In accordance with QHWRA, PHAs which 
have obligated 90 percent or more of their fiscal year 1999 and 
prior year funds or have received a waiver from the 24 month 
requirement will be eligible to receive this additional 
funding. This will ensure that those PHAs which have 
demonstrated an ability to fully utilize their money will 
receive funds in addition to their annual accrued maintenance 
allocation to continue addressing their backlog requirements in 
fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee notes that the sanctions for non-compliance 
of this deadline under QHWRA require a complete withholding of 
any capital funds to a PHA. Non-compliant PHAs' prior year 
funds are also subject to recapture and redistribution to 
compliant PHAs. Given that fiscal year 2002 represents the 
first full year of implementation of the requirements of QHWRA, 
the Committee appreciates that a complete withholding of funds 
may be too severe a sanction for non-compliant PHAs. Therefore, 
the Committee includes language to waive this withholding 
requirement, and instead requires the Secretary to recapture 
fiscal year 1999 and prior year funds from those PHAs which 
have failed to obligate their funds within the statutory 
deadline and redistribute those funds to those PHAs in 
compliance with QHWRA. The Committee believes such action will 
minimize the impact of implementation of QHWRA on PHAs during 
the first year of full implementation while ensuring that 
capital funds are expended in a timely fashion as required by 
QHWRA.
    The Committee directs HUD to provide quarterly reports on 
the obligation and expenditure of capital funds, delineated by 
PHA and fiscal year, of all funds provided under this heading 
in fiscal years 2002 and prior years, with the first such 
report due not later than February 1, 2002.
    Therefore, language is included to ensure that HUD 
implements QHWRA in accordance with the statute and 
congressional intent, including provisions which: restate the 
effective date of QHWRA to apply to fiscal year 1999 funds; 
maintain HUD's ability to waive certain deadlines, but require 
that such waivers be granted only by the Secretary or the 
Deputy Secretary; and require the Secretary to recapture funds 
from PHAs not in compliance with the statutory deadlines and 
redistribute those funds to PHAs which are compliant with the 
statute.
    Language is also included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior years, designating the following: (1) up to 
$51,000,000 for technical assistance, contract expertise, 
training, interventions in troubled authorities, independent 
physical inspections, and management improvements, including 
$10,000,000 for remediation activities related to SEMAP; (2) no 
less than $43,000,000 to be transferred to the working capital 
fund for development and maintenance of information technology 
systems; and (3) up to $75,000,000 to be provided for repairs 
resulting from natural disasters and emergencies. In addition, 
language is included making funds available for two years.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $3,494,868,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     3,242,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     3,384,868,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      +252,868,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......      +110,000,000


    The Public Housing Operating Fund (PHOF) subsidizes a 
portion of the costs associated with operating and maintaining 
public housing. This subsidy supplements funding received by 
public housing authorities from tenant rent contributions and 
other income. In accordance with section 9 of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937, as amended, funds are allocated by formula 
to public housing authorities for the following purposes: 
utility costs; anticrime and anti-drug activities, including 
the costs of providing adequate security; routine maintenance 
cost; administrative costs; and general operating expenses.
    The Committee recommends $3,494,868,000 for the PHOF, an 
increase of $252,868,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level, and 
$110,000,000 above the request. This amount represents an 8.1 
percent increase over the current year appropriation and 3.5 
percent above the request.
    The Committee recommends an 8.1 percent increase in this 
account to augment the funding received by all PHAs through the 
operating subsidies program, in lieu of providing a separate 
supplemental funding source for selected PHAs through the 
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP). The Committee 
notes that anti-drug and anti-crime activities are allowable 
uses of public housing operating funds, and the vast majority 
of PHAs fund their anti-crime and anti-drug programs from 
within their existing operating subsidy allocation. By 
contrast, the PHDEP provides supplemental funding on top of 
their regular operating subsidies for only 1,000 of the 3,400 
PHAs, with four PHAs receiving 25 percent of the total funding 
available under the PHDEP formula grants program.
    The Committee notes that since the PHDEP program was 
created in 1989, Federal funding to States and localities for 
police, crime and drug prevention programs has grown 
dramatically, particularly through assistance provided by the 
Department of Justice. Over the last six years, over 
$9,000,000,000 in new Federal assistance has been provided 
through the Justice Department for similar purposes, including 
funding to put 110,000 new police officers on the street, funds 
for crime and drug enforcement and prevention programs, and 
funding to establish 1,000 new Boys and Girls Clubs exclusively 
in public housing communities. The Committee believes that 
States and localities have a responsibility to allocate their 
funds and services to meet the needs of all residents, 
including those in public housing.
    The Committee questions whether providing supplementary 
funding through the PHDEP is the most effective and equitable 
mechanism to provide these services to residents of public 
housing. Currently, there exists a huge backlog in unspent 
PHDEP funds. As of June 30, 2001, the backlog for fiscal year 
2000 and prior years totaled $396,995,963, of which $96,751,000 
was provided in fiscal years 1997 through 1999. Given the large 
amount of unspent funds remaining in the pipeline, the 
Committee questions the efficiency and effectiveness of this 
program.
    The Committee also questions HUD's ability to administer 
anti-crime and anti-drug activities, as evidenced by HUD's 
decisions to allow PHAs to use PHDEP funds for ``creative 
wellness'' programs that teach residents to surround themselves 
with colored gemstones and incense, for vacations and trips, 
and for controversial gun buy backs. The Committee instead 
believes that the Department of Justice can more effectively 
determine when and what type of targeted assistance may be 
necessary to address local crime and drug programs in public 
housing over and above the activities already provided for 
through other Federal programs. Therefore, the Committee has 
also designated $10,000,000 of the funds provided under this 
account to be allocated by the Attorney General through 
existing Department of Justice programs, such as Weed and Seed, 
to address those areas where additional assistance is needed to 
augment State and local efforts to effectively fight crime and 
drugs in public housing.
    Language is included in the bill which: (1) provides two-
year availability for funds provided under this account; (2) 
transfers $10,000,000 to the Office of Inspector General for 
Operation Safe Home; (3) designates $10,000,000 to be 
administered by the Attorney General for programs which assist 
in the investigation, prosecution and prevention of crime and 
drug offenses in public and assisted housing; and (4) prohibits 
funds from being used for section 9(k) activities.

             DRUG ELIMINATION GRANTS FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................                 0
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................      $310,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      -310,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    Drug Elimination grant funds are provided to public housing 
agencies and Indian housing authorities to eliminate drug-
related crime in housing developments. Funds may be used to pay 
for law enforcement personnel and investigators, to provide for 
physical improvements that enhance security, to support tenant 
patrols and initiatives, and to develop drug abuse prevention 
programs.
    The Committee does not recommend separate funding for this 
program but has instead addressed this requirement under the 
Public housing operating fund.

     REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING (HOPE VI)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $573,735,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       575,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       573,735,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        -1,265,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 
program, also known as HOPE VI, provides competitive grants to 
public housing authorities to revitalize entire neighborhoods 
adversely impacted by the presence of badly deteriorated public 
housing projects. In addition to developing and constructing 
new affordable housing, the programs provide PHAs with the 
authority to demolish obsolete projects and to provide self-
sufficiency services for families who reside in and around the 
facility.
    The Committee recommends funding HOPE VI at $573,735,000, 
as requested, and the same amount provided in fiscal year 2001. 
Of the total amount provided, $5,000,000 is for technical 
assistance as requested and the same level provided in fiscal 
year 2001. In addition, up to $10,000,000 is available for 
tenant-based relocation assistance, as requested. Language is 
included in the bill making funds available for two years.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

                     (Including Transfers of Funds)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $648,570,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       650,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       648,570,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        -1,430,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Native American Housing Block Grants program provides 
funds to Indian tribes and their tribally-designated housing 
entities (TDHEs) to address housing needs within their 
communities. The block grant is designed to fund a TDHE's 
operating requirements and capital needs.
    The Committee recommends $648,570,000 for this account, the 
full amount requested. Of the total amount provided: $5,987,000 
is for the section 601 Loan Guarantee program to guarantee a 
total loan volume of $52,726,000; $5,000,000 is for 
inspections, training, travel costs, and technical assistance; 
$2,200,000 is for the National American Indian Housing Council 
to conduct training programs and to provide technical 
assistance; no less than $2,000,000 is for transfer to the 
Working Capital Fund for development and maintenance of 
information technology systems; and $150,000 is for transfer to 
the HUD salaries and expenses account for administrative 
expenses.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                       Program account    direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.....        $5,987,000      $234,283,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation......         6,000,000        71,956,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.....         5,987,000       234,283,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001               -13,000      +162,327,000
 appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2002                     0                 0
 budget request.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native Americans 
to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides 
access to sources of private financing for Indian families and 
Indian housing authorities that otherwise cannot acquire 
financing because of the unique legal status of Indian trust 
land. This financing vehicle enables families to construct new 
homes or to purchase existing properties on reservations.
    The Committee recommends funding this program at the 
request of $5,987,000, the same amount available in fiscal year 
2001. However, based on changes to the subsidy rate, the 
appropriation will guarantee $162,327,000 in additional loans 
in fiscal year 2002. Language is included transferring $200,000 
to the HUD salaries and expenses account for administrative 
expenses.

                   Community Planning and Development


              HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $277,432,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       258,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       277,432,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........       +19,432,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 
program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons 
with AIDS Act. This program provides States and localities with 
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive 
strategies to meet the housing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS 
and their families. Ninety percent of funding is distributed by 
formula to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the 
basis of the cumulative number and incidences of AIDS reported 
to the Centers for Disease Control. The remaining 10 percent of 
funding is distributed through a national competition. 
Government recipients are required to have a HUD-approved 
Comprehensive Plan/Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 
(CHAS).
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends 
$277,432,000, an increase of $19,432,000 above the fiscal year 
2001 level, and the full amount requested. The increase will 
allow funding for new jurisdictions expected to become eligible 
for funding in fiscal year 2002, while maintaining funding for 
existing jurisdictions. Within the total amount provided, 
$2,000,000 is for technical assistance, training and oversight 
as requested.
    Language is included making funds available for two years. 
Requested language is not included requiring continued funding 
of all prior competitive grant awards once the original award 
has concluded.

                 RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................                 0
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       $25,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........       -25,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Committee does not recommend continued funding for this 
program. The budget request proposed termination of this 
program on the basis that it duplicates several other programs, 
including the Community Development Block Grant program and 
programs within the Department of Agriculture.

                EMPOWERMENT ZONES/ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................                 0
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       $90,000,000
    Miscellaneous appropriation (P.L. 106-554)........       110,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       150,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      -200,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......      -150,000,000


    Funding constraints prevent the Committee from providing 
funds for Round II Empowerment Zones at this time.

                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

                     (including transfers of funds)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $4,801,993,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     5,057,550,000
    Miscellaneous appropriation (P.L. 106-554)........        66,128,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     4,801,993,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      -321,685,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Community Development Fund provides funding to State 
and local governments, and to other entities that carry out 
community and economic development activities under various 
programs.
    The Committee recommends a total of $4,801,993,000 for the 
Community development fund account. Funding under this account 
is allocated as follows:
          $4,399,300,000 for Community Development Block 
        Grants;
          $69,000,000 for Native American Community Development 
        Block Grants;
          $29,387,000 for the National Community Development 
        Initiative (NCDI), as follows: $4,442,000 for Habitat 
        for Humanity capacity building activities; and 
        $24,945,000 for the Enterprise Foundation and LISC 
        capacity building activities, including $4,989,000 for 
        activities in rural areas;
          $34,424,000 for section 107 activities, as follows: 
        $6,985,000 for insular areas; $9,978,000 for 
        Historically Black Colleges and Universities; 
        $2,993,000 for Community Development Work Study; 
        $6,486,000 for Hispanic Serving Institutions; and 
        $7,982,000 for Community Outreach Partnerships;
          $3,300,000 for the Housing Assistance Council;
          $2,794,000 for the National American Indian Housing 
        Council;
          $5,000,000 for the National Housing Development 
        Corporation (NHDC), for continuation of its program of 
        acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation of at-risk 
        affordable housing;
          $5,000,000 for the National Council of La Raza, for 
        its national HOPE Fund to leverage additional 
        investments in affordable housing and community 
        development projects;
          $25,000,000 for neighborhood initiatives;
          $54,879,000 for the Resident Opportunity and Social 
        Services program;
          $21,956,000 for the Self-Help Housing Opportunity 
        Program (SHOP);
          $59,868,000 for Youthbuild, including $2,000,000 for 
        capacity building activities; and
          $77,000,000 for economic development initiatives.
    Additionally, not less than $15,000,000 is provided to be 
transferred to the Working Capital Fund to support the 
development and maintenance of information technology systems.
    The recommendation does not include $20,000,000 for the 
Americans with Disabilities Access initiative and $80,000,000 
for a Community Technology Centers initiative, requested by the 
Administration.
    The Committee continues its direction that HUD inform State 
and local jurisdictions that people with disabilities and their 
advocates must be at the table when Consolidated Plans are 
developed. The Committee again directs HUD to evaluate 
Consolidated Plans for this inclusion, determine if the needs 
reflected in the final plan match the proposed uses of Federal 
funds, and take into consideration a community's efforts to 
remove impediments to fair housing for individuals with 
disabilities.
    The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as 
amended, (Public Law 93-383), requires the targeting of CDBG 
funds to assist low and moderate income people. The Committee 
directs that HUD provide a detailed description, analysis, and 
evaluation of HUD's administrative oversight of this 
requirement, and to report back its findings to the Committee 
by February 1, 2002.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of funding for the 
State of South Dakota and the City of Lead, South Dakota, to 
address the economic transitional needs at Lead, South Dakota. 
Operations at the Homestake Mine are expected to cease in 
fiscal year 2002. A proposal has been submitted to the National 
Science Foundation for the conversion of the mine to a National 
Underground Laboratory for the study of neutrinos. The 
Committee is aware that studies are currently underway to 
determine the most appropriate level, and corresponding cost, 
of providing for the physical integrity of the mine structure 
and related properties, as well as for the economic stability 
of the region. Upon completion of these studies, the Committee 
expects to provide the resources necessary to begin 
facilitating this important effort.
    Language is included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior Acts, which: (1) designates amounts available 
for the various programs funded under this account; (2) limits 
administrative expenses to no more than 20 percent of any grant 
with certain exceptions; and (3) provides two-year availability 
for obligation of funds provided under this heading.

         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program costs   guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.....       $15,000,000      $608,696,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation......        30,000,000     1,261,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.....        15,000,000       608,696,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001           -15,000,000      -652,304,000
 appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2002                     0                 0
 budget request.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Section 108 Loan Guarantees program underwrites private 
market loans to assist local communities in the financing of 
the acquisition and rehabilitation of publicly-owned real 
property, rehabilitation of housing, and certain economic 
development projects.
    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 as a separate account 
for the section 108 loan program, as requested. Of this amount, 
$14,000,000 is provided for the costs to guarantee $608,696,000 
in section 108 loan commitments in fiscal year 2002, and 
$1,000,000 is provided for administrative expenses to be 
transferred to the Salaries and Expenses account. While the 
recommendation represents a reduction from the current year 
appropriation, the Committee notes that this program continues 
to be significantly underutilized. In fiscal year 2000, only 
$10,000,000 of the $30,000,000 appropriated was used to 
guarantee a total loan volume of $412,000,000. The utilization 
rate for fiscal year 2001 is estimated to be $400,000,000, 
significantly below the funded level. Therefore, the Committee 
believes the recommendation, which will insure a loan volume of 
$608,696,000, is sufficient to fully support program demand in 
fiscal year 2002.
    Language is included in the bill to provide two-year 
availability for obligation of funds provided under this 
account.

                       BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $25,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        25,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        25,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Brownfields Redevelopment program provides competitive 
economic development grants in conjunction with section 108 
loan guarantees for qualified brownfield projects. Grants are 
made in accordance with section 108(q) selection criteria. The 
goal of the program is to return contaminated sites to 
productive and employment-generating uses with an emphasis on 
creating substantial numbers of jobs for lower-income people in 
physically and economically distressed neighborhoods.
    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for this program as 
requested, the same amount provided in fiscal year 2001.
    Language is included in the bill to provide two-year 
availability for funds provided under this account.

                  HOME Investment Partnerships Program

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)


                          1                                    1

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $1,996,040,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     1,796,040,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     1,796,040,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      +200,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......      +200,000,000


    The HOME investment partnerships program provides grants to 
States, units of local government, Indian tribes and insular 
areas, through formula allocation, for the purpose of expanding 
the supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction. Upon 
receipt, State and local governments develop a comprehensive 
housing affordability strategy that enables them to acquire, 
rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing, or to 
provide rental assistance to eligible families.
    The Committee recommends $1,996,040,000 for this program, 
an increase of $200,000,000 above the request and the fiscal 
year 2001 level. Of this amount, $200,000,000 is provided for 
the Downpayment Assistance Initiative requested in the budget. 
Funds for this initiative are provided subject to enactment of 
authorization legislation. Should such legislation not be 
enacted by June 30, 2002, these funds may be used by States and 
local participating jurisdictions for any purposes authorized 
under the HOME program. The recommendation also includes 
$20,000,000 for Housing Counseling as requested, the same 
amount provided in fiscal year 2001. However, requested 
language is not included repealing the sunset date for certain 
homeownership housing counseling programs. The Committee 
expects such changes to be addressed in the context of 
authorization legislation for Downpayment Assistance 
Initiative.
    In addition, no less than $17,000,000 is to be transferred 
to the Working Capital Fund for the development and operation 
of integrated community development management information 
systems.
    Language is included in the bill to provide two-year 
availability for funds provided under this account.

                       Homeless Assistance Grants

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $1,027,745,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     1,025,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     1,022,745,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +2,745,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......        +5,000,000


    The homeless assistance grants account provides funding for 
the following homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney 
Act: (1) the emergency shelter grants program; (2) the 
supportive housing program; (3) the section 8 moderate 
rehabilitation (single room occupancy) program; and (4) the 
shelter plus care program. This account also supports 
activities eligible under the innovative homeless initiatives 
demonstration program. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, funding 
for the renewal of shelter plus care vouchers is provided in a 
separate account.
    The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at 
$1,027,745,000, an increase of $5,000,000 above the request and 
the amount available in fiscal year 2001. Of the total amount 
provided, $14,200,000 is for technical assistance for 
management information systems and development of an automated 
client-level Annual Performance Report System, and $500,000 is 
for the Interagency Council on the Homeless for administrative 
costs.
    The Committee is concerned that, given the tremendous 
housing needs of homeless people, over 50 percent of HUD 
homeless assistance grant funds are being spent on services 
rather than on housing. The Committee is aware that the 
Secretary has initiated a joint task force with the Secretary 
of the Department of Health and Human Services to identify and 
target each agency's responsibilities and roles in addressing 
the needs of the homeless population. The Committee expects 
this effort to result in a better targeting of HUD's resources 
to the housing needs of the homeless by eliminating duplication 
and overlap among Federal programs and reducing barriers which 
have limited the ability of providers to access services 
funding from other Federal agencies. The Committee requests 
that the Department keep the Committee apprised of the task 
force's progress, and provide a report, no later than February 
15, 2002, on its finding and recommendations for changes in HUD 
programs. In the interim, the Committee has deferred making any 
significant changes to HUD programs. However, HUD is instructed 
to use the Notice of Funding Availability and other available 
mechanisms to encourage communities to seek funding for 
services from non-HUD sources so that HUD resources can be 
directed at providing housing, including permanent supportive 
housing, for homeless people.
    Language is included in the bill which: (1) requires not 
less than 35 percent of the funds appropriated be used for 
permanent housing; (2) requires funding recipients to provide a 
25 percent match for social services activities; (3) requires 
all homeless programs to coordinate their programs with 
mainstream health, social services and employment programs; (4) 
provides that no less than $14,200,000 be available for 
technical assistance for management information systems and an 
automated client-level Annual Performance Report System to be 
transferred to the Working Capital Fund; (5) provides two-year 
availability for obligation of funds provided under this 
account; and (6) designates $500,000 for the Interagency 
Council on the Homeless.

                       Shelter Plus Care Renewals




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................                $0
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       100,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        99,780,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      -100,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......       -99,780,000


    The Shelter Plus Care program provides rental assistance 
that, when combined with social services, supplies supportive 
housing for homeless people with disabilities and their 
families. Shelter Plus Care provides a variety of housing 
choices such as group homes or individual units, coupled with a 
range of supportive services which are funded from other non-
HUD sources. Funding for new Shelter Plus Care grants is 
provided under the Homeless assistance grants program account. 
However, beginning in fiscal year 2001, funding for the renewal 
of existing Shelter Plus Care contracts on a one-year basis is 
provided under this account.
    The fiscal year 2002 budget requested funds to forward-fund 
the fiscal year 2003 renewal costs for this program. The fiscal 
year 2001 appropriation included sufficient funding to fully 
support all renewal costs for Shelter Plus Care contracts for 
fiscal year 2002. The Committee does not recommend forward 
funding for future year requirements for this program for this 
program, or any other program in this bill. Instead the 
Committee will address the fiscal year 2003 costs for contract 
renewals for this program in the context of the fiscal year 
2003 bill.

                            Housing Programs


                    Housing for Special Populations

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $1,024,151,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       996,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     1,001,009,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........       +28,151,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......       +23,142,000


    The Housing for Special Populations program provides 
eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants 
to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of 
housing intended for elderly people or people with 
disabilities. To increase flexibility, twenty-five percent of 
the funding for supportive housing for the disabled is 
available for tenant-based assistance.
    The Committee recommends $1,024,151,000 for the Housing for 
special populations program account, an increase of $23,142,000 
above the request and $28,151,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
level.
    The Committee recommendation includes $783,286,000 for 
section 202 housing as requested, an increase of $4,286,000 
above the fiscal year 2001 level. Of the total amount provided 
for section 202, $49,890,000 is for service coordinators and 
the continuation of congregate services grants, $49,890,000 is 
for the section 202 conversion program, and up to $3,000,000 is 
for the renewal of expiring project rental assistance contracts 
for up to a one-year term.
    For the section 811 disabled housing program, the Committee 
recommends $240,865,000, an increase of $23,150,000 above the 
request, and $28,151,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2001. The increase above the request is provided to fund 
the renewal costs of section 811 tenant-based rental 
assistance. The recommendation also includes up to $1,200,000 
for the renewal of expiring project rental assistance contracts 
for up to a one-year term as requested.
    The Committee continues to support the role of tenant-based 
rental assistance but recognizes that it is not the only 
component of an effective, broad-based housing policy for 
people with disabilities. Construction of new housing units is 
necessary to ensure safe, accessible, affordable housing for 
persons with disabilities. Therefore, language is included in 
the bill providing that no more than 25 percent of the funds 
provided under this program be used for tenant-based rental 
assistance, thereby allowing 75 percent of the funds to be 
dedicated to the construction and maintenance of new housing 
units. In addition, the section 811 supportive housing program 
plays an important role in increasing the housing options for 
people with disabilities. However, the Committee is concerned 
that the application and review process for this program has 
become increasingly burdensome to the non-profit organizations 
providing these important services. Therefore, HUD is directed 
to review the section 811 handbook and modify the program 
procedures to simplify the application and review process.
    Language is included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior appropriations Acts, which: (1) authorizes the 
Secretary to waive any statutory or regulatory requirements 
related to the section 202 and section 811 programs; and (2) 
transfers no less than $1,000,000, to be equally divided 
between section 202 and section 811, to the Working Capital 
Fund for development and maintenance of information technology 
systems. In addition, language is also included providing two-
year availability for obligation of funds provided under this 
account.

                         Flexible Subsidy Fund

                          (Transfer of Funds)

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

                  Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $13,566,000
Offsetting collections................................       -13,566,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................             \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        17,254,000
Offsetting collections................................       -17,254,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      \1\ +659,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......        -3,688,000

\1\ Prior to enactment of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of
  2000, this the collection and expenditure of fees for manufactured
  housing inspections activities were not subject to annual
  appropriations action. Total spending for these activities in fiscal
  year 2001 is estimated at $12,907,000.

    The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 
Improvement Act of 2000, authorized the Secretary to establish 
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 
the construction, design, and performance of manufactured 
homes. All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal 
standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs 
of administering the Act.
    The Committee recommends $13,566,000 to support the 
manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees 
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 
Fund established pursuant to the Manufactured Housing 
Improvement Act of 2000. The amount recommended is $3,688,000 
below the budget request, and an increase of $659,000 above the 
total spending estimated for these activities in fiscal year 
2001.

                     Federal Housing Administration

               Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account

                     (Including Transfers of Funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation of       Limitation of      Administrative
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.....................        $250,000,000    $160,000,000,000        $330,888,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation......................         250,000,000     160,000,000,000         330,888,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.....................         250,000,000     160,000,000,000         336,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation......                   0                   0                   0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.....                   0                   0          -5,812,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHA mutual mortgage insurance program account includes 
the mutual mortgage insurance (MMI) and cooperative management 
housing insurance (CMHI) funds. This program account covers 
unsubsidized programs, primarily the single-family home 
mortgage program, the largest of all the FHA programs. The 
cooperative housing insurance program provides mortgages for 
cooperative housing projects of more than five units that are 
occupied by members of a cooperative housing corporation.
    The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 
commitments in the MMI program account as requested: 
$160,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and $250,000,000 for 
direct loans, the same amounts provided in fiscal year 2001. 
The recommendation also includes $330,888,000 for 
administrative expenses, of which $326,866,000 is transferred 
to the Salaries and Expenses account, and $4,022,000 is 
transferred to the Office of Inspector General. In addition, 
$145,000,000 is provided for administrative contract expenses, 
of which no less than $96,500,000 is transferred to the Working 
Capital Fund for development and maintenance of information 
technology systems. Requested language is not included 
appropriating additional administrative expenses in certain 
circumstances.
    The Committee recommendation also includes requested 
legislation under administrative provision elsewhere in this 
title, allowing FHA to insure a new Adjustable Rate Mortgage 
(ARM) product.

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (Including transfers of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Limitation of      Limitation of      Administrative
                                         direct loans     guaranteed loans       expenses        Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.....        $50,000,000    $21,000,000,000       $211,455,000        $15,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation......         50,000,000     21,000,000,000        211,455,000                  0
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.....         50,000,000     21,000,000,000        216,100,000         15,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001                      0                  0                  0        -86,000,000
 appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2002                      0                  0         -4,645,000                  0
 budget request.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHA general and special risk insurance (GI and SRI) 
program account includes 17 different programs administered by 
the FHA. The GI fund includes a wide variety insurance programs 
for special purpose single and multi-family loans, including 
loans for property improvements, manufactured housing, multi-
family rental housing, condominiums, housing for the elderly, 
hospitals, group practice facilities and nursing homes. The SRI 
fund includes insurance programs for mortgages in older, 
declining urban areas which would not be otherwise eligible for 
insurance, mortgages with interest reduction payments, 
mortgages for experimental housing and for high-risk mortgagors 
who would not normally be eligible for mortgage insurance 
without housing counseling.
    The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 
commitments for the general and special risk insurance program 
account as requested: $21,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and 
$50,000,000 for direct loans, the same levels provided in 
fiscal year 2001.
    As requested, the recommendation includes a $15,000,000 
direct appropriation for credit subsidy to support the 
following loan guarantee programs: $6,919,000 for the section 
221(d)(3) program; $5,250,000 for the section 241(a) 
supplemental loans for apartments program; $377,000 for the 
section 242 operating loss loans for apartments program; 
$377,000 for the section 232 operating loss loans program; and 
$2,077,000 for the section 2 property improvements program. The 
recommendation reflects changes in the premium structure for 
certain apartment development programs which become effective 
on August 1, 2001. Implementation of these changes will ensure 
that most FHA apartment development programs, including the 
section 221(d)(4) program, operate in a self-sustaining manner 
like most other FHA programs, including the single-family 
insurance program, thereby averting further shutdowns in the 
program which occurred in both fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The 
Committee also expects that improved FHA management and 
oversight will enable all programs to operate in a financially 
sound manner.
    The recommendation also includes $211,455,000 for 
administrative expenses, of which $193,134,000 is transferred 
to the Salaries and Expenses account and $18,321,000 is 
transferred to the Office of Inspector General. An additional 
$139,000,000 is provided for non-overhead administrative 
expenses, of which no less than $33,500,000 is transferred to 
the Working Capital Fund for development and maintenance of 
information technology systems. Requested language is not 
included appropriating additional administrative expenses in 
certain circumstances.

                GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Limitation of    Administrative
                                       guaranteed loans      expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.....    $200,000,000,000      $9,383,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation......     200,000,000,000       9,383,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.....     200,000,000,000       9,383,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001                       0               0
 appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2002                       0               0
 budget request.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The guarantee of mortgage-backed securities program 
facilitates the financing of residential mortgage loans insured 
or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Rural Housing 
Services program. The Government National Mortgage Association 
(GNMA) guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest 
on securities issued by private service institutions such as 
mortgage companies, commercial banks, savings banks, and 
savings and loan associations which assemble pools of 
mortgages, and issues securities backed by the pools. In turn, 
investment proceeds are used to finance additional mortgage 
loans. Investors include non-traditional sources of credit in 
the housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life 
insurance companies and individuals.
    The recommendation includes a $200,000,000,000 limitation 
on loan commitments for mortgage-backed securities as 
requested, the same level provided in fiscal year 2001. The 
Committee also recommends $9,383,000 for administrative 
expenses to be transferred to the Salaries and Expenses account 
as requested, the same level provided in fiscal year 2001.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $46,900,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        53,500,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        43,404,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        -6,600,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......        +3,496,000


    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the 
Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing, 
and demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions 
are carried out internally through contracts with industry, 
non-profit research organizations, and educational institutions 
and through agreements with state and local governments and 
other federal agencies.
    The bill includes $46,900,000 for research and technology, 
an increase of $3,496,000 above the budget request. Of this 
amount, the Committee recommends $45,400,000 for research, 
technology, and policy analysis, including $7,500,000 for the 
Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) 
Initiative. Additionally, the Committee recommends $1,500,000 
for the Millennial Housing Commission. Language is included 
making funds available for obligation for two years.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity


                        FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $45,899,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        46,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        45,899,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........          -101,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 
prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of 
housing and authorizes assistance to State and local agencies 
in administering the provision of fair housing statutes. The 
Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) assists State and local 
fair housing enforcement agencies that are certified by HUD as 
``substantially equivalent'' to HUD with respect to enforcement 
policies and procedures. The FHAP assures prompt and effective 
processing of complaints filed under title VIII that are within 
the jurisdiction of State and local fair housing agencies. The 
Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) alleviates housing 
discrimination by providing support to private nonprofit 
organizations, State and local government agencies and other 
nonfederal entities for the purpose of eliminating or 
preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair 
housing opportunities.
    The Committee recommends a total of $45,899,000 for this 
account as requested. This amount represents a $7,500,000 
increase for FHAP and FHIP programs above the fiscal year 2001 
level, due to the fact that continued funding of $7,500,000 is 
no longer required to support the Housing Discrimination Survey 
in fiscal year 2002. Instead of reducing the fiscal year 2002 
appropriation to reflect the non-recurring costs associated 
with the survey, the Committee instead recommends a $7,500,000 
increase for FHAP and FHIP programs. Funding is provided as 
follows:
          $26,450,000 is for FHAP programs, of which 
        $13,500,000 is for case processing; $1,900,000 is for 
        capacity building; $3,100,000 is for training; 
        $1,700,000 is for special enforcement initiatives; 
        $5,000,000 is for the FHAP partnership initiative; and 
        $1,250,000 is for administrative costs. Funding has 
        been provided above the request for case processing and 
        related activities to enable FHAP agencies to continue 
        to make progress in reducing the backlog of existing 
        cases which remain unsolved for over 100 days.
          $19,445,000 is for FHIP programs, of which $5,500,000 
        is for education and outreach; $11,949,000 is for 
        private enforcement; and $2,200,000 is for fair housing 
        organizations.
    While the Committee has recommended additional funds for 
these programs in fiscal year 2002, the Committee remains 
dissatisfied with continued large carryover balances in this 
account. The Committee expects HUD to put mechanisms into place 
that will result in funds being dispersed and utilized in a 
more timely fashion. HUD is directed to provide a report to the 
Committee, not later than November 15, 2001, on the mechanisms 
that have been established to expedite utilization of these 
funds. HUD is further directed to provide quarterly reports to 
the Committee on obligation and expenditure of these funds, 
delineated by each program and activity, with the first such 
report due no later than February 15, 2002.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control


                         LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $109,758,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       100,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       109,758,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +9,758,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Lead Hazard Reduction Program, authorized under the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550) 
provides grants to State and local governments to perform lead 
hazard reduction activities in housing occupied by low-income 
families. The program also provides technical assistance, 
undertakes research and evaluations of testing and cleanup 
methodologies, and develops technical guidance and regulations 
in cooperation with EPA.
    The Committee recommends $109,758,000 for this account as 
requested, an increase of $9,758,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
level, as follows:
          $10,000,000 is for Operation LEAP (Lead Elimination 
        Action Program), a new initiative requested in the 
        budget to leverage private-sector resources to 
        eliminate lead-based paint hazards in low-income 
        housing. Operation LEAP funds will be allocated 
        competitively to non-profit organizations and the 
        private sector for activities which leverage additional 
        funds for local lead hazard control programs.
          $80,000,000 is for grants to State and local 
        governments, and Native American tribes, for lead-based 
        paint abatement activities in private low-income 
        housing. This represents a $20,000,000 increase above 
        the fiscal year 2001 level for these activities as 
        requested.
          $9,758,000 is for technical assistance and support to 
        State and local agencies and private property owners as 
        requested.
          $10,000,000 is for the Healthy Homes Initiative as 
        requested. Healthy Homes funds are competitively 
        awarded to State, local or county agencies, non-profit 
        and community-based organizations, landlord 
        organizations, parents' organizations, and 
        environmental contractors, for research, standards 
        development, and education and outreach activities 
        related to housing-related environmental childhood 
        diseases.
    The recommendation does not include a separate set-aside 
for CLEAR Corps. The Committee notes that as part of the 
Consolidated Planning process, State and local governments are 
expected to partner with non-profit organizations to develop 
and implement their lead-based paint abatement plans. The 
Committee encourages local CLEAR Corps programs to partner with 
local governments to receive funding support as part of the 
locality's Consolidated Plan.
    The Committee is aware of a proposal put forth by the 
Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning to create a Community 
Environmental Health Resource Center (CEHRC) to provide 
technical support, training, and education and outreach to 
community-based organizations to evaluate and control housing-
related and community-wide health hazards. While the Committee 
has not included an earmark for this new organization, the 
Committee encourages HUD to evaluate a proposal from the 
Alliance to create the CEHRC and provide a grant if warranted.
    Language is included in the bill which makes a technical 
modification to the Healthy Homes Initiative. However, 
requested language related to environmental reviews under the 
National Environmental Policy Act is not included.

                     Management and Administration


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (including transfer of funds)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               By transfer
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              Indian
                                                  Appropriation     FHA funds      GNMA funds        CPD        Title VI     housing          Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2002 recommendation.........................    $556,067,000    $520,000,000      $9,383,000   $1,000,000     $150,000     $200,000    $1,086,800,000
FY 2001 appropriation..........................     543,267,000     518,000,000       9,383,000    1,000,000      150,000      200,000     1,072,000,000
FY 2002 budget request.........................     556,067,000     530,457,000       9,383,000    1,000,000      150,000      200,000     1,097,257,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation.     +12,800,000      +2,000,000               0            0            0            0       +14,800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request               0     -10,457,000               0            0            0            0       -10,457,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A single appropriation has been provided to finance all 
salaries and related costs associated with administering the 
programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
except the Office of Inspector General and the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. These activities include 
housing, mortgage credit and secondary market programs 
community planning and development programs, departmental 
management, legal services, and field direction and 
administration.
    The Committee recommends total funding of $1,086,800,000 
for the salaries and expenses of the Department, a net increase 
of $14,800,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The 
recommendation provides an increase of $31,938,000 for pay and 
related inflationary costs, partially offset by a $14,780,000 
decrease in automated data processing services. The amount 
provided will enable the Department to support 9,100 full-time 
equivalents (FTE), as requested. Funds are to be allocated by 
object class as follows:
          Personnel Services--$788,270,000;
          Travel and Transportation of Persons--$22,573,000;
          Transportation of Things--$370,000;
          Rent, Communications and Utilities--$119,427,000;
          Printing and Reproduction--$4,644,000;
          Other Services--$145,838,000;
          Supplies and Materials--$4,932,000;
          Furniture and Equipment--$582,000; and
          Indemnities--$164,000.
    Departmental Staffing Requirements.--In the past, the 
Committee has expressed concerns about HUD's approach to 
planning, allocating and utilizing its staff resources. The 
Committee has also been concerned that the average cost per HUD 
employee is excessive compared to other Federal agencies due to 
the aging of the HUD workforce, as well as a previous decision 
to permanently hire 400 community builders at an average salary 
cost of $91,000. As a result, the average cost per FTE in 
fiscal year 2002 is estimated at $87,772 as compared to $83,662 
in fiscal year 2001, and $78,800 in fiscal year 2000. The 
Committee continues to believe that a long-term staffing 
strategy, based on a comprehensive resource management system, 
must be put in place at HUD to ensure staff resources are 
allocated to enable HUD to effectively manage its core 
programs. Last year, the Committee directed HUD to implement 
the Resource Estimation and Allocation Process (REAP) and 
develop a staffing plan based on this process. The Committee 
understands that HUD is in the process of completing this 
staffing plan. Language is included in the bill requiring HUD 
to submit this plan to the Committee no later than November 1, 
2001. The Committee also expects this plan to include 
strategies to reduce the average salary cost per employee while 
reallocating staffing to address core mission requirements. 
Language is therefore included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in the fiscal year 2001 Act, limiting the number of 
vacancies which can be filled at the GS-14 and GS-15 levels. 
The bill also includes language requiring the Department of 
submit its staffing plan to the Committee no later than 
November 1, 2001.
    Budget Submission.The Committee believes that the annual 
Budget Justification submitted by HUD to the Committee lacks 
sufficient information to enable the Committee to fully analyze 
HUD's budget requirements. While object classification displays 
are an informative part of any budget justification document, 
such displays should be a supplement, not a substitute, for 
detailed displays which delineate prior year, current year, and 
requested funding levels for each program, project, or activity 
within each account. In addition, if HUD is to continue its 
current practice of consolidating all funds for salaries and 
expenses within one account, the budget justification must be 
revised to reflect detailed information on prior year, current 
year, and requested position, FTE, and funding levels for each 
program office, delineated by headquarters and field office 
components, rather than simply providing an object class 
distribution at the account level. The Committee expects HUD, 
in consultation with the Committee, to develop revised budget 
justifications for submission as part of its fiscal year 2003 
budget request. HUD is directed to provide a draft of this 
revised justification structure to the Committee no later than 
August 22, 2001.
    Working Capital Fund/Information Technology Systems.--The 
Committee remains committed to improving HUD's capacity to 
disseminate useful information about program performance. To a 
large extent, both HUD's and Congress' ability to oversee the 
effectiveness of HUD's programs is undermined because data is 
inaccessible. Perennially, this deficiency continues to be 
cited by the Inspector General and the General Accounting 
Office. Last year, the Committee began to direct the transfer 
of specific amounts from various program accounts, including 
the Salaries and Expenses account, to the Working Capital Fund 
for development and maintenance of information technology 
systems. Language is included again this year transferring no 
less than $318,450,000 for the Fund from the following 
accounts:
          Salaries and expenses--$85,000,000
          FHA, Mutual mortgage insurance fund program--
        $96,500,000
          FHA, General and special risk insurance fund 
        program--$33,500,000
          Community development fund--$15,000,000
          HOME investment partnerships program--$17,000,000
          Homeless assistance--$14,200,000
          Public housing capital fund--$43,000,000
          Native American Indian block grants--$2,000,000
          Housing certificate fund--$11,000,000
          Housing for special populations--$1,000,000
    The Committee has not recommended the budget request of 
$362,150,000 for the Fund for fiscal year 2002, an increase of 
$35,032,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level, due to the 
failure of HUD to follow the Committee's direction to submit a 
comprehensive multi-year budget plan for information technology 
systems as part of its fiscal year 2002 budget justification. 
The plan was to delineate, on a program-by-program basis, a 
prioritized list of expenditures for information technology 
systems, based upon the deficiencies cited by GAO and the 
Inspector General. The Committee directs HUD to submit this 
plan to the Committee, no later than August 22, 2002, which 
reflects fiscal year 2001 and planned fiscal year 2002 
expenditures, by program, from the Fund. Upon review of this 
plan, the Committee will reconsider HUD's fiscal year 2002 
request for information technology systems.
    The Committee is aware that concerns have been expressed 
about the impact of the Federal Reserve/Department of Treasury 
proposed regulation to redefine real estate brokerage and 
management activities as it relates to HUD's regulatory 
authorities under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 
1974 (RESPA). The Committee expects HUD to examine the impact 
of this proposed rule as it relates to HUD's current 
regulations under RESPA and report back to the Committee on its 
findings no later than September 1, 2001.
    Language is included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior Acts, which: (1) designates amounts provided 
from various accounts for salaries and expenses; (2) transfers 
no less than $85,000,000 to the Working Capital Fund; (3) 
limits the total number of GS-14 and GS-15 positions in the 
Department; and (4) requires submission of a staffing plan.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                     (including transfers of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Appropriation     FHA funds    Public housing       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2002 recommendation..........................     $61,555,000     $22,343,000  \1\ $10,000,00     $93,898,000
                                                                                               0
FY 2001 appropriation...........................      52,657,000      22,343,000   \1\10,000,000      85,000,000
FY 2002 budget request..........................      61,555,000      22,343,000   \1\10,000,000      93,898,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation..      +8,898,000               0            \1\0      +8,898,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.               0               0               0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2001, a transfer was provided to the Office of Inspector General from the Public Housing Drug
  Elimination Program account. In fiscal year 2002, this transfer is provided from the Public Housing Operating
  Subsidies account as requested.

    The Office of Inspector General provides agency-wide audit 
and investigative functions to identify and correct management 
and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for 
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and 
mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit, 
contract audit, and inspection services. Contract audits 
provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on 
accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, 
award, administration, re-pricing and settlement of contracts. 
Internal audits evaluate all facets of agency operations. 
Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of 
agency operations. The investigative function provides for the 
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 
involving programs, personnel and operations.
    The Committee recommends the $93,898,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General as requested, an increase of $8,898,000 above 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2001. This increase is 
necessary to maintain the Inspector General's current program 
level as a result of a reduction in prior year carryover funds 
previously available to support this account. To partially 
offset the increased appropriation, a rescission of $6,700,000 
from the Consolidated Fee Fund is included in the bill. Of this 
total amount provided, $10,000,000 is derived by transfer from 
the Public Housing Operating Subsidies account for Operation 
Safe Home, and $22,343,000 is transferred from FHA funds.
    Language is included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior Acts, which: (1) designates amounts available 
to the Inspector General from other accounts; and (2) clarifies 
the authority of the Inspector General with respect to certain 
personnel issues.

                         Consolidated Fee Fund

                              (Rescission)




FY 2002 recommendation................................       -$6,700,000
FY 2001 appropriation.................................                 0
FY 2002 budget request................................        -6,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        -6,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    Section 7(j) of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Act establishes fees and charges from selected 
programs which are deposited in the fund to offset the costs of 
audits, inspections and other related expenses that may be 
incurred by the Department in monitoring these programs. These 
fees were misclassified as deposit funds in previous years, and 
have been reclassified as on-budget Federal funds.
    The Committee recommends a rescission of $6,700,000 from 
the Fund, as requested, to partially offset the funding 
requirements of the Office of the Inspector General.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $23,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        22,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        27,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +1,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......        -4,000,000


    The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) 
was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and 
soundness of the two housing government-sponsored enterprises 
(GSEs)--the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) 
and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). 
The office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprises 
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also provided 
the regulator enhanced authority to enforce these standards. In 
addition to financial regulation, the OFHEO monitors the GSEs 
compliance with affordable housing goals that were contained in 
the Act.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,000,000 
which is $1,000,000 above fiscal year 2001 and $4,000,000 below 
the budget request.

                       Administrative provisions

    The bill contains a number of administrative provisions.
    Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment 
factors, as requested.
    Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to 
investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair 
Housing Act, which was proposed for deletion.
    Section 203 continues language to correct an anomaly in the 
HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain 
States, however requested language to make this provision 
permanent is not included.
    Section 204 extends a technical amendment included in the 
fiscal year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation 
of HOPWA funds in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, as 
requested.
    Section 205 authorizes the FHA to insure hybrid adjustable 
rate mortgages, slightly modified from the requested language.
    Section 206 authorizes the Secretary to change the premium 
structure in the FHA condominium and single family 
rehabilitation loan programs to make the premiums charged 
consistent with other FHA single family programs.
    The Committee does not recommend nine new administrative 
provisions requested in the budget.
    Section 207 authorizes the Secretary to waive certain 
requirements related to an assisted living pilot project.

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $35,466,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        28,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        28,466,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........         7,466,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......         7,000,000


    The Commission is responsible for the administration, 
operation and maintenance of cemetery and war memorials to 
commemorate the achievements and sacrifices of the American 
Armed Forces where they have served since April 6, 1917. In 
performing these functions, the American Battle Monuments 
Commission maintains twenty-four permanent American military 
cemetery memorials and thirty-one monuments, memorials, markers 
and offices in fifteen foreign countries, the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the British dependency of 
Gibraltar. In addition, five memorials are located in the 
United States: the East Coast Memorial in New York; the West 
Coast Memorial, The Presidio, in San Francisco; the Honolulu 
Memorial in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in 
Honolulu, Hawaii; and the American Expeditionary Forces 
Memorial and the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, 
DC.
    The Committee recommends $35,466,000 for fiscal year 2002 
to administer, operate and maintain the Commission's monuments, 
cemeteries, and memorials throughout the world. This amount 
includes $2,000,000 for the fifth and final increment provided 
the Commission to reduce the maintenance backlog identified 
prior to passage of the fiscal 1998 appropriation. After fiscal 
year 2002, it is the Commission's plan, as well as the 
Committee's expectation, that maintenance requirements will be 
budgeted for and dealt with in a timely manner so as to ensure 
that the cemeteries and memorials under ABMC's jurisdiction are 
maintained at a high standard to reflect the nation's 
continuing commitment to its Honored War Dead and their 
families. The Committee notes and commends the work performed 
by the Commission in first prioritizing and then eliminating 
its lengthy backlog of maintenance needs.
    The Committee has included an additional $5,000,000 for the 
American Battle Monuments Commission for the cost of 
construction of a new visitor center at the American Cemetery 
in Normandy, France. The cemetery averages 1.6 million visitors 
per year. Existing facilities are 40 years old and inadequate 
to serve this large number of visitors. In addition, a new and 
expanded visitor center can provide a fuller array of 
interpretive services to put the D-Day landings and the 
following battle in Europe in perspective as one of the 
greatest military achievements of all time, albeit at a 
staggering price in American and Allied casualties. The battle 
at Normandy is universally recognized a pivotal moment in World 
War II and for determining the future course of European and 
world history.
    The Committee intends that the Commission work with the 
National Park Service on a study regarding the placement, scope 
and character of a new center which will accommodate current 
and future visitation projections while respecting the 
solemnity of the site and sensitivity of interested parties 
including families of servicemen interred at the cemetery, the 
host nation, and Allied forces who participated in the invasion 
and ensuing battle. The Park Service has extensive experience 
in this area and has collaborated with foreign governments on 
numerous visitor service projects. In addition, the Committee 
believes the American Folklife Center of the Library of 
Congress, which has been charged by Congress with developing a 
record of oral histories of American veterans can be a helpful 
partner in the efforts to interpret the battle and the 
sacrifices of American servicemen who were killed or wounded in 
the D-Day landings and ensuing battle.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................        $8,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................         7,500,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................         7,621,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........          +500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............          +379,000


    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board was 
authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to 
investigate accidental releases of certain chemical substances 
resulting in serious injury, death, or substantial property 
loss. The Board became operational in fiscal year 1998.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee is recommending 
$8,000,000, an increase of $500,000 over the level for fiscal 
year 2001 and an increase of $379,000 over the President's 
budget request.
    Again this year, bill language has been included which 
limits the number of career senior executive service positions 
to three. Bill language has also been included which makes 
$2,500,000 of the appropriated funds available for two fiscal 
years.
    Bill language included in fiscal year 2001 has again been 
included stipulating that the Inspector General of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency will hereafter serve as the 
Inspector General for the Board.

                       Department of the Treasury


              Community Development Financial Institutions


   Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Program Account




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $80,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       118,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        67,948,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........       -38,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............       +12,052,000


    The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund 
provides grants, loans and technical assistance to new and 
existing community development financial institutions such as 
community development banks, community development credit 
unions, revolving loan funds and micro-loan funds. Recipients 
must use the funds to support mortgage, small business and 
economic development lending in currently underserved, 
distressed neighborhoods. The Fund will also be responsible for 
implementation of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, 
upon completion of appropriate rules and regulations by the 
Internal Revenue Service.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $80,000,000 
for the program in fiscal year 2002. The recommendation is an 
increase of $12,052,000 to the budget request and is a decrease 
of $38,000,000 from the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The 
Committee recognizes that the recently enacted Community 
Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 is expected to provide a 
significant source of new investment in distressed communities. 
However, the timetable for completion of the necessary rules 
and regulations to implement the Act leads to the conclusion 
that without additional funding in the core CDFI programs, 
there will be short-term gaps in providing resources to 
distressed communities which the Committee finds unacceptable. 
In order to continue the progress being made by the CDFI 
programs, the Committee recommends an increase in the funding 
for fiscal year 2002 as a gap-filler until the Internal Revenue 
Service is be able to finalize the Community Renewal Tax Relief 
Act rules and regulations.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $54,200,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        52,500,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        54,200,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +1,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............                 0


    The Consumer Product Safety Act established the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, an independent Federal regulatory 
agency, to reduce unreasonable risk of injury associated with 
consumer products. Its primary responsibilities and overall 
goals are: to protect the public against unreasonable risk of 
injury associated with consumer products; to develop uniform 
safety standards for consumer products, minimizing conflicting 
State and local regulations; and to promote research into 
prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $54,200,000 
for fiscal year 2002, an increase of $1,700,000 over the fiscal 
year 2001 appropriation and the same amount included in the 
budget request.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


       National and Community Service Programs Operating Expenses




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................                $0
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       428,500,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       411,480,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      -428,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......      -411,480,000


    The Corporation for National and Community Service was 
established by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 
1993 to enhance opportunities for national and community 
service and provide national service educational awards. The 
Corporation makes grants to States, institutions of higher 
education, public and private nonprofit organizations, and 
others to create service opportunities for a wide variety of 
individuals such as students, out-of-school youth, and adults 
through innovative, full-time national and community service 
programs. National service participants may receive educational 
awards which may be used for full-time or part-time higher 
education, vocational education, job training, or school-to-
work programs. Funds for the Volunteers in Service to America 
and the National Senior Service Corps are provided in the 
Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill.
    The fiscal year 2002 budget request for program and 
administrative activities of the Corporation for National and 
Community Service is $411,480,000. The Committee recommends no 
funding for this program in fiscal year 2002. Language is 
included in the bill which directs the Corporation to use any 
funds remaining from prior year's appropriations to accomplish 
the orderly closure of the Corporation.

                      Office of Inspector General




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................        $5,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................         5,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................         5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Office of Inspector General is authorized by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. This Office provides 
an independent assessment of all Corporation operations and 
programs, including those of the Volunteers in Service to 
America and the National Senior Service Corps, through audits, 
investigations, and other proactive projects.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2002, the same as the budget request and the fiscal 
year 2001 funding level.

               U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims


                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $13,221,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        12,445,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        13,221,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........          +776,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Veterans Benefits Administration Adjudication Procedure 
and Judiciary Review Act established the Court of Appeals for 
Veterans Claims. The Court reviews appeals from Department of 
Veterans Affairs claimants seeking review of a benefit denial. 
The Court has the authority to overturn findings of fact, 
regulations and interpretations of law.
    The bill includes the budget request of $13,221,000 for the 
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in fiscal year 2002, an 
increase of $776,000 above the current year appropriation.
    The bill also identifies $895,000 of the funds provided to 
fully fund the pro bono representation program.

                      Department of Defense--Civil


                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army


                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $22,537,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        17,949,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        18,437,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +4,588,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......        +4,100,000


    The Secretary of the Army is responsible for the 
administration, operation and maintenance of Arlington National 
Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. 
At the close of fiscal year 2000, the remains of 283,553 
persons were interred/inured in these cemeteries. Of this 
total, 241,024 persons were interred and 28,183 remains inured 
in the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery, and 14,348 
remains were interred in the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home 
National Cemetery. There were 3,688 interments and 2,223 
inurnments in fiscal year 2000. It is projected that there will 
be 3,700 interments and 2,400 inurnments in fiscal year 2001; 
and 3,800 interments and 2,500 inurnments in fiscal year 2002. 
In addition to its principal function as a national cemetery, 
Arlington is the site of approximately 3,000 nonfuneral 
ceremonies each year and has approximately 4,000,000 visitors 
annually.
    The Committee recommends $22,537,000 for operations and 
maintenance of the Cemetery, an increase of $4,588,000 over the 
fiscal year 2001 funding level and $4,100,000 over the budget 
request. The Committee commends the administration's decision 
to include the fiscal year 2001 funding increase as a part of 
the base in the fiscal year 2002 budget request. The Committee 
has provided an additional $4,100,000 over the budget request 
to fully fund the proposed columbarium construction project in 
fiscal year 2002.

                Department of Health and Human Services


                     National Institutes of Health


          National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $70,228,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        63,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        70,228,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +7,228,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an 
agency within the National Institutes of Health, was authorized 
in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to conduct certain 
research and worker training activities associated with the 
nation's Hazardous Substance Superfund program.
    For fiscal year 2002 the Committee has recommended a 
funding level of $70,228,000, the same as the budget request 
and an increase of $7,228,000 over the fiscal year 2001 level. 
The Committee's recommendation includes $46,000,000 for 
research and $24,228,000 for the worker training program.

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $78,235,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        75,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        78,235,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +3,235,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR), an agency of the Public Health Service, was created in 
section 104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The ATSDR's primary 
mission is to conduct surveys and screening programs to 
determine relationships between exposure to toxic substances 
and illness. Other activities include the maintenance and 
annual update of a list of hazardous substances most commonly 
found at Superfund sites, the preparation of toxicological 
profiles on each such hazardous substance, consultations on 
health issues relating to exposure to hazardous or toxic 
substances, and the development and implementation of certain 
research activities related to ATSDR's mission.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has recommended a 
funding level of $78,235,000, the same as the budget request 
and an increase of $3,235,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
funding level.
    The Committee encourages ATSDR to continue to provide 
adequate funds for minority health professions, as well as for 
continuation of a health effects study on the consumption of 
Great Lakes fish.

                    Environmental Protection Agency





Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $7,545,445,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     7,828,851,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     7,316,599,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      -283,406,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......      +228,846,000


    The Environmental Protection Agency was created by 
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which consolidated nine 
programs from five different agencies and departments. Major 
EPA programs include air and water quality, drinking water, 
hazardous waste, research, pesticides, radiation, toxic 
substances, enforcement and compliance assurance, pollution 
prevention, oil spills, Superfund and the Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank (LUST) program. In addition, EPA provides Federal 
assistance for wastewater treatment, sewer overflow control, 
drinking water facilities, and other water infrastructure 
projects. The agency is responsible for conducting research and 
development, establishing environmental standards through the 
use of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, monitoring 
pollution conditions, seeking compliance through a variety of 
means, managing audits and investigations, and providing 
technical assistance and grant support to states and tribes, 
which are delegated authority for actual program 
implementation. Finally, the Agency participates in some 
international environmental activities.
    Among the statutes for which the Environmental Protection 
Agency has sole or significant oversight responsibilities are:
          National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 
        amended.
          Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 
        as amended.
          Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended.
          Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
          Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended.
          Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 
        1972, as amended.
          Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
          Public Health Service Act (Title XIV), as amended.
          Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended.
          Clean Air Act, as amended.
          Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended.
          Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
        and Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
          Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 
        1986.
          Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
          Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has recommended a total 
program and support level of $7,545,445,000 a decrease of 
$283,406,000 below last year's appropriated level and an 
increase of $228,846,000 above the budget request.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Agency must limit transfers of funds between 
objectives to not more than $500,000, except as specifically 
noted, without prior approval of the Committee. No changes may 
be made to any account or objective except as approved by the 
Committee, if it is construed to be policy or a change in 
policy. Any activity or program cited in the report shall be 
construed as the position of the Committee and should not be 
subject to reductions or reprogramming without prior approval 
of the Committee. It is the intent of the Committee that all 
carryover funds in the various appropriations accounts are 
subject to the normal reprogramming requirements outlined 
above. The Agency is expected to comply with all normal rules 
and regulations in carrying out these directives. Reprogramming 
requests associated with States and Tribes applying for 
Partnership Grants do not need to be submitted to the Committee 
for approval should such grants exceed the normal reprogramming 
limitations. Finally, the Committee wishes to continue to be 
notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, or 
activities prior to the planned implementation of such 
reorganizations, as well as be notified, on a monthly basis, of 
all ongoing litigation, including any negotiations or 
discussions, planned or ongoing, regarding a consent decree 
between the Agency and any other entity.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation \1\...................      $680,410,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       696,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       640,538,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........       -15,590,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......      +39,872,000

\1\ Total does not include transfer of $36,891,000 from the Hazardous
  Substance Superfund.

    The Science and Technology account funds all Environmental 
Protection Agency research (including Hazardous Substances 
Superfund research activities) carried out through grants, 
contracts, and cooperative agreements with other Federal 
agencies, states, universities, and private business, as well 
as on an in-house basis. This account also funds personnel 
compensation and benefits, travel, supplies and operating 
expenses for all Agency research. Research addresses a wide 
range of environmental and health concerns across all 
environmental media and encompasses both long-term basic and 
near-term applied research to provide the scientific knowledge 
and technologies necessary for preventing, regulating, and 
abating pollution, and to anticipate emerging environmental 
issues.
    The Committee has recommended an appropriation of 
$680,410,000 for Science and Technology for fiscal year 2002, a 
decrease of $15,590,000 below last year's spending level, and 
an increase of $39,872,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee's recommended appropriation includes the 
following increases to the budget request:
    1. +$2,500,000 for EPSCoR.
    2. +$4,000,000 for Water Environmental Research Foundation.
    3. +$5,000,000 for the American Water Works Association 
Research Foundation.
    4. +$2,000,000 for the National Decentralized Water 
Resource Capacity Development Project, in coordination with 
EPA, for continued training and research and development 
program.
    5. +$30,000,000 for a targeted environmental research grant 
program.
    Other Science and Technology program levels include:
    1. Hazardous waste research is funded at $7,500,000, an 
increase of $510,000 above the 2001 funding level.
    2. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program is 
funded at $30,999,800, an increase of $1,386,100 above the 
fiscal 2001 level.
    For Science and Technology, no general reduction is 
proposed.
    In addition to the funds provided through appropriations 
directly to this account, the Committee has recommended that 
$36,891,000 be transferred to ``Science and Technology'' from 
the ``Hazardous Substance Superfund'' account for ongoing 
research activities consistent with the intent of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
    Again this year, the Committee notes that the Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is designed 
to improve the scientific and technological capacity of states 
with less developed research infrastructure. Developed with 
NASA and the National Science Foundation as partners, the 
Committee has provided EPA with $2,500,000 for its continued 
participation in this program.
    The Committee is concerned that the Agency has paid little 
attention and provided fewer resources to the development of 
alternative test methods which provide appropriate protection 
of public health while at the same time minimizing the numbers 
of animals used in the conduct of those tests. The Committee 
therefore has provided $4 million from within available funds 
throughout the Science and Technology account for the research, 
development and validation of non-animal, alternative chemical 
screening and prioritization methods, such as rapid, non-animal 
screens and Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships 
(QSAR), for potential inclusion in EPA's current and future 
relevant chemical evaluation programs. Activities funded in 
this regard should be designed in consultation with the Office 
of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances.
    The Committee further requests that the Agency provide a 
report to the Committee by April 30, 2002 regarding actual 
expenditures and plans for additional expenditures for FY 2002 
funds for research, development and validation of non-animal, 
alternative methods by the Office of Research and Development. 
This new research program is not intended to impose or imply 
any specific linkage to any of EPA's current or proposed 
mandated or voluntary testing initiatives, nor is it intended 
to impose or imply an explicit requirement on any of EPA's 
current or proposed mandated or voluntary testing initiatives 
to include alternative methods.
    The Committee is aware of concerns in Escambia County, 
Florida regarding anecdotal evidence of a link between elevated 
levels of illness in Northwest Florida and the levels of toxic 
pollutants in the area. The Agency is urged to review all 
available environmental and health information to determine if 
these relationships pose a scientific basis for further review 
and action.
    The Committee is concerned that while the Agency recognizes 
that the dose-response relationship for arsenic may be 
sublinear, a position supported by the National Academy of 
Sciences in 1999, EPA continues to rely on traditional linear 
modeling because the Agency ``lacks sufficient available, peer-
reviewed information to estimate quantitatively a non-linear 
mode of action.'' Consistent with this acknowledgement and the 
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, 
the Committee strongly encourages the Agency to enter into 
contracts and any cooperative agreements not later than 180 
days after the date of enactment of this Act to obligate and 
fully disburse the funds herein provided for research and its 
validation that will enable the Agency to describe the mode of 
action for arsenic, the shape of the dose-response curve, 
identify the key events, and develop a model to estimate 
quantitatively the dose-response curve. The Agency shall 
periodically update the Committees on Appropriations on its 
progress towards completing this research.

                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $2,014,799,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     2,087,990,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     1,972,960,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........       -73,191,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......       +41,839,000


    The Environmental Programs and Management account 
encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, and 
compliance activities, and personnel compensation, benefits, 
travel, and expenses for all programs of the Agency except 
Science and Technology, Hazardous Substance Superfund, Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, Oil Spill Response, and 
the Office of Inspector General.
    Abatement, prevention, and compliance activities include 
setting environmental standards, issuing permits, monitoring 
emissions and ambient conditions and providing technical and 
legal assistance toward enforcement, compliance, and oversight. 
In most cases, the states are directly responsible for actual 
operation of the various environmental programs. In this 
regard, the Agency's activities include oversight and 
assistance in the facilitation of the environmental statutes.
    In addition to program costs, this account funds 
administrative costs associated with the operating programs of 
the Agency, including support for executive direction, policy 
oversight, resources management, general office and building 
services for program operations, and direct implementation of 
all Agency environmental programs--except those previously 
mentioned--for Headquarters, the ten EPA Regional offices, and 
all non-research field operations.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has recommended 
$2,014,799,000 for Environmental Programs and Management, an 
increase of $41,839,000 above the budget request and a decrease 
of $73,191,000 below the fiscal year 2001 funding level. For 
this account only, the Agency may transfer funds of not more 
than $500,000 between programs and activities without prior 
notice to the Committee, and of not more than $1,000,000 
without prior approval of the Committee. But for this 
difference, all other reprogramming procedures as outlined 
earlier shall apply.
    The Committee's recommended appropriation includes the 
following increases to the budget request:
    1. +$16,000,000 for rural water technical assistance 
activities and groundwater protection with distribution as 
follows: $9,000,000 for the NRWA; $3,500,000 for RCAP; $750,000 
for GWPC; $1,750,000 for Small Flows Clearinghouse; and 
$1,000,000 for the NETC.
    2. +$1,000,000 for implementation of the National Biosolids 
Partnership Program.
    3. +$1,500,000 for source water protection programs.
    4. +$5,000,000 to assist in carrying out EPA's regional 
haze rules regarding the operation of regional planning 
organizations to address visibility impairments throughout the 
country;
    5. +$5,000,000 to accelerate the development of new and 
update current Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 
values;
    6. +$25,000,000 for a targeted environmental grant program.
    Other Environmental Programs and Management activities are 
funded at the following levels:
    1. $20,799,500 for the Chesapeake Bay Program, an increase 
of $1,980,800 above the budget request;
    2. $15,500,000 for the Great Lakes National Program Office, 
an increase 0f $537,600 above the request;
    3. $20,000,000 for the Estuary Program, an increase of 
$2,946,800 above the budget request;
    4. $107,000,000 for Administrative Services;
    5. $9,000,000 for Direct Public Information and Assistance;
    6. $15,500,000 for Public Access programs;
    7. $51,000,000 for Regional Management activities;
    8. $197,524,300 for rent, utilities and security. This 
funding level provides a four percent increase above the fiscal 
year 2001 appropriation while the Congressional Budget Office 
has assumed a 2.2% GDP deflator calculation for fiscal 2002 
non-personnel costs;
    9. $17,000,000 for Reinvention programs; and
    10. $2,000,000 for Project XL.
    The Committee has recommended no general reduction for this 
account.
    The Committee has, within available funds, provided 
$2,000,000 for the eight Environmental Finance Centers. This 
represents an increase of $751,000 over the budget request for 
this excellent program. Again this year, the Agency is directed 
to provide no less than the budget request levels for Pesticide 
Registration and Re-registration programs as well as no less 
than last year's level for the Environmental Education 
programs. Bill language has been included under Administrative 
Provisions which authorizes for one year the collection by EPA 
of $17,000,000 in maintenance fees. The Committee expects that, 
in the absence of a new tolerance fee, up to $9,000,000 
requested in the budget submission to support 87 FTE in the 
reregistration program will be used to support tolerance 
reassessment activities.
    Again this year, bill language has been included in Title 
IV, General Provisions, prohibiting funds for use to promulgate 
a final regulation to implement changes in the payment of 
pesticide tolerance processing fees as proposed at 64 Federal 
Register 31040, or any similar proposal. Also included in Title 
IV, General Provisions is language that prohibits the 
collection of pesticide registration fees if a new maintenance 
fee has gone into effect.
    The Committee has included an additional $5,000,000 above 
the budget request to assist in carrying out EPA's regional 
haze rules regarding operations of the five Regional Planning 
Organizations (RPOs). These additional funds are intended to, 
among other things, help facilitate the collection of data and 
the conduct of intensive field studies necessary to develop 
proper analytical tools and to support the further development 
of implementation plans, as well as to assist in integrating 
the implementation of the current visibility protection program 
addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment and of 
new source review as it relates to class I areas.
    In addition to funds provided to the NRWA, RCAP, the GWPC, 
NETC, and the Small Flows Clearinghouse, the Committee has 
again provided $1,500,000 for source water protection programs. 
The Committee intends that these funds be used to develop local 
source water protection programs within each state utilizing 
the infrastructure and process of an organization now engaged 
in groundwater and wellhead protection programs. These 
resources will provided additional technicians for in-the-field 
work and will virtually guarantee that many more communities 
will adopt local, country-wide and/or regional source water 
protection programs targeted to the highest risk watershed 
areas in each state.
    The Committee has provided, from within available funds, 
$2,000,000 for the Administrator to develop and carry out a 
lamp recycling outreach program. In order to increase awareness 
of proper disposal methods among commercial and industrial 
users of energy efficient mercury-containing lamps, including 
fluorescent and high discharge lamps, this program should be 
used to promote lamp recycling, in compliance with the 
provisions of Federal and State Universal Waste Rules. The 
program is to be developed jointly with State environmental 
agencies, and with lamp manufacturers and lamp recyclers, 
either as individual companies, or collectively through their 
trade associations.
    The Committee remains concerned regarding the extensive 
backlog of pending environmental justice cases. To address this 
concern, the Committee has provided the budget request of 
$11,898,000 for Civil Rights/Title VI Compliance, an increase 
of $2,758,000 above the fiscal 2001 level, and encourages the 
Agency to move expeditiously to resolve as many of these cases 
as is possible.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided the budget 
request of $475,008,000 for all programs of the Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, an increase of 
$9,778,000 above the fiscal 2001 funding level and an increase 
of $32,626,400 above the fiscal 2000 funding level. Within the 
fiscal year 2002 appropriation, $26,826,300, an increase of 
$1,460,600 over 2001, has been provided for Compliance 
Assistance activities which the Committee believes must remain 
an essential element of EPA regulatory policy.
    In this regard, the Committee is concerned that EPA has 
largely failed to deliver on its commitments in its ``Aiming 
for Excellence'' report, or its obligations under SBREFA, to 
issue compliance tools for new regulations. The Committee 
believes that program offices, not just OECA, share the 
obligation to develop these tools, and expects that EPA will 
now meet these obligations. In developing compliance tools, EPA 
is expected to make funds within the Compliance Assistance and 
Centers key program available to program offices developing the 
relevant rules as may be necessary to assure timely development 
of tools. EPA should start working on the tools while the 
relevant rule is still under development, rather than after the 
rule is finished, since doing so will, in EPA's words, ``allow 
us to develop more effective, understandable regulations 
designed for application in real-world situations.'' EPA should 
also involve regulated entities and other interested parties in 
the development of these tools, to leverage outside resources 
and produce tools that are more useful.
    The Committee's recommendation includes an additional 
$3,000,000 above the budget request from within available funds 
to assist the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 
Substances in implementing the High Production Volume Chemical 
Challenge Program (HPV). These additional resources are 
intended to assist the Agency in its test plan review and data 
review and management of test results activities, thus helping 
the EPA and industry meet commitments to have proper HPV data 
available for distribution to the public in a timely manner.
    The Committee recognizes the potential of the new ambient 
temperature glass technology to reduce airborne and waterborne 
chemicals released into the environment, as well as the 
potential health benefits for indoor air quality and 
cleanliness in homes, institutions, and hospitals. The Air 
Quality Planning and Standards Office of the EPA has been 
provided $200,000 from within available funds to set standards 
and to increase public and government awareness of the benefits 
for this technology.
    The Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2001 
appropriations for EPA included language which requested that 
EPA meet its own goal of 21 Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS) revisions in fiscal 2001. Earlier, the Senate Report 
accompanying the 2001 legislation stated that EPA should 
``devote all necessary resources, including continued 
collaboration with external entities where possible'' to 
updating files. Despite these recent directives, EPA appears to 
have taken few steps to accelerate the development or review of 
IRIS values, which have averaged only 5 per year since the 
inception of the IRIS Pilot Program in 1996. Accordingly, the 
Committee has included an additional $5,000,000 above the 
budget request for continued work to accelerate new and updated 
IRIS values.
    The Committee is aware that there are a number of 
organizations eligible as grantees under title V of the Older 
Americans Act for participation in EPA's Senior Environmental 
Employment (SEE) Program that, for a variety of reasons, are 
not currently participating in the program. In an effort to 
afford all eligible grantees an opportunity to take part in 
this important and worthwhile activity, the Agency is strongly 
urged to develop program guidelines which, either on a current 
or rotating basis, allow more participation in the program from 
those eligible groups who may wish to take part.
    The Committee is concerned with EPA's progress in compiling 
emissions data from the states on the 188 Hazardous Air 
Pollutant (HAP) emissions. During the initial database 
development, just 36 of 50 states responded to the Agency, and 
many of these 36 states delivered information on just a few of 
the 188 HAPs. In an effort to resolve this serious situation, 
the Agency is strongly urged to develop and implement a state 
grant program to specifically fund the HAP inventory 
development process. Such a program should concentrate first on 
the 14 states with little or no HAP inventory, followed by 
assistance to the many states which still have very rudimentary 
data on many of their state HAP emissions. Implementing such a 
program to specifically assist the states which had limited 
database information during the 1996 NTI development would go a 
long way towards increasing the accuracy and completeness of 
the current inventory and subsequent community risk 
assessments.
    In November 1999, the Agency published a notice outlining a 
program to reform the hazardous waste regulatory program by 
identifying low-risk wastes that could safely be regulated 
under state non-hazardous waste programs. The heart of this 
program is a Multi-Media, Multi-Pathway, Multi-Receptor Risk 
Assessment model (3MRA), which has been found in independent 
testing to be technically flawed and unrealistically 
conservative, as well as complex and difficult to operate. 
While the Committee fully supports the reform of this program, 
it is important that the tools identifying those wastes which 
can safely exit RCRA oversight be realistic and workable. The 
Committee therefore strongly encourages the Agency to spend no 
resources to utilize the 3MRA risk model or any portion of the 
model, for any regulatory or other similar purposes until the 
entire model and its individual components have undergone 
independent, external peer review and the Agency has either 
incorporated the recommendations into the model or has 
explained publicly why it has not.
    The Committee is aware of the extraordinary success the 
military services have achieved in recent years by utilizing 
pulse technology in vehicles and equipment. This technology has 
contributed to significant cost savings in battery management 
programs and has enhanced the ability of the military services 
to increase the effectiveness of their environmental 
responsibilities through the extension of the service life of 
its batteries. The Committee has directed elsewhere in this 
report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration closely examine 
the opportunities for cost savings and associated environmental 
benefits of using pulse technology for their battery management 
programs. The Committee also expects EPA to actively 
investigate the environmental and monetary benefits that could 
be realized by encouraging government-wide use of pulse 
technology in the maintenance of the Federal vehicle fleet and 
other applicable equipment.
    The Committee has provided the full budget request for the 
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program and directs that no 
reductions be proposed in the operating plan submission for 
this important program. In addition, the Committee is 
encouraged that the Agency is establishing the Endocrine 
Disruptor Methods Validation Subcommittee (EDMVS) of the 
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy (NACEPT). 
The EDMVS will provide a means by which interested parties can 
participate to express their concerns and work to ensure a 
scientifically sound validation process for the animal and non-
animal based screens and tests in the developing program. The 
Committee urges EPA to develop validation processes that 
incorporate the advice of the EDMVS, and the Agency is 
requested to provide a report to the Committee on the status of 
the EDMVS by March 15, 2002.
    This Committee and the Agency have long recognized the 
environmental importance of watersheds. Because the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands is comprised of three major watersheds on 
79,000 square miles, which affect water quality from the 
Potomac Highlands to the Gulf of Mexico, there is a need to 
establish a federal program for collaborative monitoring, 
research, management, and restoration activities within this 
area.
    The Agency, in August 2000, published an assessment of the 
state of the streams of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. Due to the 
importance of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands and the success of the 
aforementioned assessment, the Committee directs the Agency to 
prepare a follow-up report on the state of the Mid-Atlantic 
Highlands as a whole by April 15, 2002. Further, the 
Administrator is expected to enter into an interagency 
agreement with other Federal agencies and cooperative 
agreements with states, local governments and non-governmental 
organizations, such as the Canaan Valley Institute, to carry 
out the goals of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands program. The 
Administrator should coordinate the actions of the EPA with 
those of the appropriate officials of state and local 
authorities to improve water quality, living resources, and the 
habitat of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands; to obtain support of the 
appropriate officials of the agencies in achieving the 
objectives of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands program; and to 
implement an outreach program for public information and 
education to foster stewardship of the resources of this area.
    In 1992, Congress directed EPA to correct the over-breadth 
of the Mixture and Derived-From Rules and revise them 
accordingly by October 1994. Because EPA has failed to revise 
the rules, the Committee once again expects EPA to amend the 
RCRA mixture and derived-from rules to provide for low risk 
treatment residues and dilute mixtures to be managed by state 
non-hazardous industrial waste management programs. EPA has 
solicited and received comments on at least five specific, 
targeted reforms to the mixture and derived-from rules and 
should be able to move forward on these recommendations in 
short order. The time for EPA to gather more information on 
this topic expired years ago, and the Committee now expects EPA 
to move expeditiously to rectify this unacceptable situation. 
The Committee notes further that its expectations in this 
regard in no way affect any pending litigation over the 
validity of the mixture and derived-from rules.
    Due to the controversy surrounding EPA's proposed 
regulations to revise its TMDL program, the Supplemental 
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2000 included statutory 
language that prohibited EPA from using funds made available 
for fiscal year 2000 or 2001 to make a final determination on 
or to implement any new rule relating to TMDLs published in the 
Federal Register on August 23, 1999.
    In July 2000, before the Supplemental Appropriations Bill 
was signed into law, EPA issued final regulations to 
comprehensively amend its TMDL program. Those final regulations 
included a provision stating that: ``This regulation is not 
effective until 30 days after the date that Congress allows EPA 
to implement this regulation.''
    To try to resolve some of the controversy surrounding EPA's 
TMDL rule changes, the statement of managers accompanying the 
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Act directed EPA to, (1) 
contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
review of the quality of science used to develop and implement 
TMDLs, (2) conduct a comprehensive assessment of the costs of 
the TMDL program, and (3) prepare an analysis of the monitoring 
data needed for development and implementation of TMDLs. The 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently released its 
report, with recommendations for significant changes to EPA's 
TMDL program. The Committee expects EPA to carefully review the 
NAS study before making any decisions about the future and 
direction of its TMDL program. Unfortunately, EPA has not yet 
provided Congress with the results of its cost assessment or 
monitoring data analysis. The Committee expects EPA to 
expeditiously complete its review of TMDL program costs and 
analysis of monitoring data needs and submit these reports to 
Congress.
    The Committee remains concerned about Region IX and some of 
its unprecedented activities, especially in the water quality 
area. Specifically, Region IX has previously overruled State 
authority with regards to implementing the water quality 
program and issuance of water permits. Last year, the Committee 
expressed concern because this Region issued its own TMDL 
guidance that was inconsistent with EPA Headquarter's policies 
and indicated that the Region should revoke this guidance. The 
guidance was never officially implemented, but the Region tried 
to impose new requirements without any regulatory or scientific 
basis prior to the development of a TMDL. Imposing new permit 
requirements which change the obligations of permitees can only 
be done by notice and comment rulemaking. The Committee urges 
the Administrator, and a new Regional Administrator, to closely 
scrutinize all Region IX activities in all program areas, and 
to ensure that the State's authority to implement environmental 
programs is maintained.
    EPA's Office of Environmental Information is strongly 
encouraged to continue development and implementation of a plan 
of action to facilitate federal and state efforts to develop 
and implement integrated information systems to improve 
environmental decision making, reduce the burden on regulated 
entities and improve the reliability of information available 
to the public. Such systems must provide the capability to 
implement standard environment management functions such as 
permitting, compliance and enforcement; and the Agency's 
development of an integrated information system for federal use 
must be compatible with the integrated State systems.
    The Committee notes that EPA is continuing to review the 
radon in drinking water rule proposed in February, 2000. As 
proposed, the rule could have an unnecessary financial impact 
on large and small cities alike, as well as on local water 
agencies. The Committee also notes the General Accounting 
Office is studying the financial impacts of the proposed EPA 
regulation. Prior to finalizing this rule, the Agency is 
expected to consider fully the GAO's findings. The Agency is 
also expected to provide Congress with alternative regulatory 
actions that would provide equivalent public health protection 
without such unnecessary financial impacts on communities and 
drinking water agencies.
    The Committee is concerned that despite recent EPA actions 
to remedy its grants oversight deficiencies, the Agency is 
nevertheless leaving core issues unaddressed. A recent GAO 
report found, among other things, that EPA oversight activities 
under its new post-award management policy are not likely to 
identify improper nonprofit grantee spending on unallowable 
costs such as litigation, lobbying or political activities; 
EPA's policy is not designed to identify unallowable cost 
spending; EPA grant managers lack the training to identify 
whether grantees are spending funds on unallowable costs; and 
EPA grant managers rarely select nonprofit grantees for the in-
depth review necessary to determine how they are spending grant 
funds. To remedy this matter, the Committee strongly encourages 
EPA's Office of Grants and Debarment to provide funds for an 
additional staff of auditors to supplement current grants 
management activities. These grants auditors would, among other 
activities, conduct on-sight reviews of at-risk and nonprofit 
EPA grantees, using techniques such as transaction testing, to 
the degree necessary to determine whether grantees are 
expending government grant funds on unallowable costs. EPA 
should continue its quarterly reporting on its grants 
management activities including the accomplishments of these 
additional grants auditing staff.
    The Committee recognizes that voluntary efforts to use non-
ozone depleting substances prior to the Clean Air Act mandate 
provides benefit to stratospheric ozone recovery. The Committee 
once again encourages EPA to develop a more comprehensive 
strategy to promote the benefits of ozone protection. In 
developing this strategy, EPA should consider increased public 
awareness, education, and outreach on the importance of ozone 
protection beyond those activities employed by EPA today and 
should design and support voluntary incentives that encourage 
the use of non-ozone depleting substances.
    Given the uncertainty on whether monitored exceedances were 
due to natural causes, the Committee urges EPA to fully review 
the matter and work towards reversing its determination that 
the Wallula area of Washington State has not attained the PM-10 
national ambient air quality standard.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation\1\....................       $34,019,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        34,094,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        34,019,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........           -75,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                0

\1\ Total does not include transfer of $11,867,000 from the Hazardous
  Substance Superfund account.

    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, 
evaluation, and investigation products and advisory services to 
improve the performance and integrity of EPA programs and 
operations. This account funds personnel compensation and 
benefits, travel, and expenses (excluding rent, utilities, and 
security costs) for the Office of Inspector General. The 
appropriation for the OIG is funded from two separate accounts: 
Office of Inspector General and Hazardous Substance Superfund.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends a total 
appropriation of $45,886,000 for the Office of Inspector 
General, an increase of $292,000 above last year's funding 
level and the same as the budget request. Of the amount 
provided, $11,867,000 shall be derived by transfer from the 
Hazardous Substance Superfund account.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $25,318,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        23,931,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        25,318,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +1,387,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    This appropriation provides for the design and construction 
of EPA-owned facilities as well as for the repair, extension, 
alteration, and improvement of facilities utilized by the 
Agency. The funds are to be used to correct unsafe conditions, 
protect health and safety of employees and Agency visitors, and 
prevent deterioration of structures and equipment.
    The Committee is recommending $25,318,000, the budget 
request, for Buildings and Facilities. This funding level 
represents an increase of $1,387,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
funding level. This recommendation provides for necessary 
maintenance and repair costs at Agency facilities and the 
ongoing renovation of EPA's new headquarters.

                     HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $1,270,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     1,270,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     1,268,135,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......        +1,865,000


    The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) program was 
established in 1980 by the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to clean up emergency 
hazardous materials, spills, and dangerous, uncontrolled, and/
or abandoned hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Amendments 
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) expanded the program 
substantially in 1986, authorizing approximately $8,500,000,000 
in revenues over five years. In 1990, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act extended the program's authorization through 
1994 for $5,100,000,000 with taxing authority through calendar 
year 1995.
    The Superfund program is operated by EPA subject to annual 
appropriations from a dedicated trust fund and from general 
revenues. Enforcement activities are used to identify and 
induce parties responsible for hazardous waste problems to 
undertake clean-up actions and pay for EPA oversight of those 
actions. In addition, responsible parties have been required to 
cover the cost of fund-financed removal and remedial actions 
undertaken at spills and waste sites by Federal and State 
agencies. Through transfers to the Office of Inspector General 
(OIG) and Science and Technology accounts, the OIG and the 
Office of Research and Development also receive funding from 
this account. Due to the site-specific nature of the Agency's 
Superfund program, site-specific travel is not considered part 
of the overall travel ceiling set for the Superfund account.
    For fiscal year 2002, $1,270,000,000 has been recommended 
by the Committee, the same as last year's funding level, and an 
increase of $1,865,000 above the budget request.
    Bill language has been included which transfers $11,867,000 
from this account to the Office of Inspector General and 
$36,891,000 to the Science and Technology account. The 
Committee expects EPA to prioritize resources to the actual 
cleanup of sites on the National Priority List and, to the 
greatest extent possible, limit resources directed to 
administration, oversight, support, studies, design, 
investigations, monitoring, assessment, and evaluation.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
program level:
    $915,995,000 for Superfund response/cleanup actions.
    The Committee proposal includes $94,997,400, the budget 
request, for continued Brownfields activities.
    $133,078,000 for enforcement activities.
    $133,344,000 for management and support.
    $11,867,000 to the Office of Inspector General. Bill 
language is included which provides for this transfer.
    $36,891,000 for research and development activities, to be 
transferred to Science and Technology as proposed in the budget 
request.
    $28,150,000 for the Department of Justice.
    $10,675,000 for all other necessary, reimbursable 
interagency activities.
    Funds provided prior to fiscal year 2001 through this 
account for the ATSDR and NIEHS programs have been provided 
through separate accounts created in fiscal year 2001 for these 
two programs of the Department of Health and Human Services. 
Both programs have been funded at the 2002 budget request--
increases above the 2001 funding levels--including $78,235,000 
for ATSDR and $70,228,000 for NIEHS.
    In providing over $900,000,000 for Superfund response 
actions, the Committee recognizes the importance of cleaning up 
Superfund hazardous waste sites. In this regard, EPA is 
encouraged to expedite cleanup efforts, especially those 
underway. In addition, the Committee encourages EPA to focus 
particular attention to remediate sites in the states with the 
largest number of Superfund sites.
    The Committee supports the national pilot worker training 
program which recruits and trains young persons who live near 
hazardous waste sites or in the communities at risk of exposure 
to contaminated properties for work in the environmental field. 
The Committee directs EPA to continue funding this effort in 
cooperation and collaboration with NIEHS. The research 
activities of NIEHS can compliment the training and operational 
activities of EPA in carrying out this program. Moreover, an 
expanded focus to Brownfield communities--identified as the 
growing number of contaminated or potentially contaminated 
vacant or abandoned industrial sites--is critical in order to 
actively engage and train the under-served populations that are 
the focus of this effort. While the number of National 
Priorities List sites is remaining fairly static, there is a 
growing need for continued assessment activities at Brownfield 
sites across the country.
    The Committee commends the Agency's budget request for the 
hazardous substance research centers and the SITE program, both 
of which remain at the fiscal year 2001 level, and directs that 
no reductions be taken in these programs.
    For fiscal years 1999 through 2001, the Congress included 
specific direction to EPA regarding the Agency's ordering of 
dredging or other invasive sediment remediation technologies 
pending the National Academy of Sciences' completion of a study 
intended to address dredging, capping, source control, natural 
recovery, and disposal of contaminated sediments, and comparing 
the risks of each technology. The Committee notes that this 
study has been completed and published, and, to the greatest 
extent practicable, expects the Agency to adopt as part of its 
own sediment remediation strategy those guidelines as presented 
in the Academy report.
    The Committee remains concerned that any reversal of the 
long-standing policy of the EPA to defer to the NRC for cleanup 
of NRC licensed sites is not a good use of public or private 
funds. The interaction of the EPA with the NRC, NRC licensees, 
and others with regard to sites being remediated under NRC 
regulatory requirements--when not specifically requested by the 
NRC--has created stakeholder concerns regarding the authority 
and finally of NRC licensing decisions, the duration and costs 
of site cleanup, and the potential future liability of parties 
associated with affected sites. However, the Committee 
recognizes that there may be circumstances at specific NRC 
licensed sites where the Agency's expertise may be of critical 
use of the NRC. In the interest of ensuring that sites do not 
face dual regulations, the Committee has previously encouraged 
both agencies to enter into an MOU which clarifies the 
circumstances for EPA's involvement at NRC sites when requested 
by the NRC. To date, such an MOU has not been concluded. As 
this area is of interest to the Committee, to other agencies, 
and State governments, the Committee directs the Administrator 
undertake a review of EPA action on this matter with the intent 
of concluding an MOU with NRC as soon as practical. The EPA and 
NRC are directed to provide a report to the Committee on the 
status of the MOU no later than November 30, 2001, and every 
three months thereafter until an MOU is adopted.

              LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $72,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        72,096,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        71,937,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........           -96,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......           +63,000


    Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by 
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, authorized 
the establishment of a response program for clean-up of 
releases from leaking underground storage tanks. Owners and 
operators of facilities with underground tanks must demonstrate 
financial responsibility and bear initial responsibility for 
clean-up. The Federal trust fund is funded through the 
imposition of a motor fuel tax of one-tenth of a cent per 
gallon, which generates approximately $170,000,000 per year. 
Most states also have their own leaking underground storage 
tank programs, including a separate trust fund or other funding 
mechanism, in place.
    The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund provides 
additional clean-up resources and may also be used to enforce 
necessary corrective actions and to recover costs expended from 
the Fund for clean-up activities. The underground storage tank 
response program is designed to operate primarily through 
cooperative agreements with states. However, funds are also 
used for grants to non-state entities including Indian tribes 
under Section 8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act. Per the budget request again this year, the Office of 
Inspector General will receive no funding by transfer from the 
trust fund through this appropriation.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided 
$72,000,000, a decrease of $96,000 below last year's 
appropriated level and an increase of $63,000 above the budget 
request.
    The Committee is aware of concerns expressed by several 
states that LUST funds not be used in a disproportionate manner 
for federal projects instead of state projects as anticipated 
by the authorizing statutes. The Committee concurs in this 
position of predominate use in the states and tribes and notes 
that its recommendation will allow for approximately 85% of the 
total appropriation to be used in the states and tribes.

                           OIL SPILL RESPONSE




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $15,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        15,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        14,967,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......           +33,000


    This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act and amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 
1990, provides funds to prepare for and prevent releases of oil 
and other petroleum products in navigable waterways. In 
addition, EPA is reimbursed for incident specific response 
costs through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund managed by the 
United States Coast Guard.
    EPA is responsible for directing all clean-up and removal 
activities posing a threat to public health and the 
environment; conducting site inspections; providing for a means 
to achieve cleanup activities by private parties; reviewing 
containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency 
plans; and pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed clean-ups. 
Funds for this appropriation are provided through the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund which is composed of fees and collections 
made through provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the 
Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act, the 
Deepwater Port Act of 1974, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act Amendments of 1978, and the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act. Pursuant to law, the Trust Fund is managed by the United 
States Coast Guard.
    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
the same as that provided last fiscal year and an increase of 
$33,000 above the budget request.

                   STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $3,433,899,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     3,641,341,386
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     3,288,725,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      -207,442,386
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......      +145,174,000


    The State and Tribal Assistance Grant account provides 
grant funds for programs operated primarily by the states. The 
account includes Clean Water State Revolving Fund grants, which 
are intended to help eliminate municipal discharge of untreated 
or inadequately treated pollutants and thereby maintain or help 
restore this country's water to a swimmable and/or fishable 
quality; Drinking Water State Revolving Fund grants intended to 
improve municipal drinking water supply infrastructure and 
facilities; grants for other infrastructure projects; and 
miscellaneous categorical grant programs.
    The largest portion of the STAG account is the State 
Revolving Funds (SRF). The Clean Water SRF funds water 
infrastructure grants, which for more than a decade have been 
made to municipal, inter-municipal, state, interstate agencies, 
and tribal governments to assist in financing the planning, 
design, and construction of wastewater facilities. This account 
also funds the Safe Drinking Water SRF as well as various grant 
programs to improve both air and water quality. Among these are 
non-point source grants under Section 319 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, Public Water System Supervision grants, 
Section 106 water quality grants, Clean Air Act Section 105 and 
103 air grants, two new programs targeted to enforcement and 
environmental information, and other grants utilized by the 
states, tribes, and others to meet Federal environmental 
statutory and regulatory requirements.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends a total of 
$3,433,899,000, a decrease of $207,442,386 below the current 
fiscal year spending level, and $145,174,000 above the level 
proposed in the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
program level:
    $1,200,000,000 for Clean Water State Revolving Funds;
    $850,000,000 for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds;
    $1,078,899,000 for state and tribal program/categorical 
grants;
    $75,000,000 for high priority U.S./Mexico border projects;
    $30,000,000 for Alaska rural and Native Villages; and
    $200,000,000 for a targeted grant program to address 
community wastewater, drinking water and ground water 
infrastructure concerns.
    The Committee has provided an increase of $23,117,000 above 
the budget request for state and tribal program assistance/
categorical grants. The Committee's recommendation includes an 
allocation different than that proposed in the budget 
submission for four specific programs, including:
          (1) $216,540,100 for air resource assistance to State 
        and local governments including an increase of 
        $8,000,000 for section 103 and 105 Clean Air Act 
        grants;
          (2) $11,044,500 for air resource assistance grants to 
        Tribal governments;
          (3) $8,139,900 for radon grants;
          (4) $192,476,700 for water pollution control agency 
        resource supplementation under section 106 of FWPCA, an 
        increase of $22,593,400 above the budget request;
          (5) $225,000,000 for section 319 of FWPCA non-point 
        source pollution grants, including programs formerly 
        eligible under the section 314 Clean Lakes program, a 
        decrease of $12,476,800 below the budget request;
          (6) $14,967,000 for wetlands program development 
        grants;
          (7) $18,958,200 for water quality cooperative 
        agreements under section 104(b)(3) of FWPCA;
          (8) $7,000,000 for beach grants to develop and 
        implement monitoring and information programs for 
        coastal recreation waters pursuant to the Beach 
        Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 
        2000;
          (9) $93,100,200 for public water system supervision 
        grants;
          (10) $10,950,900 for underground injection control 
        grants;
          (11) $106,363,600 for RCRA financial assistance 
        grants;
          (12) $11,918,400 for underground storage tank grants;
          (13) $13,085,500 for pesticides program 
        implementation grants;
          (14) $13,682,000 for lead risk reduction grants;
          (15) $5,138,900 for toxic substances enforcement 
        grants;
          (16) $19,867,800 for pesticides enforcement grants;
          (17) $25,000,000 for the new information exchange 
        network program;
          (18) $25,000,000 for the new State multimedia 
        enforcement grant program;
          (19) $5,986,300 for pollution prevention incentive 
        grants;
          (20) $2,209,300 for sector and multimedia enforcement 
        and compliance grants; and
          (21) $52,469,700 for Indians general assistance 
        grants.
    Section 106 pollution control grants have been provided 
$192,476,700, an increase of $22,593,400 above the budget 
request and $20,593,400 above last year's funding level. The 
Committee believes that an adequately funded section 106 
program provides the necessary flexibility for the states to 
address a wide variety of water related problems, and is 
particularly important for the states to meet the long-term 
needs of the TMDL program. Section 319 non-point source 
pollution grants would receive $225,000,000, a slight decrease 
from the 2001 funding level and the budget request but an 
increase of $25,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 appropriated 
level.
    State and local air pollution control agencies have been 
facing a significant budget shortfall for many years. 
Accordingly, the Committee has increased grants to state and 
local air quality agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the 
Clean Air Act by $8,000,000 over the Administration's request 
for fiscal 2002.
    In the Committee report accompanying the FY 2001 
appropriations legislation, concern was expressed regarding 
certain spending practices of EPA pertaining to section 105 
grants, and direction was given to the Agency to address and 
resolve the situation. It is the Committee's understanding that 
EPA has been working with state and local agencies, through 
their national associations--the State and Territorial Air 
Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local 
Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO)--to discuss the 
disposition of state and local air grants and to obtain 
concurrence of the states prior to withholding any funds. The 
Committee is pleased that EPA has responded to these concerns 
and expects the Agency to continue to work with STAPPA/ALAPCO 
this year and in the future to ensure that any decisions to 
withhold state and local grant funds for expenditure directly 
by EPA are made only after obtaining such concurrence.
    Recent studies by EPA and others suggest that there has 
been a substantial deterioration in the nation's wastewater 
infrastructure, including aging wastewater treatment plants and 
leaking sewer collection systems. Substantial contributions of 
wet weather flows and other nonpoint sources of pollution have 
also been identified. In addition, the additional expenditures 
needed to achieve TMDL requirements and groundwater protection 
in future years are expected to be extensive. Because the 
federal government funds only a portion of wastewater 
infrastructure investments, the states have urged maximum 
flexibility in their allocation of federal resources, so as to 
direct investments at the point-source and nonpoint-source 
areas of greatest need. However, states also recognize that 
they must be held accountable to the goals of the Clean Water 
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other wastewater-related 
federal statutes. The Committee is aware that septic system 
repair and management projects and other nonpoint source 
pollution prevention and control measures, which can produce 
substantial benefits of water quality protection, are not 
eligible for SRF funding in most of the states. Further, many 
recipients of federal wastewater assistance have not instituted 
user fees to provide for long-term maintenance and repair of 
the infrastructure, and the results of that lack of maintenance 
are now evident.
    To help address this situation, the Committee strongly 
urges EPA to, within 60 days of enactment of this Act, 
establish a working group of representatives from the State/EPA 
SRF Work Group, the Environmental Council Of the States, 
Environmental Finance Centers, and centralized and 
decentralized wastewater and nonpoint-source stakeholder groups 
to address the basic means by which EPA may accord flexibility 
to the states and yet also assure that federal investments 
achieve the greatest possible benefits. Specifically, the 
following questions should be among those addressed by this new 
working group: (1) are the SRF and other federal financial 
assistance programs achieving maximum water quality protection 
in terms of public health and environmental outcomes; (2) are 
alternatives other than wastewater treatment plants and 
collection systems eligible for federal assistance, and, if 
not, why not; (3) do the priority ranking systems which states 
use to prioritize eligible treatment works projects properly 
account for environmental outcomes, including indirect impacts 
from air deposition of treatment plant effluent or stormwater 
runoff from sewer construction-induced growth; (4) are 
recipients of federal assistance required to adopt appropriate 
financial planning methods, which would reduce the cost of 
capital and guarantee that infrastructure would be maintained; 
and (5) have sufficient performance measures and information 
systems been developed to assure the Congress that future 
federal assistance will be spent wisely by the states?
    The Committee expects to be kept apprised of the 
development of this new working group and further expects that 
the group will prepare and submit to the Congress by May 15, 
2002 a report addressing the aforementioned questions and other 
related issues it deems relevant.
    The Committee remains aware of problems with the close-down 
of the title II Clean Water Act construction grant program, 
particularly in the final resolution of audits and grantee 
requests for review or waiver. In the interest of minimizing 
the need for additional administrative appeals, judicial 
review, and further legislative remedies, EPA is once again 
directed to resolve, equitably and as expeditiously as its 
resources will allow, grantee requests for review or waiver, 
audit resolutions, and appeals in accordance with the following 
guidelines:
          1. Once a grantee has made a prima facie case 
        establishing its entitlement to grant funding, the 
        burden of proof should be on EPA to deny such 
        entitlement;
          2. A prior affirmative determination favoring a 
        grantee made by the Corps of Engineers, a State agency, 
        or the EPA, should be accepted unless it is manifestly 
        contrary to applicable law. Upon request of a grantee, 
        any prior negative determination should be reviewed de 
        novo;
          3. All project costs should be reviewed, without 
        regard to whether such costs were previously claimed, 
        and shall be deemed eligible if based upon statute, 
        regulation, EPA or state program guidance, prior 
        decisions, or practice of EPA or a state agency or is 
        otherwise established according to law, when the 
        provision or practice relied upon by the grantee is 
        reasonably clear or adequately established;
          4. The Agency should not assess interest against, nor 
        seek payment from, a grantee until final resolution of 
        all administrative or judicial reviews or requests for 
        waiver, and should assess interest only if justified 
        under the principles set forth in Baltimore v. Browner; 
        and
          5. EPA should take all necessary actions to preserve 
        the availability of funds previously appropriated under 
        title II of the Clean Water Act, including section 206, 
        in an amount adequate to compensate grantees for their 
        grant funding entitlements upon final administrative or 
        judicial resolution of grantee requests for review or 
        grant entitlements as otherwise determined by a state 
        agency, the EPA, or the Congress.
    The Committee has not included language proposed in the 
budget submission which set aside $450,000,000 for a new 
combined sewer overflow (CSO) grant program. While the 
Committee recognizes the severe CSO problems faced by 
communities in several states, the proposal would have greatly 
reduced funds available to the Clean Water SRF program and 
would have provided grant funds to states which have priorities 
other than CSO problems. The Committee notes that funds 
available through the Clean Water SRF loan program can be used 
for CSO-related problems, and will further make available, 
through the targeted grant program, funding for specific 
communities with CSO concerns.
    As was the case in past years, no reprogramming requests 
associated with States and Tribes applying for Partnership 
grants need to be submitted to the Committee for approval 
should such grants exceed the normal reprogramming limitations.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

    The Committee has again this year included an 
administrative provision giving the Administrator specific 
authority to, in the absence of an acceptable tribal program, 
award cooperative agreements to federally recognized Indian 
Tribes or Intertribal consortia so as to properly carry out 
EPA's environmental programs.
    In order to continue providing sufficient and necessary 
resources for EPA's pesticide re-registration program, the 
Committee has included bill language which continues 
maintenance fee collections totaling $17,000,000 until 
September 30, 2002. The program is otherwise set to expire on 
September 30, 2001.

                   Executive Office of the President


                OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................        $5,267,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................         5,201,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................         5,267,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........           +66,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............                 0


    The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was 
created by the National Science and Technology Policy, 
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP advises the 
President and other agencies within the Executive Office on 
science and technology policies and coordinates research and 
development programs for the Federal Government.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,267,000 for 
fiscal year 2002, an increase of $66,000 above the fiscal year 
2001 appropriation and the same amount included in the budget 
request.

  COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................        $2,974,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................         2,900,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................         2,974,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........           +74,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established 
by Congress under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA). The Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ), which 
provides professional and administrative staff for the Council, 
was established in the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 
1970. The Council on Environmental Policy has statutory 
responsibility under NEPA for environmental oversight of all 
Federal agencies and is to lead interagency decision-making of 
all environmental matters.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has recommended the 
budget request of $2,974,000 for the CEQ and OEQ, an increase 
of $74,000 above last year's spending level. The Committee's 
proposed funding for CEQ will allow full cost of living 
increases for the current staff of 24 FTEs as well as other 
necessary expense adjustments. The Committee directs that CEQ's 
total staffing level not exceed 24 FTEs at any time during the 
fiscal year.
    As in previous years, bill language is included which 
stipulates that, notwithstanding the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the CEQ can operate with one council member and 
that member shall be considered the chairman for purposes of 
conducting the business of the CEQ and OEQ.
    For fiscal year 1999, the Congress increased funding for 
the Council on Environmental Quality and directed that not less 
than $100,000 of the appropriated amount be used by CEQ for 
work on the NEPA Reinvention project. The Congress specifically 
noted that these funds were to support efforts to establish a 
memorandum of understanding between the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission and other appropriate Federal Departments 
and agencies to expedite review of natural gas pipeline 
projects. In the report accompanying the fiscal year 2000 
appropriation, the Committee restated and reaffirmed its 
direction that CEQ take action on an MOU to improve the NEPA 
process for such new natural gas pipeline projects. CEQ 
unfortunately never called a meeting of such an interagency 
task force to act on this matter prior to the end of the 
previous Administration.
    The Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group 
issued in May 2001, recommends that ``the President direct 
agencies to continue their interagency efforts to . . . 
expedite pipeline permitting . . .'' The President's Executive 
Order of May 18, 2001, regarding expediting energy-related 
projects, calls for CEQ to set up an interagency task force 
``to monitor and assist the agencies in their efforts to 
expedite their review of permits or similar actions, as 
necessary, to accelerate the completion of energy-related 
projects . . . and improve transmission of energy.'' As the 
demand for natural gas is increasing, causing the need to build 
additional infrastructure, this Committee continues to expect 
that CEQ will quickly convene an interagency task force to, 
among other things, prepare a memorandum of understanding to 
coordinate and expedite the NEPA review and permitting process 
for natural gas pipelines.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation


                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $33,660,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        33,660,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        33,660,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    Funding for the Office of the Inspector General at the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is provided pursuant to 
31 U.S.C. 1105(a)(25), which requires a separate appropriation 
account for appropriations for each Office of Inspector General 
of an establishment defined under section 11(2) of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978.
    The Committee recommendation, the same as the budget 
request, provides for the transfer of $33,660,000 from the Bank 
Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and the 
FSLIC Resolution Fund to finance the Office of Inspector 
General for fiscal year 2002.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency





Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $2,257,352,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     2,439,800,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     2,212,945,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      -182,448,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......       +44,407,000
Fiscal year 2002 contingent emergency appropriation...     1,300,000,000


    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created 
by reorganization plan number 3 of 1978. The Agency carries out 
a wide range of program responsibilities for emergency planning 
and preparedness, disaster response and recovery, and hazard 
mitigation.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends 
$2,257,352,000 which represents a decrease of $182,448,000 from 
the fiscal year 2001 appropriation and an increase of 
+44,407,000 from the 2002 budget request.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Agency must limit transfers of funds between 
programs and activities to not more than $500,000 without prior 
approval of the Committee. Further, no changes may be made to 
any account or program element if it is construed to be a 
change in policy. Any program or activity mentioned in this 
report shall be construed as the position of the Committee and 
should not be subject to any reductions or reprogrammings 
without prior approval of the Committee.

                            DISASTER RELIEF

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $1,369,399,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     1,600,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     1,369,399,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      -230,601,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0
Fiscal year 2002 contingent emergency appropriation...     1,300,000,000


    The Federal Emergency Management Agency has responsibility 
for administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating 
the Federal response in Presidentially declared disasters. 
Major activities under the disaster assistance program are 
human services which provides aid to families and individuals; 
infrastructure which supports the efforts of State and local 
governments to take emergency protective measures, clear debris 
and repair infrastructure damage; hazard mitigation which 
sponsors projects to diminish effects of future disasters; and 
disaster management, such as disaster field office staff and 
automated data processing support.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends 
$1,369,399,000 in regular appropriations for disaster relief, 
the same as the budget request and a decrease of $230,601,000 
compared to the fiscal year 2001 level. The Committee 
recognizes the amount of damage caused by Tropical Storm 
Allison that took lives and destroyed vital resources. As FEMA 
is still assessing the extent of the damage, the Committee also 
recommends a contingent emergency appropriation of 
$1,300,000,000 for disaster relief.
    The budget request included reference to two ``cost 
savings'' proposals associated with this account. First, the 
budget proposed a 50/50 cost share for section 404 post-
disaster mitigation grants instead of the 75% federal/25% local 
cost share structure currently being used. The Committee does 
not agree with the proposed change. The FEMA and federal 
government's cost associated with the section 404 post-disaster 
mitigation grant program is set by statute at 15% of the cost 
of a Presidentially declared disaster. Therefore, the overall 
Federal contribution does not change based upon the cost-share 
formula and no savings to the Federal budget are achieved 
through such a change. In addition, it is a widely held belief, 
substantiated by facts, that increasing the state and local 
share of costs for mitigation projects will result in fewer 
mitigation projects being accomplished. The net result would be 
an increase in the cost of disasters in the long run since 
mitigation measures will not be accomplished.
    The second cost savings, a requirement for state, local, 
and private non-profit entities to carry building insurance, is 
also of dubious merit. The Committee remains concerned that 
requiring insurance as a condition of receiving public 
assistance exceeds the direction provided to FEMA under the 
Stafford Act, discourages attempts to mitigate damage before it 
occurs, assumes an unproven premise regarding the insurance 
market's treatment of disasters and the availability, 
affordability and adequacy of coverage for such insurance. The 
Committee strongly believes that imposing additional disaster 
cost burdens on states, municipalities, and private non-profit 
hospitals and universities is ill-conceived.
    The Committee reminds FEMA that denying disaster assistance 
to underinsured or uninsured entities that suffer catastrophic 
losses as a result of a disaster could result in significant 
consequential losses of public services, medical care, and 
education.
    Furthermore, the Committee remains concerned that FEMA has 
not conducted a thorough cost-benefit analysis or conducted 
extensive outreach with potentially affected entities, 
particularly those entities that are susceptible to 
catastrophic earthquakes. The Committee directs FEMA not to 
initiate a rulemaking process until a comprehensive analysis 
has been conducted which concludes that insurance is available 
and affordable for all types of perils.
    The Committee recommendation includes a provision for the 
transfer of $2,900,000 to ``Emergency Management Planning and 
Assistance'' for the consolidated emergency performance grant 
program and a provision allowing the use of up to $15,000,000 
for flood map modernization activities following a disaster 
declaration, both of which were carried in the fiscal year 2001 
bill. A new provision included in the bill this year allows for 
the use of $21,577,000 from the Disaster Relief Fund for 
activities of the FEMA Inspector General.

            DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                            STATE SHARE LOAN




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................          $405,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................         1,678,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................           405,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        -1,273,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


                       LIMITATION ON DIRECT LOANS

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.....     ($25,000,000)          $543,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation......      (25,000,000)           427,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.....      (25,000,000)           543,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001                   (0)          +116,000
 appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2002                   (0)                 0
 request............................


    Beginning in 1992, loans made to States under the cost 
sharing provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act were funded in accordance with the 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The Disaster Assistance 
Direct Loan Program Account, which was established as a result 
of the Federal Credit Reform Act, records the subsidy costs 
associated with the direct loans obligated beginning in 1992 to 
the present, as well as administrative expenses of this 
program.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $405,000 for 
the cost of State Share Loans, a decrease of $1,273,000 from 
the fiscal year 2001 appropriation and the same amount as the 
President's request. In addition, the Committee has provided 
$25,000,000 for the limitation on direct loans pursuant to 
Section 319 of the Stafford Act, as well $543,000 for 
administrative expenses of the program.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $227,900,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       215,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       233,801,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........       +12,900,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......        -5,901,000


    This activity encompasses the salaries and expenses 
required to provide executive direction and administrative 
staff support for all agency programs in both the headquarters 
and field offices. The account funds both program support and 
executive direction activities.
    The bill includes $227,900,000 for salaries and expenses, a 
decrease of $5,901,000 from the budget request, including a 
reduction of $1,500,000 from Preparedness, Training, and 
Exercises, and an increase of $12,900,000 when compared to the 
fiscal year 2001 appropriation.
    The amount provided is sufficient to cover all pay raise 
requirements and consequence management associated with the 
2002 Olympics and Paralympics. The fiscal year 2001 
appropriation included funding for one-time costs associated 
with relocation of the FEMA headquarters, and while that 
relocation has been somewhat delayed causing some costs to 
shift into fiscal year 2002, it does not appear that FEMA has 
properly accounted for the reduction in those one-time costs as 
part of the current budget request. FEMA is directed to provide 
a full accounting of the costs associated with the relocation 
of its headquarters as part of the fiscal year 2002 initial 
operating plan.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $10,303,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        10,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        10,303,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........          +303,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established 
administratively within FEMA at the time of the Agency's 
creation in 1979. Through a program of audits, investigations 
and inspections, the OIG seeks to prevent and detect fraud and 
abuse and promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the 
Agency's programs and operations. Although not originally 
established by law, FEMA's OIG was formed and designed to 
operate in accordance with the intent and purpose of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978. The Inspector General Act 
Amendments of 1988 created a statutory Inspector General within 
FEMA. The FEMA Inspector General has the added responsibility 
to act in that capacity for the Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $10,303,000 for the Office of Inspector 
General, an increase of $303,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
appropriation and the same as the President's budget request.

              EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $404,623,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       369,652,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       354,623,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........       +34,971,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......       +50,000,000


    This appropriation provides program resources for the 
majority of FEMA's ``core'' activities, including, response and 
recovery; preparedness, training and exercises; mitigation 
programs, fire prevention and training; information technology 
services; operations support; and executive direction. Costs 
for the floodplain management component are borne by 
policyholders and reimbursed from the National Flood Insurance 
Fund. Funding is also included in this account to carry out the 
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended by 
Public Law 106-398.
    The Committee recommends a fiscal year 2002 appropriation 
of $404,623,000, an increase of $34,971,000 to the fiscal year 
2001 level and an increase of $50,000,000 to the fiscal year 
2002 budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends a 
transfer of $2,900,000 from the Disaster Relief account for the 
consolidated emergency performance grants program.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the budget request 
of $100,000,000 for grants under the Firefighters Assistance 
Act.
    The budget request for fiscal year 2002 recommends 
termination of the Project Impact program which was funded at 
$25,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommendation 
does not include funding for Project Impact, but the Committee 
remains committed to the concept that many mitigation projects 
can be accomplished prior to the onset of a disaster and result 
in significant cost avoidance. FEMA is directed to develop and 
fund such a pre-disaster mitigation program as part of the 
fiscal year 2003 budget submission.
    Whenever an earthquake or hurricane disaster strikes a part 
of the United States there is generally wide-spread knowledge 
of the disaster. And even in the case of major floods most of 
the country is aware of it through extensive press coverage. 
What is not so well-known is the fact that in the past 10 years 
the cost of flooding, much of it the result of isolated major 
rain storms, has exceeded the cost of any other category of 
natural disaster. Much of this cost could be avoided if 
individuals, businesses, and local government knew the risks 
they faced. The first step in the process of educating everyone 
about the risk is generating reliable and accurate information 
in the form of up-to-date flood maps. While the atrocious state 
of the FEMA flood map data base is well-known, there has been 
little success in dealing with the problem over the last three 
years. Proposals to create a funding mechanism to finance the 
process of updating flood maps have been met with criticism 
from affected parties or lack of action by the appropriate 
Congressional committees of jurisdiction. The Congress can no 
longer shirk its responsibility to address the problem. 
Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of 
$50,000,000, as a downpayment toward an estimated $700,000,000 
requirement, to begin the process of updating flood maps. FEMA 
is directed to work with other federal departments and 
agencies, academia, and private industry to develop innovative 
technologies to ensure that all flood maps will be updated in 
the most cost effective manner. Due to their extensive 
experience in similar areas, FEMA is also encouraged to work 
with multi-jurisdictional regional planning and development 
organizations that serve general units of local government. The 
amount provided is in addition to funding made available 
through the Disaster Relief account. FEMA is directed to make 
$2,000,000 available to the New York Department of 
Environmental Conservation for the New York Flood Plain Mapping 
Program, and use $2,000,000 to continue the Louisiana pilot 
project to provide two-foot contour interval mapping of ground 
elevations.
    The Committee is aware of the extraordinary success the 
military services have achieved in recent years by utilizing 
pulse technology in vehicles and equipment. This technology has 
contributed to significant cost savings in battery management 
programs and has enhanced the ability of the military services 
to increase the effectiveness of their environmental 
responsibilities through the extension of the service life of 
its batteries. The Committee directs the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to closely examine the opportunities for cost 
savings and associated environmental benefits of using pulse 
technology for its battery management program.

                Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fund

    The fiscal year 1999 bill included language establishing 
the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fund. The Committee 
recommendation includes continuation of this Fund in fiscal 
year 2002.

                   Emergency Food and Shelter Program




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $140,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       140,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       139,692,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......          +308,000


    The Emergency Food and Shelter Program within the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency originated in the 1983 Emergency 
Jobs legislation. Minor modifications were incorporated in the 
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. The program is 
designed to help address the problems of the hungry and 
homeless. Appropriated funds are awarded to a National Board to 
carry out programs for sheltering and feeding the needy. This 
program is nationwide in scope and provides such assistance 
through local private voluntary organizations and units of 
government selected by local boards in areas designated by the 
National Board as being in highest need.
    The Committee has recommended $140,000,000 for the 
Emergency Food and Shelter Program, an increase of $308,000 
when compared to the budget request and the same as the fiscal 
year 2001 appropriation.
    Once again this year, bill language is included which 
limits administrative costs to 3.5% for fiscal year 2002.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires the 
purchase of insurance in communities where it is available as a 
condition for receiving various forms of Federal financial 
assistance for acquisition and construction of buildings or 
projects within special flood hazard areas identified by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. All existing buildings and 
their contents in communities where flood insurance is 
available, through either the emergency or regular program, are 
eligible for a first layer of coverage of subsidized premium 
rates.
    Full risk actuarial rates are charged for new construction 
or substantial improvements commenced in identified special 
flood hazard areas after December 31, 1974, or after the 
effective date of the flood insurance rate map issued to the 
community, whichever is later. For communities in the regular 
program, a second layer of flood insurance coverage is 
available at actuarial rates on all properties, and actuarial 
rates for both layers apply to all new construction or 
substantial improvements located in special flood hazard areas. 
The program operations are financed with premium income 
augmented by Treasury borrowings.
    The Committee has included bill language proposed in the 
budget request for salaries and expenses to administer the 
fund, not to exceed $28,798,000, and for mitigation activities, 
not to exceed $76,381,000. Also included is a limitation of 
$20,000,000 for expenses under Section 1366 of the National 
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, which shall be 
available for transfer to the National Flood Mitigation Fund.
    The Committee is aware that authorization to write new 
policies during all of fiscal year 2002 does not currently 
exist. The Committee has included bill language which extends 
this authority through December 31 of 2002 to ensure the 
seamless operation of the program.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $20,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        20,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        20,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriations.......                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The budget request includes a program to address the issue 
of repetitive loss properties within the National Flood 
Insurance Program. This program targets properties with a high 
incidence of repetitive losses, and offer removal or elevation 
of structures with the goal of significantly reducing the 
future costs of the National Flood Insurance Fund. The 
Committee recommends $20,000,000 for this effort in fiscal year 
2002, to be derived by transfer from the National Flood 
Insurance Program. Of the amount provided, $2,500,000 is to be 
used for the acquisition of flood-prone properties in the City 
of Austin, Minnesota.

                    General Services Administration


                FEDERAL CONSUMER INFORMATION CENTER FUND




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................        $7,276,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................         7,122,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................         7,276,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........          +154,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............                 0


    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 Federal Information Center (FIC) program was 
established within the General Services Administration in 1966, 
and was formalized by Public Law 95-491 in 1980. The program's 
purpose is to provide the public with direct information about 
all aspects of Federal programs, regulations, and services. To 
accomplish this mission, the FIC uses contractual services to 
respond to public inquiries via a nationwide toll-free 
telephone call center.
    On January 28, 2000, the Consumer Information Center 
assumed responsibility for the operations of the FIC program 
with the resulting organization being officially named the 
Federal Consumer Information Center (FCIC). The Federal 
Consumer Information Center combines the nationwide toll-free 
telephone assistance program and the database of the FIC with 
the CIC website and publications distribution programs. The 
FCIC is a one-stop source for citizens to get information about 
government programs and everyday consumer issues.
    In fiscal year 2002, the FCIC program expects to respond to 
2,700,000 phone calls, distribute approximately 5,900,000 
publications, and receive 18,000,000 web accesses. This 
represents delivery of a total of 26,600,000 information 
products to the public.
    Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a 
revolving fund for the FCIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities 
are financed from the following: annual appropriations from the 
general revenues of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies 
for distribution of publications, user fees collected from the 
public, and any other income incident to FCIC activities. All 
are available as authorized in appropriation acts without 
regard to fiscal year limitations.
    The Committee recommends $7,276,000 for the Federal 
Consumer Information Center. This reflects an increase of 
$154,000 from the fiscal year 2001 appropriation and is the 
same amount included in the budget request. The Committee 
applauds the FCIC for developing quality information services 
that prove to be user-friendly and creative. The Committee 
expects the FCIC to continue to provide outstanding services to 
citizens through its national toll-free call center, award-
winning website, printed materials, and by exploring new ways 
to better inform the public.
    Again this year, the bill includes a limitation of 
$12,000,000 on the availability of the revolving fund. Any 
revenues accruing to this fund during fiscal year 2002 in 
excess of this amount shall remain in the fund and are not 
available for expenditure except as authorized in 
appropriations Acts.
    The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, 
user fees from the public, and other income. FCIC's anticipated 
obligations for fiscal year 2002 will total approximately 
$10,569,000.
    Language has been included in the bill which provides that 
the Committee approve changes to the function or administrative 
location of the Federal Consumer Information Center to ensure 
that the FCIC continues to provide outstanding services to the 
public.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration





Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................   $14,951,400,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................   $14,285,300,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................    14,511,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      +666,100,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............      +440,000,000


    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was 
created by the National Space Act of 1958. NASA conducts space 
and aeronautics research, development, and flight activity 
designed to ensure and maintain U.S. preeminence in space and 
aeronautical endeavors.
    The Committee has recommended a total program level of 
$14,951,400,000 in fiscal year 2002, which is a increase of 
$440,000,000 from the budget request and an increase of 
$666,100,000 compared to the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
appropriation.
    The Committee notes the oversight of routine infrastructure 
revitalization for the Marshall Space Flight Center in the 
budget request. Therefore, to correct this oversight, the 
Committee directs NASA to accomplish the Fire Alarm System and 
Sprinkler Repairs in building 4711 at the Marshall Space Flight 
Center, and the Utility Control System Upgrade Phase 2 at the 
Marshall Space Flight Center.

                           HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $7,322,400,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation \1\....................    $7,184,652,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     7,296,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      +137,748,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............       +26,400,000

\1\ Includes $1,721,752,000 for expenses and activities which were
  appropriated in the Mission Support account in fiscal year 2001.

    This appropriation provides for human space flight 
activities, including development of the international space 
station and operation of the space shuttle. This account also 
includes support of planned cooperative activities with Russia, 
upgrades to the performance and safety of the space shuttle, 
and required construction projects in direct support of the 
space station and space shuttle programs. Starting with the 
fiscal year 2002 appropriation, this account also includes 
funding for activities previously carried in the Mission 
Support appropriations account.
    The Committee recommends a total of $7,322,400,000 for the 
human space flight account in fiscal year 2002. The 
recommendation includes a decrease of $283,600,000 for station 
research which has been moved to the Science, Aeronautics and 
Technology account per the request of the administration, an 
increase of $275,000,000 for development of a crew return 
vehicle, and an increase of $35,000,000 for rehabilitation of 
the VAB at the Kennedy Space Center.

                         SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends an increase of $35,000,000 to the 
budget request for the Space Shuttle. The increase is to be 
combined with $30,000,000 funding from the cancellation of the 
Electric Auxiliary Power Unit (EAPU) upgrade program and shall 
be used for refurbishment of the Vehicle Assembly Building at 
the Kennedy Space Center. The remaining $20,000,000 in the EAPU 
program is to be used to continue development of critical 
technologies needed for an EAPU through a focused technology 
risk reduction program. The Committee is concerned that NASA 
has not been able to adequately address urgent infrastructure 
needs and directs NASA to identify the most urgent upgrades 
necessary to provide for the continued safe operation of the 
shuttle program.
    The Committee included language in the fiscal year 2000 
conference report asking for a comprehensive plan for shuttle 
safety upgrades, taking into consideration the time that the 
shuttle would continue as the only vehicle for human space 
flight. NASA responded in March of 2000 with such a plan, which 
had a total projected cost of $1,900,000,000 and was to be 
accomplished over a five year period. The Committee responded 
favorably to the plan and endorsed the budget request for 
fiscal year 2001 which represented the first significant 
funding increment. Now, little more than one year later, the 
Committee has been informed that one of the major upgrades 
included in the plan, the Electric Auxiliary Power Unit (EAPU), 
has been deleted from the plan because of development and cost 
problems. The Committee was of the understanding that NASA 
would be able to execute the upgrade plan that was provided to 
the Congress within the cost constraints of the budget. The 
cancellation of the EAPU raises the concern that other upgrades 
in the plan may fall into the same category and calls into 
question the validity of the plan provided to the Congress. The 
Committee looks forward to receiving assurances from NASA that 
its upgrade plan is based upon technology which is or will be 
available in time to accomplish the upgrades within the cost 
constraints of the budget.

                      INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,831,300,000 for 
the International Space Station. The amount provided is the 
budget request, reduced as proposed by the Office of Management 
and Budget and NASA by shifting funds for the research 
component of the station program from the Human Space Flight 
account to the Science, Aeronautics and Technology account. In 
addition, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of 
$275,000,000 for development of the Crew Return Vehicle.
    The Committee shares the concerns expressed in the budget 
request with regard to the cost increases in the International 
Space Station program. The cost increases which have come to 
light in the past few months are disturbing and suggest an 
underlying problem with the management and execution of the 
program. Many questions have been answered as NASA and the 
administration have investigated the problems associated with 
this program, but many more answers are not yet known. The 
Committee is trying to find the answers to many basic 
questions, such as the exact size of the cost increase, what 
caused the increases, what lapses in oversight occurred and 
what actions are necessary to ensure they will not recur, and 
to what extent previously noted concerns were not addressed. In 
an attempt to fully understand the nature of the problem, the 
Committee has initiated an investigation which will serve to 
answer many of these questions and provide the Committee and 
the Congress with the information it needs to make the best 
possible decisions regarding the future of the program. The 
Committee has taken this approach because changes to the ISS 
program proposed as part of the budget request, if endorsed 
without question, would lead the program down a path which 
would significantly alter the goals and accomplishments of the 
ISS.
    The Committee believes that the key problem with the 
proposed budget is that it deletes the capability of the ISS to 
support a permanent crew of six or seven persons and causes a 
scaled-down research program. This result comes from the 
recommendation in the budget request to delete development of 
the seven-person crew return vehicle which would replace the 
three-person Soyuz capsule, and the deletion of the habitation 
module. In addition, the budget proposal included a significant 
reduction of funding for the research segment of the ISS 
program which would further undermine the basic reason for 
building the station, the achievement of world-class science. 
The Committee is not able or prepared to reverse all the 
actions proposed in the budget request, nor is the Committee 
prepared to endorse the actions proposed in the budget at this 
time. Instead, the Committee has included in its 
recommendations a series of actions which will elicit more 
complete information and retain options which will allow the 
Congress to make an informed decision as part of the fiscal 
year 2003 authorization and appropriations process.
    Crew Return Vehicle.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$275,000,000 for the development of a crew return vehicle, with 
capacity for no less than 6 persons, for use with the 
international space station. In providing these funds, the 
Committee is concerned about the possibility that any future 
federal funds needed to complete the development not come at 
the expense of other elements of the International Space 
Station and encourages the Administration to work with the 
other partners in the space station program to minimize the 
cost to NASA. Specifically, the Committee does not anticipate 
providing additional funds for this purpose unless it is made 
clear that the Administration and the international partners 
are committed to the International Space Station as a research 
facility. For this reason, the language included in the bill 
would rescind the $275,000,000 unless the Administration 
requests at least $200,000,000 for the crew return vehicle in 
the fiscal year 2003 NASA budget request. In addition, the 
recommendation fences the availability of the $275,000,000 
provided until August 1, 2002. By March 1, 2002, the President 
shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
and Senate a comprehensive plan that meets the following terms 
and conditions:
    First, a clear and unambiguous statement on the role of 
research in the International Space Station program.
    Second, a detailed outline of the efforts being pursued to 
provide habitation facilities for a full-time crew of no less 
than six persons, including a clear accounting of the full 
costs, both direct and indirect, to the U.S. taxpayer of any 
barter arrangements with international partners.
    Third, the anticipated costs of the crew return vehicle 
program by fiscal year, including the expected U.S. and 
international partners' shares of this cost.
    Fourth, the relative priority of the crew return vehicle 
development program in the context of the International Space 
Station.
    The Committee does not intend to provide any additional 
funds or approve the release of any of the $275,000,000 
provided in this bill, until all conditions are fully 
satisfied.
    Research.--The Congress has always supported the 
International Space Station because of the promised world-class 
research the station was expected to generate. The Committee is 
concerned that the proposed answer for the cost increases in 
the station would place that research goal in jeopardy by 
undermining the development of a cadre of ground-based research 
efforts leading to eventual flight and by scaling back the 
facilities on-board the station. The Committee recommendation 
includes moving the research program out of the Human Space 
Flight account in order to insulate it more effectively from 
the ramifications of future cost growth in the hardware 
segments of the station. The amount of funding moved is 
$283,600,000 which is the amount remaining after the reductions 
mandated by the most recent cost increase in the station 
program. The Committee is concerned that this amount may not be 
adequate and as a short-term measure has added $35,000,000 
which is to be used to augment the Fluids and Combustion 
Facility Integrated Rack. The Committee directs NASA to 
withhold any final determination of the research program which 
will be achieved on the ISS until the Congress has made a final 
determination on the permanent crew size of the station. Until 
that time, NASA is directed to develop an interim research plan 
which protects the option to return to the research program 
envisioned as part of the ISS prior to the latest cost 
increases.

                  SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $7,605,300,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation \1\....................     7,077,648,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     7,191,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      +527,652,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............      +413,600,000

\1\ Includes $866,948,000 for expenses and activities which were
  appropriated to the Mission Support appropriations account in fiscal
  year 2001.

    This appropriation provides for the research and 
development activities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. These activities include: space science, life 
and microgravity science, earth sciences, aero-space 
technology, advanced concepts and technology, space operations, 
and academic programs. Funds are also included for the 
construction, maintenance, and operation of programmatic 
facilities. Starting in fiscal year 2002, this account also 
includes funding for activities previously carried in the 
Mission Support appropriations account.
    The Committee recommends $7,605,300,000 for Science, 
Aeronautics and Technology in fiscal year 2002. The amount 
recommended is an increase of $413,600,000 to the budget 
request.
    The Committee remains deeply troubled by NASA's 
unwillingness to significantly reverse the downward spiral of 
investment in aeronautics research and technology. Earlier this 
year, senior NASA officials admitted that the program's 
aeronautics efforts have declined from approximately 
$1,000,000,000 annually in 1994 to just under $400,000,000 
today. This decline has occurred as foreign competition has 
reached virtual parity with the U.S. aeronautics industry in 
annual commercial sales and the Europeans in particular have 
established a formal ``2020 Vision'' with a goal to dominate 
global aeronautics and aviation services. In addition, by 
merging the budgets for aeronautics and space technology into a 
single ``aerospace technology'' program element several years 
ago, NASA has made it virtually impossible to account for the 
current investment in aeronautics. While the Agency has 
announced that they are preparing an ``aeronautics blueprint 
strategy'' for release later this year, the Committee is 
concerned that there is little meaningful formal input from 
industry or affiliated aeronautics organizations to shape the 
content of that document. For this reason, the Committee 
directs NASA to reestablish a consolidated aeronautics line in 
the fiscal year 2002 operating plan that comprehensively covers 
all research base, focused and advanced technology programs, 
and related test facilities and civil service costs. In 
addition, the Agency shall notify the Committee within 30 days 
on how it intends to obtain formal aeronautics industry and 
related organization's input into the proposed aeronautics 
blueprint.
    The Committee understands that NASA is planning to 
centralize management of all Centers for Commercial Development 
of Space within a single office at NASA headquarters. The 
Committee supports this change, but feels it is essential that 
the funding for these Centers not be diminished or eliminated 
through this consolidation process. Therefore, the Committee 
directs that not less than $4,000,000 be transferred from Code 
R to Code U for the administration of the four infrastructure 
centers associated with this management change.
    As mentioned in the conference report accompanying in the 
fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill, Public Law 105-261 
transferred responsibility for satellite technology export 
licensing from the Department of Commerce to the Department of 
State to be regulated under the International Traffic in Arms 
Regulations (ITAR). While scientific satellites are still 
covered by the fundamental research exclusion provided by 
National Security Directive 189, the unfortunate and unintended 
consequence of the jurisdictional move has been that 
university-based fundamental science and engineering research, 
widely disseminated and unclassified, has become subject to 
overly restrictive and inconsistent ITAR direction.
    The conferees last year directed Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP) to work jointly with the National 
Security Council, in consultation with the NASA Administrator 
and the Secretary of State, to expeditiously issue 
clarification of ITAR that ensures that university 
collaborations and personnel exchanges, which are vital to 
continued success of federally-funded research, are allowed to 
continue as they had under the long-standing fundamental 
research exception in the Export Administration Regulations.
    The Committee understands that, while OSTP and NASA have 
proposed language to the State Department, no clarification has 
yet been issued. In the meantime, vital research has been 
delayed, and in some instances, universities have had to turn 
down contract due to the potential for substantial penalties 
for violation and uncertainty in the application of ITAR. The 
Committee, therefore, requests an immediate report that 
clarifies ITAR in a way that allows the highly productive 
scientific collaborations to continue under guidelines in place 
prior to 1999. Upon the issuance of guidance, NASA shall ensure 
that university principal investigators are fully aware of 
their responsibilities.
    The Committee continues to closely follow NASA's efforts 
with regard to the Independent Verification and Validation 
(IV&V) Facility. NASA has developed a plan to integrate the use 
of software assurance and IV&V throughout the agency, and the 
Committee expects NASA to continue to implement that plan. 
Further, NASA should ensure that all projects undertake an 
assessment of whether IV&V is appropriate based on the project 
cost, size, complexity, life span, risk and consequences of 
failure. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel noted two IV&V 
concerns in its Annual Report for 2000, and made corresponding 
recommendations. First, the Panel noted that IV&V technology is 
not well understood by the project managers and recommended 
that NASA develop an appropriate user-centered course and 
require software assurance training for all levels of 
management. Second, the Panel recommended that NASA ensure a 
strong, focused effort on researching and developing new 
methods to perform IV&V for emerging technologies. The 
Committee urges NASA to assimilate the recommendations of the 
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel into the functions of the IV&V 
Facility.

                             Space Science

    Within the Space Science portion of this account, the 
Committee recommends $2,759,363,000, a net reduction of 
$27,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee recommends 
the following adjustments to the budget request:
    1. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Center for Space 
Sciences at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
    2. An increase of $8,000,000 for space solar power.
    3. An increase of $1,500,000 for the University of North 
Carolina, Chapel Hill, Morehead Planetarium and Science 
Discovery Outreach Center.
    4. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Mid-American 
Geospatial Information Center based at the University of Texas 
at Austin, Center for Space Research.
    5. The Committee directs $13,000,000 be used to continue 
the construction of the Propulsion Research Laboratory at the 
Marshall Space Flight Center, to be financed using $13,000,000 
from the Office of Space Science in-space propulsion 
augmentation.
    6. A reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget request for 
the Next Generation Space Telescope. The remaining funding of 
$72,100,000 represents an increase of 60 percent when compared 
to the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.
    7. A reduction of $10,000,000 from the New Millennium 
program.
    8. A reduction of $10,000,000 from the STEREO program.

                    Biological and Physical Research

    Within the Biological and Physical Research portion of this 
account, the Committee recommends $710,920,000, a net increase 
of $350,000,000 to the budget request. The Committee is aware 
of efforts being undertaken at Florida Atlantic University and 
Virginia Commonwealth University in the area of telemedicine 
and distance enabling technologies and encourages NASA to work 
with those institutions to develop innovative programs for 
NASA's use. The Committee recommends the following adjustments 
to the budget request:
    1. An increase of $343,600,000 for space station research 
consisting of a transfer of $283,600,000 from Human Space 
Flight, and an increase of $60,000,000 for the Fluids and 
Combustion Facility and other priority space station research.
    2. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Space Radiation 
program at Loma Linda University Hospital.
    3. An increase of $2,000,000 for Earth University to 
research Chagas disease.
    4. An increase of $1,000,000 for the development of 
machine/bio-interface devices to provide advanced diagnosis and 
countermeasures.
    5. An increase of $400,000 for the Center for Research and 
Training in gravitational biology at North Carolina State.

                             Earth Sciences

    Within the Earth Sciences portion of this account, the 
Committee recommends $1,516,728,000, a net increase of 
$1,750,000 to the budget request. The Committee recommends the 
following adjustments to the budget request:
    1. An increase of $1,000,000 for the New Jersey NASA 
Specialized Center of Research and Training. The Committee 
commends the work of this organization and its application not 
only to long-duration space missions but its impact on the 
agricultural and environmental business sectors. The Committee 
encourages NASA to continue funding these vital efforts and 
recommends the agency create a technology development and 
demonstration center in New Jersey focusing on life support 
issues in closed environments.
    2. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Advanced Tropical 
Remote Sensing Center of the National Center for Tropical 
Remote Sensing Applications and resources at the Rosenstiel 
School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.
    3. An increase of $450,000 for continuation of emerging 
research that applies remote sensing technologies to forest 
management practices at the State University of New York, 
College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry.
    4. An increase of $1,500,000 for NASA's Regional 
Application Center for the Northeast.
    5. An increase of $855,000 for operations of the 
applications center for remote sensing at Fulton-Montgomery 
Community College, Johnston, New York.
    6. An increase of $15,000,000 for the Institute of Software 
Research for development and construction of research 
facilities.
    7. An increase of $750,000 for on-going activities at the 
Goddard Institute for Systems, Software, and Technology 
Research, including UAV and remote sensing technology research.
    8. An increase of $750,000 for the Clustering and Advanced 
Visual Environments initiative.
    9. An increase of $5,000,000 for data storage back-up and 
recovery managed services that supports the Goddard Space 
Flight Center (GSFC) programs, providing heterogeneous support 
to existing information systems and scalability to serve future 
requirements.
    10. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Triana Science Team 
to continue its work in preparation for future launch. The 
Committee encourages the earliest possible launch of Triana.
    11. An increase of $750,000 for next generation sensing 
equipment, at Ben Gurion University to be used to correlate 
measurements taken by aircraft and satellites.
    12. An increase of $3,000,000 to be transferred to the Air 
Force Research Laboratory (PE 602204F Aerospace Sensors) to 
develop dual-use lightweight space radar technology.
    13. An increase of $1,500,000 for the United States portion 
of a joint U.S./Italian satellite development program to 
remotely observe forest fires.
    14. A decrease of $30,000,000 for the budget request for 
the EOS follow-on program. After this reduction the program is 
funded at $99,622,000, an increase of $44,600,000 compared to 
the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.
    15. A decrease of $1,805,000 from the budget request for 
information systems for the Earth Science Program Sciences.

                         Aero-Space Technology

    Within the Aero-Space Technology portion of this account, 
the Committee recommends $2,430,789,000, a net increase of 
$60,045,000 to the budget request. Recognizing the importance 
to NASA and our Nation of dramatically improving the 
affordability and reliability of access to space, the Committee 
has recommended the full budget request for the Space Launch 
Initiative. The Committee is encouraged by the testing of 
peroxygen-based fuels, including hydrogen peroxide, as a fuel 
source in the SLI and notes the fuel's potential energy 
density, storability and environmental benefits. Therefore, the 
Committee urges the continued testing of hydrogen peroxide as a 
fuel source and expects NASA to secure hydrogen peroxide from 
domestic suppliers consistent with the Buy America provisions 
of this Act. The Committee recommends that NASA take all 
necessary steps to keep hardware related to the X-34 program 
until the end of June, 2002 or such time as the Air Force makes 
a determination to either proceed or not proceed with the X-34 
program. The Committee recommends the following adjustments to 
the budget request:
    1. An increase of $7,500,000 for the Ultra Efficient Engine 
Technology for a total budget of $47,500,000 in fiscal year 
2002.
    2. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Earth Alert project at 
the Goddard Space Flight Center.
    3. An increase of $2,500,000 for the NASA-Illinois 
Technology Commercialization Center at DuPage County Research 
Park.
    4. An increase of $200,000 for the Rural Technology 
Transfer and Commercialization Center of Durant, Oklahoma.
    5. An increase of $2,000,000 for the University of New 
Orleans Composites Research Center for Excellence at Michoud, 
Louisiana.
    6. An increase of $550,000 for the aircraft fractional 
ownership test program.
    7. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Glennan Microsystem 
Initiative.
    8. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Polymer Energy 
Rechargeable System.
    9. An increase of $500,000 for continued development of 
nickel metal hydride battery technology.
    10. An increase of $2,000,000 for Wayne State University 
for the Smart Sensor Initiative.
    11. An increase of $1,000,000 for the University of 
Alabama, Huntsville, Aviation Safety Laboratory.
    12. An increase of $1,000,000 to be used for continued 
development of an electric/diesel hybrid engine at Bowling 
Green University.
    13. The following programs are to be funded within the 
Aviation System Capacity program; $4,200,000 for the HITS 
multilateration sensor and surveillance server for Airport 
Surface Detection and Management System, $1,200,000 for the 
development of the Dynamic Runway Occupancy Measurement System, 
$1,400,000 for development of a Runway Taxi Route Detection and 
Conformance Monitoring System, and $5,000,000 for Project 
SOCRATES.
    14. An increase of $3,000,000 to expand the Space Alliance 
Technology Outreach Program, including NASA business 
incubators, in Florida and New York.
    15. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Advanced Interactive 
Discovery Environment engineering research program at Syracuse 
University.
    16. An increase of $8,000,000 for the National Center of 
Excellence in Photonics and Microsystems in New York.
    17. An increase of $2,500,000 for the Virtual Collaboration 
Center at the North Carolina GigaPop.
    18. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Garrett Morgan 
Commercialization Initiative in Ohio.
    19. An increase of $3,500,000 is provided to the Institute 
for Software Research for the following activities; $750,000 
for on-going research at Marshall Space Flight Center in the 
areas of advanced and breakthrough solutions for interstellar 
propulsion, $1,750,000 for on-going activities in support of 
Dryden Flight Research Center's Intelligent Flight Control 
System research project, and $1,000,000 for the development of 
advanced composite materials for a super lightweight prototype 
structure and a generic carrier for the space shuttle orbiter.
    20. An increase of $9,000,000 for hydrogen research being 
conducted by the Florida State University System.
    21. An increase of $5,000,000 for space biotechnology 
research and commercial applications to be conducted at the 
University of Florida.
    22. An increase of $2,000,000 to be transferred to the Air 
Force Research Laboratory (PE 602204F Aerospace Sensors) to 
install a baseline Silent Sentry System at Kennedy Space Center 
and for AFRL to conduct an evaluation of the ability for Silent 
Sentry to replace current range safety infrastructure.
    23. A reduction of $6,200,000 to the budget request for the 
Aviation Systems Capacity program, leaving a funding level of 
$94,400,000 and an increase of $24,951,000 compared to the 
fiscal year 2001 appropriation.
    24. The Committee directs NASA to fund the National 
Technology Transfer Center at no less than $7,500,000 in fiscal 
year 2002.
    25. An increase of $500,000 for aerospace projects being 
accomplished by the Montana Aerospace Development Authority.

                           Academic Programs

    Within the Academic Programs portion of this account, the 
Committee recommends $188,500,000, a net increase of 
$34,800,000 to the budget request. The Committee urges the full 
inclusion and participation of Lincoln and Cheney Universities 
in Pennsylvania in NASA's Minority University Research and 
Education Program. The Committee believes that it is important 
for NASA to provide long-term support for the NASA-sponsored 
Center for Excellence in Immersive and High Definition Science 
Education Technologies and expects to receive such a request as 
an integral component of the fiscal year 2003 budget 
submission. The Committee recommends the following adjustments 
to the budget request:
    1. An increase of $500,000 for the Richland School District 
One Aeronautics Education Laboratory, located in Columbia, 
South Carolina.
    2. An increase of $500,000 for the NASA Educator Resource 
Center at South East Missouri State University.
    3. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Carl Sagan Discovery 
Science Center at the Children's Hospital at Montefiore Medical 
Center to implement the educational programming for this 
science learning project.
    4. An increase of $2,500,000 for the JASON Foundation.
    5. An increase of $4,000,000 for continuation of programs 
at the American Museum of Natural History.
    6. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Sci-Port Discovery 
Center at Shreveport, Louisiana.
    7. An increase of $2,000,000 for the NASA Glenn ``Gateway 
to the Future: Ohio Pilot'' project.
    8. An increase of $500,000 for the Challenger Learning 
Center of Kansas.
    9. An increase of $500,000 for Challenger Learning Centers 
in Illinois.
    10. An increase of $500,000 for the Challenger Learning 
Center at Wheeling Jesuit University.
    11. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Alan B. Shepard 
Discovery Center in New Hampshire.
    12. An increase of $2,000,000 to the U.S. Space and Rocket 
Center for an Educational Training Center.
    13. An increase of $600,000 for academic and infrastructure 
needs at St. Thomas University in Miami, Florida.
    14. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Ohio View Consortium.
    15. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Von Braun Scholarship 
program.
    16. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Alabama Math, 
Science, and Technology initiative.
    17. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Sci-Quest Hands-on 
Science Center.
    18. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Alabama Supercomputer 
Educational
    Outreach program.
    19. An increase of $2,000,000 to the Educational 
Advancement Alliance to support the Alliance's math, science, 
and technology enrichment program.
    20. An increase of $5,000,000 for the National Space Grant 
College and Fellowship program.
    21. An increase of $500,000 for Science, Engineering, Math 
and Aerospace Academy programs at Central Arizona College.
    22. An increase of $200,000 to enhance K-12 science 
education through a program of the Middle Tennessee State 
University.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $23,700,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        23,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        23,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........          +700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............                 0


    The Office of the Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for audit and 
investigation of all agency programs.
    The Committee recommends $23,700,000 for the Office of the 
Inspector General in fiscal year 2002, an increase of $700,000 
to the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the 
budget for fiscal year 2001.

                       Administrative Provisions

    The bill includes four administrative provisions as carried 
in prior appropriations acts, three of which were proposed in 
the budget.

                  National Credit Union Administration


                       CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on
                                                              Limitation on    administrative    Revolving loan
                                                              direct loans        expenses           program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 recommendation...........................    $1,500,000,000          $309,000        $1,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation............................     1,500,000,000           296,303         1,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request...........................     1,500,000,000           309,000         1,000,000
Comparison with 2001 appropriation........................                 0           +12,697                 0
Comparison with 2002 request..............................                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act 
established the National Credit Union Administration Central 
Liquidity Facility (CLF) on October 1, 1979, as a mixed-
ownership government corporation within the National Credit 
Union Administration. It is managed by the National Credit 
Union Administration and is owned by its member credit unions. 
Loans may not be used to expand a loan portfolio, but are 
authorized to meet short-term requirements such as emergency 
outflows from managerial difficulties, seasonal credit, and 
protracted adjustment credit for long-term needs caused by 
disintermediation or regional economic decline.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,500,000,000 on 
CLF lending activity to member credit unions from borrowed 
funds. This limitation represents the same level as fiscal year 
2001 and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $309,000 for 
administrative expenses, an increase of $12,697 above the 
fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Additionally the Committee 
recommends that $1,000,000 be transferred to the Community 
Development Revolving Loan Fund (the Fund) for loans to 
community development credit unions.
    Hereafter, the National Credit Union Administration is 
directed to provide the Committees on Appropriations a detailed 
budget justification for activities of the Fund in conjunction 
with the budget submission for the Central Liquidity Facility.

                      National Science Foundation





Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $4,840,160,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     4,426,122,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     4,472,520,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      +414,038,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............      +367,640,000


    Established in 1950 and receiving its first appropriation 
of $225,000 in 1951, the National Science Foundation celebrates 
its 51st anniversary as an important, highly regarded federal 
agency during fiscal year 2002. The primary purpose behind its 
creation was to develop a national policy on science, and 
support and promote basic research and education in the 
sciences filling the void left after World War II. Since its 
first appropriation in 1951, NSF has grown to what in fiscal 
2002 is a multi-billion dollar agency.
    The Committee recommends a total of $4,840,160,000 for 
fiscal year 2002. This recommendation is an increase of 
$414,038,000 above last year's appropriation and an increase of 
$367,640,000 above the President's budget request.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Foundation must limit transfers of funds between 
programs and activities to not more than $500,000 without prior 
approval of the Committee. Further, no changes may be made to 
any account or program element if it is construed to be policy 
or a change in policy. Any activity or program cited in this 
report shall be construed as the position of the Committee and 
should not be subject to reductions or reprogramming without 
prior approval of the Committee. Finally, it is the intent of 
the Committee that all carryover funds in the various 
appropriations accounts are subject to the normal reprogramming 
requirements outlined above.

                    Research and Related Activities




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................    $3,642,340,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................     3,350,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................     3,326,981,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........      +292,340,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............      +315,359,000


    The appropriation for Research and Related Activities 
covers all programs in the Foundation except Education and 
Human Resources, Salaries and Expenses, NSF Headquarters 
Relocation, Major Research Equipment, and the Office of 
Inspector General. These are funded in other accounts in the 
bill. The Research and Related Activities appropriation 
includes United States Polar Research Programs and Antarctic 
Logistical Support Activities and the Critical Technologies 
Institute, which were previously funded through separate 
appropriations. Beginning with fiscal year 1997, the 
President's budget provided funding for the instrumentation 
portion of Academic Research Infrastructure in this account.
    The Committee recommends a total of $3,642,340,000 for 
Research and Related Activities in fiscal year 2002, an 
increase of $292,340,000 above last year's funding level and an 
increase of $315,359,000 above the budget request. The 
Committee's recommendation includes the following program 
levels: (1) Biological Sciences, $528,980,000; (2) Computer and 
Information Science and Engineering, $520,800,000; (3) 
Engineering, $469,510,000; (4) Geosciences, $612,650,000; (5) 
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, $927,190,000; (6) Social 
Behavioral and Economic Sciences, $178,900,000; (7) U.S. Polar 
Research Programs, $229,730,000; (8) U.S. Antarctic Logistical 
Support Activities, $68,070,000; and (9) Integrative 
Activities, $106,510,000.
    Except as specifically noted herein, in the distribution of 
funds within each directorate, the Foundation is directed to 
provide each program, project, and activity the same percentage 
as that proposed in the budget request. Should the NSF find it 
necessary to pursue funds for ``emergency'' research needs at 
any time during the fiscal year, the Committee will make every 
effort to respond to appropriate reprogramming requests as 
quickly as possible.
    Within the additional funds made available for Computer and 
Information Science and Engineering, up to $10,000,000 may be 
used by NSF for ongoing operational support of the two funded 
terascale computing systems.
    Funds provided under this heading in the budget request to 
maintain ongoing activities of the Atacama Large Millimeter 
Array have been provided as a new appropriation within the 
Major Research Facilities Construction and Equipment account. 
Within the additional funds thus available for astronomical 
sciences, not less than $2,000,000 shall be used for the 
Telescope Systems Instrumentation Program (TSIP). In addition, 
the Foundation is expected to aggressively continue its 
program, begun last year, of upgrading on a priority basis its 
astronomical facilities and equipment.
    The Committee intends that within the funds provided to the 
Integrative Activities Directorate, $4,000,000 is for the 
Science and Technology Policy Institute, $26,610,000 is for 
Science and Technology Centers, and $75,900,000 is for Major 
Research Instrumentation.
    The Committee is aware of and shares concerns raised in 
testimony of the NSF's Inspector General before the Senate 
Appropriations Committee regarding specific management issues 
within the Foundation. The Committee requests that in the 
fiscal 2002 operating plan submission the Director address each 
of the issues raised and outline specifically what steps have 
been taken to make appropriate improvements.
    Because understanding our children's development and 
behavior is vital to America's future, the Committee again this 
year urges the Foundation to provide up to $5,000,000 to fund 
the Children's Research Initiative (CRI). In doing so, NSF 
should use as a guide the 1997 National Science and Technology 
Council's report, ``Investing in Our Future: A National 
Research Initiative for America's Children in the 21st 
Century.'' Further, the NSF should employ its normal peer 
review process for determining grants to the CRI.
    The CRI should encompass all aspects of research on 
children, excluding medical, and should be open to scientists 
from a diverse set of institutions. Among other issues, the 
Foundation should consider pursuing theory-informed, hypothesis 
driven research on development processes in children, 
understanding a child's development over the long term, and the 
influence of families and communities on that development.
    The Committee commends the NSF leadership for their 
recognition of the needs of the mathematical sciences, and 
their efforts to provide the support that is required to meet 
those needs.
    Within the general Nanotechnology Science and Engineering 
program area, the Committee urges NSF to consider a stronger 
emphasis on research that explores biological mechanisms at the 
molecular force level and then translates these findings up 
through hierarchical scales of structure and organization to 
provide unique designs for engineered devices. The primary 
technological impact of such research will be the development 
of enabling technologies to create new ``adaptive/smart'' 
sensing and actuation devices with applications that will 
directly impact technological advancement and the economy, 
including bio-inspired propulsion, locomotion, and actuation 
for robotics in the aeronautics, marine, defense, and space 
industries; and miniature and functionally complete mechanical 
systems for integration with silicon electronics.
    The Committee is aware that the Foundation has plans to 
retire certain national facilities in radio astronomy despite 
considerable community interest and research need, until 
construction of the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) is 
completed. The Committee strongly urges the Foundation to 
consider innovative proposals to privatize these facilities 
operations as a cost-effective way to maintain critical 
community access to them while lowering the overall financial 
resources needed to do so.

          Major Research Facilities Construction and Equipment




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $135,300,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       121,600,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        96,332,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........       +13,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............       +38,968,000


    This account provides funding for the construction of major 
research facilities that provide unique capabilities at the 
cutting edge of science and engineering.
    The Committee recommends a total of $135,300,000 for the 
major research construction and equipment account for fiscal 
year 2002. This appropriation reflects the budget request 
levels of $16,900,000 for the Large Hadron Collider, and 
$24,400,000 for the Network for Earthquake Engineering 
Simulation.
    In addition, the Committee has provided $35,000,000 for 
Terrascale Computing Systems, $35,000,000 for continued 
development of the High-Performance Instrumented Airborne 
Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER), $15,000,000 for 
initiation of the IceCube Neutrino Detector project, and 
$9,000,000 to maintain ongoing development activities for the 
Atacama Large Millimeter Array.
    With regard to HIAPER, the Committee's recommendation is 
expected to provide for the purchase of the appropriate 
airframe as well as preliminary planning, development and/or 
acquisition of necessary modifications of the airframe for 
research purposes, instrumentation, data systems, and 
engineering activities.
    The Committee has also included $15,000,000 to initiate the 
IceCube Neutrino Detector physics/astronomy project recently 
approved by the National Science Board. This project, building 
on the successful AMANDA demonstration, is designed to more 
fully develop knowledge of the origins of the universe as well 
as the fundamental nature of physical matter using its unique 
polar telescope. This device will allow scientists to measure, 
quantify and analyze neutrino particles and their role in these 
basic questions of science. The amount provided for fiscal 2002 
will support development and acquisition of new generation 
technology, including new polar drilling equipment, and other 
steps necessary to begin construction of IceCube as soon as 
possible.
    The Committee recognizes that the statutory language 
utilized to make appropriations for both the Research and 
Related Activities account and the Major Research Construction 
and Equipment account has provided significant flexibility for 
the Foundation to provide adequate resources to ongoing 
projects and programs. The Committee also recognizes that 
certain aspects of such projects or programs can reasonably be 
considered appropriately funded from either of these two 
accounts. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that for the 
Foundation to maintain clear and distinct records of spending 
activities related to each aforementioned account, it is 
necessary to provide definitive guidance throughout the 
Foundation as to which specific activities are to be accounted 
for within each account. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
Foundation to develop such guidance, which shall be submitted 
to the Committees on Appropriations for review no later than 
October 31, 2001. In this regard and to better define the 
activities within this account, the Committee has recommended 
that the Major Research Equipment account be retitled Major 
Research Facilities Construction and Equipment.

                     Education and Human Resources




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $885,720,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       787,352,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       872,407,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........       +98,368,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............       +13,313,000


    The Foundation's Education and Human Resources activities 
are designed to encourage the entrance of talented students 
into science and technology careers, to improve the 
undergraduate science and engineering education environment, to 
assist in providing all pre-college students with a level of 
education in mathematics, science, and technology that reflects 
the needs of the nation and is the highest quality attained 
anywhere in the world, and extend greater research 
opportunities to underrepresented segment of the scientific and 
engineering communities.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends 
$885,720,000, an increase of $98,368,000 above last year's 
appropriated level and $13,313,00 above the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes program levels of 
$75,000,000 for the EPSCoR program, $27,000,000 for the Louis 
Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation program, and 
$17,000,000 for the Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities--Undergradute Program, all of which are increases 
above the budget request.
    The Committee remains impressed with the continued success 
of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) 
Development Grant program. The Committee recognizes that 
further expansion of the program may be warranted given the 
unmistakable contributions HBCUs have made and realizes that 
some assessment of these contributions is needed first. The 
Committee therefore recommends that up to $1,000,000 be used by 
NSF for an independent, thorough analysis of the economic 
impact of HBCUs in their surrounding communities, which will 
serve as a starting point for future enhancement of the HBCU 
Development Grant Program.
    In addition to providing the budget request of $200,000,000 
for the new Math and Science Partnerships Program, the 
Committee's recommendation includes $5,000,000 for Teacher 
Research Scholarships and $5,000,000 for Noyce Scholarships, 
both of which are intended to be provided in a manner 
consistent with and as described in ``The Mathematics and 
Science Partnerships Act,'' H.R. 1858.
    The Committee recognizes the important role that community 
colleges play in providing accessible, quality educational 
opportunities to the public, promoting community and economic 
development, and enhancing the quality of life for our Nation. 
The Committee recognizes previous efforts at the National 
Science Foundation to improve its partnership with community 
colleges. However, the Committee encourages the National 
Science Foundation to further strengthen its outreach to 
community colleges and to strive to better emphasize the 
involvement of community colleges in its activities. The 
Committee expects that the expenditure of National Science 
Foundation resources will better reflect the expanding role of 
community colleges in helping the National Science Foundation 
achieve its goals.
    The Committee acknowledges the importance of the ATE 
program and encourages the Foundation to consider it among the 
priorities when allocating additional funds provided by the 
Congress.
    Similarly, the Foundation may, through a competitive, 
merit-based process, provide to a consortium composed of 
community colleges a grant for the purpose of carrying out a 
pilot project to provide support to encourage women, 
minorities, and persons with disabilities to enter and complete 
programs in science, engineering, and technology.

                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $170,040,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................       160,890,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................       170,040,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        +9,150,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............                 0


    The Salaries and Expenses activity provides for the 
operation, support and management, and direction of all 
Foundation programs and activities and includes necessary funds 
that develop, manage, and coordinate Foundation programs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $170,040,000 
for salaries and expenses, the same as the President's budget 
request and an increase of $9,150,000 above last year's 
appropriated level.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................        $6,760,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................         6,280,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................         6,760,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........          +480,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request..............                 0


    This account provides National Science Foundation audit and 
investigation functions to identify and correct management and 
administrative deficiencies which could lead to fraud, waste, 
or abuse.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has recommended 
$6,760,000 for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is 
$480,000 above last year's funding level and is the same as the 
budget request.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................      $105,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        90,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        95,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........        15,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......       +10,000,000


    The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, established by 
title VI of Public Law 95-557 in October 1978, is committed to 
promoting reinvestment in older neighborhoods by local 
financial institutions working cooperatively with community 
people and local government. This is primarily accomplished by 
assisting community-based partnerships (NeighborWorks 
organizations) in a range of local revitalization efforts. 
Increase in homeownership among lower-income families is a key 
revitalization tool. Neighborhood Housing Services of America 
(NHSA) supports lending activities of the NeighborWorks 
organizations through a national secondary market that 
leverages its capital with private sector investment.
    The Committee recommends a funding level of $105,000,000 
for fiscal year 2002, an increase of $10,000,000 to the budget 
request and an increase of $15,000,000 above the fiscal year 
2001 level.
    A set-aside of $10,000,000, as proposed in the budget, is 
included for continuation of an innovative initiative that 
combines a conventional mortgage, section 8 assistance, and the 
NRC revolving loan fund, with pre- and post-purchase counseling 
thereby enabling low-income families to attain the goal of 
homeownership.
    Neighborhood Reinvestment and the NeighborWorks network 
have been industry pioneers at devising an innovative mechanism 
to use HUD's Section 8 homeownership option and at using their 
experience and early lessons learned to develop training, which 
is delivered through the national Neighborhood Reinvestment 
Training Institute. By April 2001, four NeighborWorks 
organizations had assisted 34 low-income families to become 
homeowners by using Section 8 vouchers as a partial payment for 
a mortgage. Over the next three years, these four organizations 
alone expect to assist over 260 additional families.
    In FY 2000, Neighborhood Reinvestment received $5 million 
appropriation to encourage additional partnerships between 
Public Housing Authorities and NeighborWorks organizations to 
implement a Section 8 homeownership option. Neighborhood 
Reinvestment used this funding to make grants to 21 of its 
members to capitalize local revolving funds and provide 
intensive pre- and post-purchase counseling. Through the 
Neighborhood Reinvestment Training Institute, the Corporation 
will serve the nation as a whole by disseminating what it and 
the network has learned about using the homeownership option.
    This Committee is supportive of Neighborhood Reinvestment 
and its network in these activities and wants to encourage the 
development of additional local partnerships, research, and 
training, which will not only assist low-income families to 
become homeowners, but will continue to utilize the 
NeighborWorks network as an effective laboratory in which 
innovative revitalization strategies can be tested and 
evaluated.
    The Committee has also included an increase of $10,000,000 
for the core programs of the Neighborhood Reinvestment 
Corporation.

                        Selective Service System


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2002 recommendation.......................       $25,003,000
Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................        24,480,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................        25,003,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation........          +523,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0


    The Selective Service System was reestablished by the 
Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System 
is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces 
adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a 
time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have 
relied on volunteers to fill military manpower requirements. 
However, the Selective Service System remains the primary 
vehicle by which men will be brought into military if Congress 
and the President should authorize a return to the draft.
    For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes the budget request 
of $25,003,000 for the Selective Service System, $523,000 above 
the fiscal year 2001 funding level.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends inclusion of twenty-six general 
provisions, twenty-three of which were requested in the fiscal 
year 2002 budget and twenty-four were carried in the fiscal 
year 2001 Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-377). The 
Committee has included a general provision regarding the 
collection of pesticide registration fees and a provision on 
pesticide tolerance fees, the latter of which was proposed for 
deletion but was included in the fiscal year 2001 
Appropriations Act. The Committee has included a new general 
provision which changes the reporting dates associated with the 
Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act.

              House of Representatives Report Requirements

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

                        Constitutional Authority

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

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations.

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statements are made 
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill.
    The Committee has included language transferring not to 
exceed $17,940,000 from compensation and pensions to general 
operating expenses and medical care. These funds are for the 
administrative costs of implementing cost-savings proposals 
required by the omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992. Language is also included 
permitting necessary sums to be transferred to the medical 
facilities revolving fund to augment funding of medical centers 
for nursing home care provided to pensioners as authorized by 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992.
    The Committee recommends transferring the following amounts 
to the VA's general operating expenses appropriation pursuant 
to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990: the veterans housing 
benefit program fund program account ($164,497,000), the 
education loan fund program account ($64,000), the vocational 
rehabilitation loans program account ($274,000) and the Native 
American veteran housing loan program account ($544,000). In 
addition, the bill provides up to $750,000 in general operating 
expenses and medical care for administration of the guaranteed 
transitional housing loans for homeless veterans program 
account.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Veterans Affairs which would transfer funds from the medical 
care collections fund to medical care.
    The Committee recommends providing authority under 
administrative provisions for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs for any funds appropriated in 2002 for compensation and 
pensions, readjustment benefits, and veterans insurance and 
indemnities to be transferred between those three accounts. 
This will provide the Department of Veterans Affairs 
flexibility in administering its entitlement programs. Language 
is also included permitting the funds from three life insurance 
funds to be transferred to general operating expenses for the 
costs of administering such programs.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring all uncommitted 
prior balances of excess rental charges as of fiscal year 2001 
and all collections made during fiscal year 2002 to the 
flexible subsidy fund.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring the following 
amounts to the salaries and expenses account for administrative 
expenses: FHA mutual mortgage insurance and general and special 
risk insurance program accounts ($530,457,000); GNMA guarantees 
of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account 
($9,383,000); community development loan guarantees program 
account ($1,000,000); Indian housing loan guarantee fund 
program account ($200,000); and Native American housing block 
grants account ($150,000).
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring no less than the 
following amounts to the working capital fund under the 
salaries and expenses account for development and management of 
information technology systems: housing certificate fund 
($11,000,000); public housing capital fund ($43,000,000); 
community development fund ($15,000,000); home investment 
partnership program account ($17,000,000); homeless assistance 
grants account ($14,200,000); housing for special populations 
account ($1,000,000); FHA mutual mortgage insurance program 
account ($96,500,000); FHA general and special risk insurance 
program account ($33,500,000); and native American housing 
block grants account ($2,000,000).
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring $10,000,000 from the 
public housing operating fund account to the Office of 
Inspector General for Operation Safe Home.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring $22,343,000 from the 
various funds of the Federal Housing Administration to the 
Office of Inspector General.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring $23,000,000 from the 
federal housing enterprise oversight fund to the office of 
federal housing enterprise oversight account.
    The Committee has included language under the Environmental 
Protection Agency transferring funds from the hazardous 
substance superfund trust fund ($11,867,000) to the Office of 
Inspector General. In addition, $36,891,000 is transferred from 
the hazardous substance superfund trust fund to the science and 
technology account.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation transferring up to $33,660,000 
from the Bank Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance 
Fund, and the FSLIC Resolution Fund to the Office of Inspector 
General.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency transferring $2,900,000 from the 
disaster relief account to the emergency management planning 
and assistance account.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency transferring up to $20,000,000 from 
the National Flood Insurance Fund to the National Flood 
Mitigation Fund.
    The Committee has included general transfer language under 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, human space 
flight account and the science aeronautic and technology 
account. This language will allow for the transfer of funds 
among these two accounts, as necessary, to reflect full cost 
accounting recently scheduled for implementation.
    The Committee has included language under National Credit 
Union Administration transferring $1,000,000 to the Community 
Development Revolving Loan Fund.

                  Rescissions Recommended in the Bill

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing 
    Certificate Fund....................................    -886,000,000
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Management 
    and Administration, Consolidated Fee Fund...........      -6,700,000

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

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

TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART II--GENERAL BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   CHAPTER 17--HOSPITAL, NURSING HOME, DOMICILIARY, AND MEDICAL CARE


                          Subchapter I--General

Sec.
1701. Definitions.
     * * * * * * *

   Subchapter III--Miscellaneous Provisions Relating to Hospital and 
           Nursing Home Care and Medical Treatment of Veterans

1721. Power to make rules and regulations.
     * * * * * * *
[1729B. Health Services Improvement Fund.]
     * * * * * * *

   Subchapter III--Miscellaneous Provisions Relating to Hospital and 
Nursing Home Care and Medical Treatment of Veterans

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 1722A. Copayment for medications

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Amounts collected [under subsection (a)] under this 
section shall be deposited in the Department of Veterans 
Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund. [Amounts collected 
through use of the authority under subsection (b) shall be 
deposited in the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services 
Improvement Fund.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1729A. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections 
                    Fund

    (a) * * *
    (b) Amounts recovered or collected after June 30, 1997, 
under any of the following provisions of law shall be deposited 
in the fund:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (7) Section 8165(a) of this title.
          (8) Section 113 of the Veterans Millennium Health 
        Care and Benefits Act (Public Law 106-117; 38 U.S.C. 
        8111 note).
          [(7)] (9) Public Law 87-693. popularly known as the 
        ``Federal Medical Care Recovery Act'' (42 U.S.C. 2651 
        et seq.), to the extent that a recovery or collection 
        under that law is based on medical care or services 
        furnished under this chapter.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 1729B. Health Services Improvement Fund

    [(a) There is established in the Treasury of the United 
States a fund to be known as the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Health Services Improvement Fund.
    [(b) Amounts received or collected after the date of the 
enactment of this section under any of the following provisions 
of law shall be deposited in the fund:
          [(1) Section 1713A of this title.
          [(2) Section 1722A(b) of this title.
          [(3) Section 8165(a) of this title.
          [(4) Section 113 of the Veterans Millennium Health 
        Care and Benefits Act.
    [(c) Amounts in the fund are hereby available, without 
fiscal year limitation, to the Secretary for the purposes 
stated in sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) of section 1729A(c)(1) of 
this title.
    [(d) The Secretary shall allocate amounts in the fund in 
the same manner as applies under subsection (d) of section 
1729A of this title with respect to amounts made available from 
the fund under that section.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART VI--ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   CHAPTER 81--ACQUISITION AND OPERATION OF HOSPITAL AND DOMICILIARY 
   FACILITIES; PROCUREMENT AND SUPPLY; ENHANCED--USE LEASES OF REAL 
PROPERTY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



          Subchapter V--Enhanced--Use Leases of Real Property


Sec. 8165. Use of proceeds

    (a)(1) Funds received by the Department under an enhanced-
use lease and remaining after any deduction from those funds 
under subsection (b) shall be deposited in the [Department of 
Veterans Affairs Health Services Improvement Fund established 
under section 1729B of this title] Department of Veterans 
Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund established under section 
1729A of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  SECTION 113 OF THE VETERANS MILLENNIUM HEALTH CARE AND BENEFITS ACT


SEC. 113. ACCESS TO CARE FOR TRICARE-ELIGIBLE MILITARY RETIREES.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Depositing of Reimbursements.--Amounts received by the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs under the agreement under 
subsection (a) shall be deposited in the [Department of 
Veterans Affairs Health Services Improvement Fund established 
under section 1729B of title 38, United States Code, as added 
by section 202] Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care 
Collections fund established under section 1729A of title 38, 
United States Code.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


SECTION 225 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN 
     DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000


                            HOPWA TECHNICAL

    Sec. 225. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the amount allocated for fiscal year 2000, and the amounts that 
would otherwise be allocated for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal 
year 2002, to the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf 
of the Philadelphia, PA-NJ Primary Metropolitan Area (hereafter 
``metropolitan area''), under section 854(c) of the AIDS 
Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)), the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development shall adjust such amounts by 
allocating to the State of New Jersey the proportion of the 
metropolitan area's amount that is based on the number of cases 
of AIDS reported in the portion of the metropolitan area that 
is located in New Jersey.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                      TITLE II--MORTGAGE INSURANCE

                         INSURANCE OF MORTGAGES

    Sec. 203. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c)(1) The Secretary is authorized to fix premium charge 
for the insurance of mortgages under the separate sections of 
this title but in the case of any mortgage such charge shall be 
not less than an amount equivalent to one-fourth of 1 per 
centum per annum nor more than an amount equivalent to 1 per 
centum per annum of the amount of the principal obligation of 
the mortgage outstanding at any time, without taking into 
account delinquent payments or pre-payments: Provided, That 
premium charges fixed for insurance (1) under section 245, 247, 
251, 252, or 253, or any other financing mechanism providing 
alternative methods for repayment of a mortgage that is 
determined by the Secretary to involve additional risk, or (2) 
under subsections (n) [and] or (k) are not required to be the 
same as the premium charges for mortgages insured under the 
other provisions of this section, but in no case shall premium 
charges under subsection (n) or (k) exceed 1 per centum per 
annum: Provided, That any reduced premium charge so fixed and 
computed may, in the discretion of the Secretary, also be made 
applicable in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe to 
each insured mortgage outstanding under the section or sections 
involved at the time the reduced premium charge is fixed. Such 
premium charges shall be payable by the mortgagee, either in 
cash, or in debentures issued by the Secretary under this title 
at par plus accrued interest, in such manner as may be 
prescribed by the Secretary: Provided, That debentures 
presented in payment of premium charges shall represent 
obligations of the particular insurance fund or account to 
which such premium charges are to be credited: Provided 
further, that the Secretary may require the payment of one or 
more such premium charges at the time the mortgage is insured, 
at such discount rate as he may prescribe not in excess of the 
interest rate specified in the mortgage. If the Secretary finds 
upon the presentation of a mortgage for insurance and the 
tender of the initial premium charge or charges so required 
that the mortgage complies with the provisions of this section, 
such mortgage may be accepted for insurance by endorsement or 
otherwise as the Secretary may prescribe; but no mortgage shall 
be accepted for insurance under this section unless the 
Secretary finds that the project with respect to which the 
mortgage is executed is economically sound. In the event that 
the principal obligation of any mortgage accepted for insurance 
under this title is paid in full prior to the maturity date, 
the Secretary is further authorized in his discretion to 
require the payment by the mortgagee of an adjusted premium 
charge in such amount as the Secretary determines to be 
equitable, but not in excess of the aggregate amount of the 
premium charges that the mortgagee would otherwise have been 
required to pay if the mortgage had continued to be insured 
until such maturity date; and in the event that the principal 
obligation is paid in full as herein set forth, the Secretary 
is authorized to refund to the mortgagee for the account of the 
mortgagor all, or such portion as he shall determine to be 
equitable, of the current unearned premium charges theretofore 
paid: Provided, that with respect to mortgages (1) for which 
the Secretary requires, at the time the mortgage is insured, 
the payment of a single premium charge to cover the total 
premium obligation for the insurance of the mortgage, and (2) 
on which the principal obligation is paid before the number of 
years on which the premium with respect to a particular 
mortgage was based, or the property is sold subject to the 
mortgage or is sold and the mortgage is assumed prior to such 
time, the Secretary shall provide for refunds, where 
appropriate, of a portion of the premium paid and shall provide 
for appropriate allocation of the premium cost among the 
mortgagors over the term of the mortgage, in accordance with 
procedures established by the Secretary which take into account 
sound financial and actuarial considerations.
    (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
each mortgage secured by a 1- to 4-family dwelling [and 
executed on or after October 1, 1994,] that is an obligation of 
the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund or of the General Insurance 
Fund pursuant to subsection (v), and each mortgage that is 
insured under sub-section (k) or section 234(c), shall be 
subject to the following requirements:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                ADJUSTABLE RATE SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGES

    Sec. 251. (a) * * *
    (b) The Secretary shall [issue regulations requiring that 
the mortgagee make available to the mortgagor, at the time of 
loan application, a written explanation of the features of the 
adjustable rate mortgage, including a hypothetical payment 
schedule that displays the maximum potential increases in 
monthly payments to the mortgagor over the first 5 years of the 
mortgage term.] require that the mortgagee make available to 
the mortgagor, at the time of loan application, a written 
explanation of the features of an adjustable rate mortgage 
consistent with the disclosure requirements applicable to 
variable rate mortgages secured by a principal dwelling under 
the Truth in Lending Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d)(1) The Secretary may insure under this subsection a 
mortgage that meets the requirements of subsection (a), except 
that the effective rate of interest--
          (A) shall be fixed for a period of not less than the 
        first 3 years of the mortgage term;
          (B) shall be adjusted by the mortgagee initially upon 
        the expiration of such period and annually thereafter;
          (C) in the case of the initial interest rate 
        adjustment, is subject to the one percent limitation 
        only if the interest rate remained fixed for five or 
        fewer years.
    (2) The disclosure required under subsection (b) shall be 
required for a mortgage insured under this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    Sec. 136a-1 (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) Maintenance fee.--
                  (A) Subject to * * *
                  (B) In the case of * * *
                  (C)(i) The amount of each fee prescribed 
                under subparagraph (A) shall be adjusted by the 
                Administrator to a level that will result in 
                the collection under this paragraph of, to the 
                extent practicable, an aggregate amount of 
                [$14,000,000] $17,000,000 in [each] fiscal year 
                2002.
                  (D) The maximum * * *
                  (E)(i) For a small * * *
                  (F) The Administrator shall * * *
                  (G) If any fee * * *
                  (H) The authority provided under this 
                paragraph shall terminate on September 30, 
                [2001] 2001.
          (6) Other fees.--During the period beginning on 
        October 25, 1988, and ending on September 30, [2001] 
        2002, the Administrator shall * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (k) * * *
          (3) Expedited processing of similar applications.--
                  (A) The Administrator shall use for each of 
                the fiscal years 1997 through [2001] 2002, not 
                more than [\1/7\] \1/10\ of the maintenance fee 
                collected * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968


                  TITLE XIII--NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE

                              SHORT TITLE

    Sec. 1301. This title may be cited as the ``National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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 December 31, 
[2001] 2002, 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           PROGRAM EXPIRATION

    Sec. 1319. No new contract for flood insurance under this 
title shall be entered into after [September 30, 2001] December 
31, 2002.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART A--INDUSTRY PROGRAM WITH FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  EMERGENCY IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM

    Sec. 1336. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 
title, for the purpose of providing flood insurance coverage at 
the earliest possible time, the Director shall carry out the 
flood insurance program authorized under chapter I during the 
period ending [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2002, in 
accordance with the provisions of this part and the other 
provisions of this title insofar as they relate to this part 
but subject to the modifications made by or under subsection 
(b).
    (b) In carrying out the flood insurance program pursuant to 
subsection (a), the Director--
          (1) shall provide insurance coverage without regard 
        to any estimated risk premium rates which would 
        otherwise be determined under section 1307; and
          (2) shall utilize the provisions and procedures 
        contained in or prescribed by this part (other than 
        section 1334) and sections 1345 and 1346 to such extent 
        and in such manner as he may consider necessary or 
        appropriate to carry out the purpose of this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER IV--APPROPRIATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                             APPROPRIATIONS

    Sec. 1376. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
may be necessary through December 31, [2001] 2002, for studies 
under this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


TITLE I--CERRO GRANDE FIRE ASSISTANCE ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 104. COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CERRO GRANDE FIRE.

    (a) In General.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (n) Report.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) the Comptroller General shall conduct an annual 
        audit on the payment of all claims made under this 
        title and shall report to the Congress on the results 
        of this audit [beginning not later than the expiration 
        of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.] within 120 days after the 
        Director issues the report required by subsection (n) 
        in 2002 and 2003. This report shall include a review of 
        all subrogation claims for which insurance companies 
        have been paid or are seeking payment as subrogees 
        under this title.
    (o) Authorization of Appropriations.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    The Committee submits the following statements in 
compliance with clause 3, rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, describing the effects of provisions proposed 
in the accompanying bill which may be considered, under certain 
circumstances, to change the application of existing law, 
either directly or indirectly.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing activities and programs where authorizations 
have not been enacted to date.
    In some cases, the Committee has recommended appropriations 
which are less than the maximum amounts authorized for the 
various programs funded in the bill. Whether these actions 
constitute a change in the application of existing law is 
subject to interpretation, but the Committee felt that this 
should be mentioned.
    The Committee has included limitations for official 
reception and representation expenses for selected agencies in 
the bill.
    Sections 401 through 421, and 423 through 425 of title IV 
of the bill, all of which are carried in the fiscal year 2001 
Appropriations Act, are general provisions which place 
limitations or restrictions on the use of funds in the bill and 
which might, under certain circumstances, be construed as 
changing the application of existing law. A new section 422 has 
been added this year which limits the use of funds to implement 
a pesticide registration fee. A new section 426 is included 
which changes the dates that reports are required pursuant to 
the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act.
    The bill includes, in certain instances, limitations on the 
obligation of funds for particular functions or programs. These 
limitations include restrictions on the obligation of funds for 
administrative expenses, the use of consultants, and 
programmatic areas within the overall jurisdiction of a 
particular agency.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, medical care, earmarking and delaying the availability 
of certain equipment and land and structures funds, and 
limiting funds available for the operations and maintenance of 
facilities.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs providing for the deposit of receipts collected under 
the Millennium Health Care and Benefits Improvements Act of 
1999 in the medical care collections fund.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, general operating expenses, providing for the 
reimbursement to the Department of Defense for the costs of 
overseas employee mail. This language has been carried 
previously and permits free mailing privileges for VA personnel 
stationed in the Philippines.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, construction, major projects, establishing time 
limitations and reporting requirements concerning the 
obligation of major construction funds, limiting the use of 
funds, and allowing the use of funds for program costs.
    Lanaguage is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs establishing the facility rehabilitation fund which 
provides funding for certain sections of H.R. 811, the Veterans 
Hospital Emergency Repair Act, as passed by the House on March 
27, 2001.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, construction, minor projects, providing that 
unobligated balances of previous appropriations may be used for 
any project with an estimated cost of less than $4,000,000, 
allowing the use of funds for program costs, and making funds 
available for damage caused by natural disasters.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions, permitting transfers 
between mandatory accounts, limiting and providing for the use 
of certain funds, and funding administrative expenses 
associated with VA life insurance programs from excess program 
revenues. Seven provisions have been carried in previous 
Appropriations Acts. Four new provisions have been added.
    Language is included under Department of Veterans Affairs, 
administrative provisions extending the Department's authority 
to operate their Franchise Fund through October 1, 2002.
    Language is included under Department of Veterans Affairs, 
administrative provisions allowing for the obligation of 
reimbursements from enhanced-use lease services during the 
fiscal year in which the proceeds are received.
    Language is included under Department of Veterans Affairs, 
administrative provisions allowing for the reimbursements of up 
to $28,555,000 to the Office of Resolution Management and up to 
$2,383,000 from the Office of Employment Discrimination 
Management for services rendered.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, which designates funds for various programs and 
specifies the uses of such funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, housing certificate fund, which places a 
limitation on certain fees.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, public housing capital fund, which clarifies the 
effective date of certain requirements; specifies the 
allocation of certain funds; limits the delegation of certain 
waiver authorities; waives certain penalties related to 
withholding of funds; requires reallocation of certain funds; 
and prohibits funds from being used for certain activities.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, public housing operating fund, which designates 
certain funds to be distributed by the Attorney General through 
a reimbursable agreement; and prohibits funds from being used 
for certain activities.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, revitalization of severely distressed public 
housing (HOPE VI), which prohibits the use of funds for awards 
to settle litigation or pay judgments.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, home investment partnerships program, which limits 
the availability of certain funds subject to enactment of 
subsequent legislation.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, homeless assistance grants, which establishes 
certain minimum funding and matching requirements; and requires 
grantees to integrate homeless programs with other social 
service providers.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, housing for special populations, which permits 
waivers of certain program provisions; and allows funds to be 
used to renew certain contracts.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, flexible subsidy fund, which permits the use of 
excess rental charges.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, manufactured housing fees trust fund, which 
permits fees to be modified.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, fair housing and equal opportunity, which places 
restrictions on the use of funds for lobbying activities.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, salaries and expenses, which places limitations on 
personnel; and requires submission of a staffing plan.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, office of federal housing enterprise oversight, 
which limits net appropriations for the General Fund of the 
Treasury.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, administrative provisions, which maintains and 
reduces annual adjustment factors; prohibits funds to 
investigate or prosecute certain lawful activities; revises 
allocations for housing opportunities for persons with AIDS 
grant recipients; establishes a hybrid adjustable rate mortgage 
program; and modifies certain premium structures related to 
certain single-family mortgage programs.
    Language is included under Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board, salaries and expenses, which limits 
certain personnel employed by the Board.
    Language is included under Department of the Treasury, 
Community Development Financial Institutions, community 
development financial institution program account, which sets 
aside funds for various purposes.
    Language is included under the Court of Appeals for 
Veterans Claims, salaries and expenses, permitting the use of 
funds for a pro bono program.
    Language is included under Department of Health and Human 
Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 
toxic substances and environmental public health, limiting 
availability of funds for toxicological profiles.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, environmental programs and management, which limits use 
of funds, and expands the use of funds awarded for certain 
programs.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, administrative provisions, which permits the 
Administrator to award cooperative agreements to Indian Tribes 
or Intertribal consortia under certain circumstances, and which 
authorizes for one year a pesticide maintenance fee.
    Language is included under the Council on Environmental 
Quality, which limits the size of the Council.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, emergency management planning and assistance, which 
authorizes the director of FEMA to provide consolidated 
emergency management performance grants.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, emergency food and shelter, limiting administrative 
expenses.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, national flood insurance fund, which limits 
administrative expenses, program costs, and the amount 
available for repayment of debt. Language is also included 
which extends the authorization for the program.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, national flood insurance fund, which establishes a fund 
for flood mitigation activities.
    Language is included under the General Services 
Administration, Federal Consumer Information Center, limiting 
certain fund and administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, administrative provision, extending the 
availability of construction of facility funds, permitting 
funds for contracts for various services in the next year, and 
transferring of prior year appropriations to the appropriate 
new appropriations accounts.
    Language is included under the National Credit Union 
Administration, central liquidity facility, limiting loans from 
borrowed funds and administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
research and related activities, providing for the use of 
receipts from other research facilities, requiring under 
certain circumstances proportional reductions in legislative 
earmarkings, and use of funds.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
education and human resources activities, requiring under 
certain circumstances proportional reductions in legislative 
earmarkings.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
agencies in the accompanying bill which contain appropriations 
that are not authorized by law:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                     Appropriation in
                               Agency/Program                                    Last year of      Authorization       last year of      Appropriation
                                                                                authorization          level          authorization        this bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Construction, Major: Miami, Florida project only............................  .................  .................  .................            $28,000
Facility Rehabilitation Fund................................................  .................  .................  .................            300,000
                 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Housing Certificate Fund:
    Section 8 contract renewals.............................................               1994         $8,446,173         $5,458,106         15,076,853
    Section 441 contracts...................................................               1994            109,410            150,000             10,300
    Section 23 leased housing conversions...................................               1994             13,303  .................                500
    Section 8 preservation, protection, and family unification..............               1994            759,259            541,000            202,842
    Incremental Vouchers....................................................               1994          2,060,725  .................            197,246
    Contract Administrators.................................................  .................  .................  .................            195,601
    Native American Housing Block Grant.....................................               2001          Such sums            636,000            648,570
    Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS.............................               1994            156,300            156,000            277,432
Community Development Fund:
    Community Development Block Grants......................................               1994          4,168,000          4,380,000          4,399,300
    Housing Assistance Council..............................................  .................  .................  .................              3,300
    Native American Indian Housing Council..................................  .................  .................  .................              2,794
    National Housing Development Corporation................................  .................  .................  .................              5,000
    National Council on La Raza HOPE Fund...................................  .................  .................  .................              5,000
    Self-Help Housing Opportunity Program...................................               2000          Such sums             20,000             22,956
    Capacity Building.......................................................               1994             25,000             20,000             29,387
    Neighborhood Initiatives................................................  .................  .................  .................             25,000
    YouthBuild..............................................................               1994             41,680             28,000             59,868
    HOME Investment partnerships............................................               1994          2,173,612          1,275,000          1,996,040
    Homeless Assistance Grants..............................................               1994            465,774            599,000          1,027,745
FHA General and Special Risk Program Account:
    Limitation on guaranteed loans..........................................               1995          Such sums       (20,885,072)       (21,000,000)
    Limitation on direct loans..............................................               1995          Such sums          (220,000)           (50,000)
    Credit Subsidy..........................................................               1995          Such sums            188,395             15,000
    Administrative Expenses.................................................               1995  .................            197,470            144,000
GNMA Mortgage-Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account:
    Limitation on guaranteed loans..........................................               1996      (110,000,000)      (110,000,000)      (200,000,000)
    Administrative Expenses.................................................               1996          Such sums          9,101,000          9,383,000
    Policy Development and Research.........................................               1994             36,470             35,000             46,900
    Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Initiatives Program...............               1994             26,000             20,481             19,449
    Lead Hazards Reduction Program..........................................               1994            276,000            185,000            109,758
    Salaries and Expenses...................................................               1994          1,029,496            916,963          1,097,257
    Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.......................               1998            111,000             80,000             80,000
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation...................................               1994             30,714             32,000            105,000
    Consumer Product Safety Commission......................................               1992             45,000             40,200             54,000
Federal Consumer Information Center Fund:
    Federal information Center..............................................               1980              7,000              4,492              3,447
    Consumer Information Center Fund........................................               1970     Not applicable                  0              3,829

National Credit Union Administration, loan fund.............................      Not available                  0                  0              1,000
                       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Categorical Grants:
    Clean Air Act...........................................................            FY 1997          Such sums            167,230
    Radon Abatement Act.....................................................            FY 1991             10,000              9,000
    Clean Water Act (FWPCA).................................................         FY 1990-91  .................  .................
    BEACH Act...............................................................            FY 2005             30,000  .................
    Safe Drinking Water Act.................................................            FY 2003            115,000  .................
    Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA).........................................            FY 1988             70,000             71,391
    Toxic Substances Control Act............................................            FY 1983              1,500              5,100
    Pollution Prevention Act................................................            FY 1993              8,000              6,800
    Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act.....................            FY 1998          Such sums             38,585
    Clean Water SRF.........................................................            FY 1992          1,800,000          2,400,000
    Sewer Overflows.........................................................            FY 2003            750,000  .................
    Drinking Water SRF......................................................            FY 2003          1,000,000  .................
    Alaskan Native Village..................................................            FY 1979              2,000      Not available
Hazardous Substance Superfund...............................................            FY 1994          5,100,000          1,480,853
LUST Trust Fund.............................................................            FY 1988             10,000             14,400
Oil Spills (FWPCA)..........................................................      No expiration             35,000             15,000
Science and Technology:
    Clean Air Act...........................................................            FY 1997          Such sums            177,150
    Clean Water Act.........................................................            FY 1990            159,520             27,028
    FIFRA...................................................................            FY 1991      95,000 (part)             11,890
    Safe Drinking Water Act.................................................            FY 2003          Such sums             51,501
    ERDDA...................................................................            FY 1981          1,115,591            217,828
Office of Inspector General.................................................      No expiration          Such sums             34,019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



     The statutory authority for appropriations in all eight of EPA's accounts is provided to the Agency through
              a wide variety of primarily media-specific statutes as shown in the following chart:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Terms of
                 Section title                     Statute section        authorization          Expiration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Res., Invest., Train., Tech. Asst., Info.       104(U)(1)...........  $22.77m, FY86-90....  33,146.
 Activ.
Train. Progs. for Treat. Works Personnel......  104(U)(2)...........  $3m, FY86-90........  33,146.
Forecasting Manpower..........................  104(U)(3)...........  $1.5m, FY86-90......  33,146.
Agricul. Research.............................  104(U)(4)...........  $10m, FY73-75.......  27,575.
Fresh Water Aquatic Ecosystems Res. Grants....  104(U)(5)...........  $15m, FY73-75.......  27,575.
Thermal Discharge Cont........................  104(U)(6)...........  $10m, FY73-75.......  27,575.
Res., Dev., Demo. Grants Storm Water Poll.      105(H)..............  $75m, FY73-75, 10%    27,575.
 Cont.                                                                 for 105(E).
Grants for Pollution Control and Enforce......  106(A)..............  $75m, FY86-90.......  33,146.
Mine Wtr. Poll. Control.......................  107(E)..............  $30m, until expend..  When expended.
Great Lakes Pollution Control Demo. Projects..  108(C)..............  $20m, until expend..  When expended.
Lake Erie Corp. of Eng. Deno. Project.........  108(E)..............  $5m, until expend...  When expended.

Train, Grts., Cont., Schol....................  112(C)..............  $7m, FY86-90........  33,146.
Alaska Vill. Deno. Proj.......................  113(D)..............  $2m.................  29,128.
In-Place Toxic Poll. Removal From Ports.......  115.................  $15m................  When expended.
Hudson Say PCB Reclamation Demo. Proj.........  116(D)..............  $20m................  Indefinite.
Chesapeake-Bay Program........................  117(D)..............  $3m, FY87-90........  33,146.
                                                                      $10m for grants,      33,146.
                                                                       FY87-90.
Great Lakes Program...........................  118(g)..............  $11m, FY87-91 (30%    9/30/91.
                                                                       to NOAA).
Assur. for Every State........................  205(E)..............  $75m, FY79-90.......  9/30/90.
Reserve % for Admin. Specific Sections........  205(G)..............  Limit subject to      No exp. date.
                                                                       formula.
Set-Aside for Altern. Conv. Sewage Treat. Wrks  205(H)..............  Limit subject to      No exp. date.
                                                                       formula.
Altern. and Innovative Technologies-Fed. Share  205(I)..............  Limit subject to      9/30/90.
                                                                       formula.
Reserve Con. Grants for WQ Mgt. Planning......  205(J)..............  Limit subject to      No exp. date.
                                                                       formula.
Nonpoint Source Resrv.........................  205(J)(5)...........  Limit subject to      No exp. date.
                                                                       formula.
Sewage Covey. Cost NYC-NTWTON Treatment Plant.  205(K)..............  Limit subject to      9/30/82.
                                                                       formula.
Reim. for Treat. Works........................  206(E)..............  $2600m for 206(a)...  When expended.
                                                                      $750m for 206(b)....  When expended.
Grants for Construct. of Treatment Works......  207.................  $1200m, FY89-90.....  9/30/90.
Grants to Areawide Waste Mgt. Agencies........  208(F)(3)...........  such sums FY 83-90..  9/30/90.
Corps of Eng. Program of Tech Asst............  208(H)(2)...........  $50m, FY73-74.......  6/30/74.
DOI.Natl. Wetlands Inv........................  208(i)(2)...........  $6m.................  12/31/81.
Agri Contracts-Control Non-Point Source Poll..  208(J)(9)...........  such sums FY83-90...  9/30/90.
Water Resources Council Basin Planning........  209(C)..............  $200m...............  When expended.
IAG Transf. to Supp. WQ.......................  304(K)(3)...........  $100m, FY79-83......  9/30/90.
                                                                      Such sums FY84-90...  9/30/90.
Rev. Fund for Remov. of Oil or Haz. Sub. Progs  311 (K).............  $35m................  No exp. date.
Clean Lakes Grants............................  314(C)(2)...........  $30m, FY86-90 until   9/30/90.
                                                                       expend.
Clean Lakes Demo. Proj........................  314(D)(4)...........  $40m................  When expended.
Natl. Study Commission........................  315(H)..............  $17.25m.............  When expended.
Non-Point Source Mgt. Prog. Grants to States..  319(J)..............  $130m, FY-91 until    9/30/91.
                                                                       expend.
Sewage Sludge Studies.........................  405(G)(2)...........  $5m, FY87...........  No exp. date.
Con. Grants--San Diego........................  510(J)..............  $600m, FY94.........  No exp. date.
Oakwood Beach/Red Hood........................  512(B)..............  $7m, FY87 and beyond  No exp. date.
Boston Harbor & Adj. Wtrs.....................  513(D)..............  $100m, FY87.........  When expended.
San Diego Wastewater Reclamation Demo.........  514(C)..............  $2m, FY87 and beyond  No exp. date.
Des Moines Sewage Plnt........................  515(B)..............  $50m, FY87 and        No exp. date.
                                                                       beyond.
General Authorization.........................  517.................  $135m, FY86-90......  9/30/90.
Studies of Wtr. Poll. Probs. in Aquifers......  520(C)..............  $7m, FY87 and beyond  No exp. date.
Great Lakes Consumptv. Use Study..............  521(D)..............  $750k, FY87 and       No exp. date.
                                                                       beyond.
Sulfide Corrosn. Study........................  522(D)..............  $1m, FY87 and beyond  No exp. date.
State Water Poll. Cont. Revolving Fund Auth...  607.................  $1.8b, FY92.........  9/30/94.

       Marine Prot. Rsrch. & Sanct. Act

             Ocean Dumping Ban Act

For Title I...................................  111.................  $14m, FY94-97.......  When expended.

                 Clean Air Act

General Authorization.........................  327(A)..............  Such sums FY90-97...  9/30/97.
Local Impl. Revisn. Grants....................  327(A)(1)...........  $50m, FY91..........  9/30/91.

      FIFRA--Food Quality Protection Act

Gen. Authorization/Res........................  31..................  $95m, FY91..........  9/30/91.

     Asbestos School Hazards Abatement Act

    Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act

General Authorization.........................  512.................  $100m, FY85-90......  9/30/90.
Estab. Trust Fund for Collect. Loan Repayments  4(A)/5(E)...........  $25m, FY87-90.......  No date spec.

        Resource Conserv. & Recov. Act

           Solid Waste Disposal Act

Tire Shredding Grants.........................  2004................  $750K, FY78-79......  9/30/79.
General Authorization.........................  2007(A).............  $80m, FY88..........  9/30/88.
Criminal Investigators........................  2007(E).............  $2.529m, FY88.......  9/30/88.
Undrgrnd. Storg. Tank Reg.....................  2007(F)(1)..........  $10m, FY85-88.......  9/30/88.
St. Asst.-UST Prog. Dev.......................  2007(F)(2)..........  $25m, FY85-88.......  9/30/88.
St. Haz. Wst. Prog. Grants....................  3011(A).............  $60m, FY88..........  9/30/88.
Grants to States for Invntory Haz. Wst. Sites.  3012................  $25m, FY85-88.......  9/30/88.
Solid Wst. Prog. St. Grts.....................  4008(A)(1)..........  $10m, FY85-88.......  9/30/88.
Grants for Studies & Market Analysis..........  4008(A)(2)(D).......  $10m, FY85-88.......  9/30/88.
St. Asst. for Provisns. Relt. to Recycled Oil.  4008(A)(3)(A).......  $4m, FY82-86........  9/30/86.
Spec. Communities Disposal Site Grants........  4008(E)(2)..........  $500K, FY85-88......  9/30/88.
Municip. Asst. for Enrgy. Conserv. & Recov.     4008(F)(2)..........  $8m, FY82-86........  9/30/86.
 Plang.
St. Asst. for Recycled Oil Programs...........  4008(G)(4)..........  $5m, FY85-88........  9/30/88.
Rural Community Grants........................  4009(D).............  $15m, FY81-82.......  9/30/82.
Dept. of Commerce Funct.......................  5006................  $1.5m, FY85-88......  9/30/88.
Resource Conserv. Comm........................  8002(J)(5)..........  $2m.................  When expended.
Drilling Fluids. Study........................  8002(M).............  $1m.................  When expended.
Special Studies...............................  8002(Q).............  $8m, FY78-79........  7/30/91
Res., Training & Info.........................  8007................  $35m, FY78..........  9/30/79.
Medical Waste Tracking. Demo. Program.........  11012...............  Such sums FY89-91...  9/30/78.
Natl. Ground Water Comm.......................  704(I) Title VII....  $7m, FY85-87........  1/11/87.

            Safe Drinking Water Act

Health Risk Red. & Cost Analysis in Regulation  1412(b)(3)(C)(iv)...  $35m, FY96-03.......  9/30/03.
 Dev.
Arsenic and Sulfate Studies...................  1412(b)(12)(A)(vi)..  $2.5m, FY97-00......  9/30/00.
Small Systems Operator Certification Grants...  1419(d)(3)..........  $30m, FY97-03.......  9/30/03.
Small PWS Technology Assistance Centers Grants  1420(f)(6)..........  $2m, FY97-99........  9/30/99.
                                                                      $5m, FY00-03........  9/30/03.
Environmental Finance Centers.................  1420(g)(4)..........  $1.5m, FY97-03......  9/30/03.
Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program.....  1427(m).............  $15m, FY92-03.......  9/30/03.
State Programs to Establish Wellhead Prot.      1428(k).............  $30m, FY92-03.......  9/30/03.
 Areas.
State Ground Water Protection Grants..........  1429(f).............  $15m, FY97-03.......  9/30/03.
Tech. Assist. for Small Systems Circuit Rider.  1442(e).............  $15m, FY97-03.......  9/30/03.
Emergency Assistance to States (1442(a)(2)(B))  1442(d).............  $8,050k, FY91.......  9/30/91.
Research, Tech. Assist., Info., Trng of         1442(d).............  $38,020k, FY91......  9/30/91.
 Personnel.
Grants for State Public Water.................  1443(a)(7)..........  $100m, FY97-03......  9/30/03.
Underground Injection Control Grants..........  1443(b)(5)..........  $15m, FY92-03.......  9/30/03.
New York Watershed Protection Program.........  1443(d)(4)..........  $15m, FY97-03.......  9/30/03.
Special Study and Demonstration Grants........  1444(c).............  $10m................  6/30/77.
Grants to Public Sector Agencies for Dev. &     42 U.S.C. (300j-      $25m................  9/30/78.
 Demo. Proj.                                     3a(c)1).
Monitoring Program for Unregulated              1445(a)(2)(H).......  $10m, FY97-03.......  9/30/03.
 Contaminants.
Capitalization of Drinking Water SRFs.........  1452(m).............  $1b, FY95-03........  9/30/03.
Grants to Sppt State Source WQ Prot.            1454(e).............  $5m, FY97-03........  9/30/03.
 Partnership Prog.
Drinking Water Assistance to Colonias.........  1456(e).............  $25m, FY97-99.......  9/30/99.
Studies on Harmful Substances in Drinking       1458(c)(3)..........  $12.5m, FY97-03.....  9/30/03.
 Water.
Waterborne Disease Occurrence Study...........  1458(d)(3)..........  $3m, FY97-01 (with    9/30/01.
                                                                       limitations).
Grants to States for Remedying School Drinking  1465(c).............  $30m, FY91..........  9/30/91.
 Water.
General Drinking Water Research Authorization.  201.................  Such sums (not to     9/30/03.
                                                                       exc. $26.593m).
Grants to Alaska to Improve Sanitation........  303(e)..............  $15m, FY97-00.......  9/30/00.
Wastewater Assistance to Colonias.............  307(e)..............  $25m, FY97-99.......  9/30/99.
Grants for Water Supply Sys. & Source WQ Prot.  401(d)..............  $25m, FY97-03         9/30/03.
 Progs..                                                               uncondit. auth.
                                                                      $25m, FY97-03
                                                                       condit. auth.

           Pollution Prevention Act

EPA Activities--Source Reduct.................  6610................  $8m, FY91-93........  9/30/93.
State Grants for Tech. Assist.................  6610................  $8m, FY91-93........  9/30/93.

               Noise Control Act

Res., Dev.--Low Noise Prod....................  15(G)...............  $2.42m, FY77........  9/30/77.
General Authorization.........................  19..................  $15m, FY79..........  9/30/79.

  Envir. Research., Development., & Demo Act

EPA Environ. Reserach & Dev. Activities.......  2...................  ....................  9/30/81.
Health and Ecological Effects program.........  2 CAA...............  $45.2m, FY81          ....................
Industrial Processes program..................  ....................  $4.1m, FY81.........
Monitoring and Technical Support..............  ....................  $20.8m, FY81........
Health and Ecological Effects.................  2 CWA...............  $23.8m, FY81........
Industrial Processes..........................  ....................  $13.7m, FY81........
Public Sector Activities......................  ....................  $14.3m, FY81........
Monitoring and Technical Support..............  ....................  $12.1m, FY81........
Health and Ecological Effects.................  2 SDWA..............  $12.36m, FY81.......
Public Sector Activities......................  ....................  $14.08m FY81          ....................
Monitoring and Technical Support..............  ....................  $1.008m FY81          ....................
  ............................................  2 SWDA..............  $26.446m FY81         ....................
Health and Ecological Effects.................  2 PHSA..............  $2.99m FY81           ....................
Monitoring and Technical Support..............  ....................  $191m FY81            ....................
Health and Ecological Effects.................  2 IA................  $5.232m FY81          ....................
Monitoring and Technical Support..............  ....................  $2.868m FY81          ....................
Anticipatory Research.........................  ....................  $14.745m FY81         ....................
Health and Ecological Effects.................  2 FIFRA.............  $5.97m FY81           ....................
Industrial Processes..........................  ....................  $2.9m FY81            ....................
Monitoring and Technical Support..............  ....................  $565k FY81            ....................
Health and Ecological Effects.................  2 TSCA..............  $31.87m FY81          ....................
Industrial Process............................  ....................  $1.77m FY81           ....................
Monitoring and Technical Support..............  ....................  $3.247m FY81          ....................
Health and Ecological Effects.................  2 EA................  $50.096m FY81         ....................
Energy Control................................  ....................  $57.503m FY81         ....................
Program Management............................  2 EPA...............  $4.666m FY81          ....................

             Inspector General Act

OIG Approp. Accounts..........................  108.................  Amounts as            No exp. date.
                                                                       appropriated.

         Toxic Substances Control Act

              Radon Abatement Act

TSCA Research & Dev...........................  10..................  ....................  9/30/81.
State Programs................................  28(D)...............  $1.5m, FY82-83......  9/30/83.
General Authorization.........................  29(D)...............  $58.646m FY82, $62m,  9/30/83.
                                                                       FY-83.
Radon Profic. Rating..........................  305(E)..............  $1.5m...............  When expended.
Citizen Guide, Model Constr. Stds., Tech. Asst  305(F)..............  $3m, FY89-91........  9/30/91.
Radon St. Prog. Grants........................  306(J)..............  $10m, FY89-91.......  9/30/91.
Radon Diag./Remedial in High-Risk Schools.....  307(B)..............  $1m & 500k (diag. &   When expended.
                                                                       remed.).
Region. Radon Trng. Ctrs......................  308(F)..............  $1m, FY89-91........  9/30/91.

 Comp. Env. Response, Compensation & Liability
                      Act

        Superfund Amend. & Reauth. Act

 Emergency Plan. & Community Right to Know Act

Limit. on Sec. 515/516........................  111(A)..............  $5.1b, FY91-94......  9/30/94.
Pilot Proj. for Removal of Lead Contam. Soil..  111(A)(6)...........  $15b................  No exp. date.
Worker Train. & Ed. Grts......................  111(C)(12)..........  $20m, FY87-94.......  9/30/94.
Agency--Tox. Sub. Disease.....................  111(M)..............  $60m, FY90-94.......  9/30/94.
Limit. on Rad. Demo. Prog.....................  111(N)(1)...........  $20m, FY87-94.......  9/30/94.
Limit. on Maz. Sub. R&D, Demo, and Training     111(N)(2)...........  $35m, FY91-94.......  9/30/94.
 Activ.
Gulf Coast Haz. Sub. R&D, and Demo. Center....  118(i)(4)...........  $5m, FY87 and         No exp. date.
                                                                       thereafter.
Pacific Northwest Haz. Sub. R&D and Demo.       118(O)(5)...........  $5m, FY87 and         No exp. date.
 Centr.                                                                thereafter.
Emer. Trng. & Review of Emer. Systems--St. &    305(A)(2)...........  $5m, FY87-90........  9/30/90.
 Locl.
Gen. Auth. T-111 Emer. Plan. Comm. Right to     330.................  Such sums beginning   No exp. date.
 Knw.                                                                  FY87.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

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

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        302(b) allocation--                  This bill
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget                          Budget
                                                     authority        Outlays        authority        Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...................................         $84,134         $88,037         $85,433         $88,037
Mandatory.......................................          26.453          26,255          26,453          26,255
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The amounts in this bill are technically in excess of the subcommittee section 302(b) suballocation.
  However, pursuant to section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, increases to the
  Committee's section 302(a) allocation are authorized for funding in the reported bill for spending designated
  as emergency. After the bill is reported to the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget will
  provide an increased section 302(a) allocation consistent with the funding provided in the bill. That new
  allocation will eliminate the technical difference prior to floor consideration.

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

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

                                                                Millions
Budget Authority in bill......................................  $111,317
Outlays:
    2002......................................................    64,409
    2003......................................................    25,908
    2004......................................................     8,556
    2005......................................................     4,361
    2006......................................................     3,221

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the Congressional Budget 
Office has provided the following estimate of new budget 
authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for 
financial assistance to state and local governments:
                                                                Millions
Budget Authority..............................................    30,830
Fiscal year 2002 outlays resulting therefrom..................     5,808

           Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

    During fiscal year 2002 for purposes of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), 
the following information provides the definition of the term 
``program, project, and activity'' for departments and agencies 
carried in the accompanying bill. The term ``program, project, 
and activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the 2002 Departments of Veterans Affairs 
and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act, the accompanying House and Senate reports, 
the conference report of the joint explanatory statement of the 
managers of the committee of conference.
    In applying any sequestration reductions, departments and 
agencies shall apply the percentage of reduction required for 
fiscal year 2002 pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 99-
177 to each program, project, activity, and subactivity 
contained in the budget justification documents submitted to 
the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in 
support of the fiscal year 2002 budget estimates, as amended, 
for such departments and agencies, as subsequently altered, 
modified, or changed by Congressional action identified by the 
aforementioned Act, resolutions and reports. Further, it is 
intended that in implementing any Presidential sequestration 
order, (1) no program, project, or activity should be 
eliminated, (2) no reordering of funds or priorities occur, and 
(3) no unfunded program execution, it is not intended that 
normal reprogramming between programs, projects, and activities 
be precluded after reductions required under the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act are implemented.

                          Full Committee Votes

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

                             ROLLCALL NO. 1

    Date: July 17, 2001.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2002.
    Motion by: Mr. Obey.
    Description of Motion: To increase funding by 
$1,000,000,000 for five specific programs, including veterans 
medical care, HUDF's public housing capital fund and shelter 
plus care programs, EPA's federal enforcement program, and the 
Corporation for National Service, and to increase the top 
income tax rate from 38.6 percent to 39.1 percent.
    Results: Rejected 24 yeas to 29 nays.
        Members Voting Yea             Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Goode
Mr. Fattah                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Istook
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Kingston
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Kennedy                         Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. LaHood
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Latham
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Miller
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Obey                            Mrs. Northup
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Peterson
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Regula
Mr. Price                           Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Rothman                         Mr. Skeen
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Sununu
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Taylor
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Vitter
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                          Full Committee Votes

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

                             ROLLCALL NO. 2

    Date: July 17, 2001.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2002.
    Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.
    Description of Motion: To authorize a program within the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development to reduce home down 
payment requirements for certain teachers and public safety 
officers.
    Results: Rejected 26 yeas to 32 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. DeLay
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Fattah                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Goode
Mr. Hoyer                           Ms. Granger
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Hobson
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Istook
Mr. Kennedy                         Mr. Kingston
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Knollenberg
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Latham
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Miller
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Pastor                          Mrs. Northup
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Regula
Mr. Price                           Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rothman                         Mr. Sherwood
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Sununu
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Vitter
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                          Full Committee Votes

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

                             ROLLCALL NO. 3

    Date: July 17, 2001.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2002.
    Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
    Description of Motion: To increase funding by $25,000,000 
for HUD's rural housing and economic development program, and 
to reduce funding by $25,000,000 for the Downpayment Assistance 
Initiative in the HOME investment partnership program.
    Results: Rejected 25 yeas to 31 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. DeLay
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Fattah                          Mr. Goode
Mr. Hinchey                         Ms. Granger
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Istook
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Kingston
Mr. Kennedy                         Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Kolbe
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. LaHood
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Latham
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Lewis
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Miller
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Olver                           Mrs. Northup
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Regula
Mr. Rothman                         Mr. Sherwood
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Sununu
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Vitter
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                          Full Committee Votes

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

                             ROLLCALL NO. 4

    Date: July 17, 2001.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2002.
    Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
    Description of Motion: To increase funding by $175,000,000 
for HUD's drug elimination grant program, and to reduce funding 
by $175,000,000 for the Downpayment Assistance Initiative in 
the HOME investment partnership program.
    Results: Rejected 27 yeas to 31 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Callahan
Mr. Cunningham                      Mr. DeLay
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Goode
Mr. Fattah                          Ms. Granger
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Istook
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Kennedy                         Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. LaHood
Mr. Kingston                        Mr. Latham
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Miller
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Olver                           Mrs. Northup
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Regula
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Rogers
Mr. Price                           Mr. Skeen
Mr. Rothman                         Mr. Sununu
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Taylor
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Sherwood                        Mr. Vitter
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                                    
                                    

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                   THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE PRETEND

    The appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies 
reported by the Committee represents the efforts of a skilled 
and well intentioned Chairman to fashion a good bill. He has 
worked cooperatively with Subcommittee Members on both sides of 
the aisle to balance priorities based on need, program 
performance, and the interests of Members of the House. 
Unfortunately inadequate resources make it impossible to make a 
silk purse out of a sow's ear. The result of his sincere effort 
is a bill which does much good, particularly in adding funds to 
the President's anemic budget for science, but is disappointing 
in areas such as veterans medical care and public housing 
programs that serve this country's most vulnerable citizens and 
families. Unfortunately, an inadequate overall allocation has 
also forced the Majority to rely on budgetary gimmicks to stay 
within the Subcommittee's budget ceiling. These gimmicks 
include almost $1 billion of delayed obligations and 
``pretend'' budget allocations such as the recommendation to 
eliminate funding for the Corporation for National and 
Community Service--a recommendation which the Chairman 
announced prior to reporting the bill that he intends to 
reverse in conference. These problems will cause the VA-HUD 
bill to be the first of seven appropriations bills reported by 
the Committee to not share broad bi-partisan support.
    The Minority believes that the shortfalls of this bill are 
unnecessary. This country has the resources to care for its 
veterans and to provide adequate housing for the poor, the 
elderly and the disabled. With a few exceptions, the funding 
problems are not the result of policy disagreements between the 
Majority and the Minority on the Committee. They are the 
artifacts of a Republican President and House Majority's 
adoption of a budget policy which has focused myopically on tax 
cuts for wealthy Americans, and financed these by setting 
totally unrealistic spending limitations on discretionary 
spending--ceilings which barely keep up with inflation let 
alone provide new resources to meet emerging needs and 
opportunities.
    During Committee consideration of this bill the Minority 
offered an amendment that would have modestly scaled back the 
recent tax cut in order to generate a small amount of 
additional revenue to address some of the most urgent 
shortcomings in the bill. This amendment would have reduced the 
tax cut for the wealthiest taxpayers by one-half of one 
percent. Under the amendment the top tax rate of 39.6 percent, 
which applies to people with incomes in excess of $330,000 per 
year, would still be reduced to 39.1 percent but would not drop 
to 38.6 percent as provided under the Republican tax policy. 
The wealthiest Americans, those in the top one percent 
economically are estimated to have had a 157%, $414,000 
increase in inflation adjusted income during the last two 
decades. The amendment which we offered would have generated 
$1.3 billion in fiscal year 2002 revenue and allocated $1 
billion of this amount to programs in the VA-HUD bill--$300 
million for veterans medical care, $382 million for critical 
housing programs and $311 million to partially restore the 
Corporation for National and Community Service. Unfortunately 
the amendment failed on a party line vote.
Science
    As we indicated earlier, despite the shortage of funds, the 
Chairman has made scientific research a priority and has 
provided a generous allocation for the science agencies, 
especially the $4,480 million in the bill for the National 
Science Foundation. The President's budget requested a meager 
1.2 percent increase for the NSF, barely half the amount 
necessary to cover inflation. The Committee has wisely added 
$368 million to the President's request bringing the 2002 
increase to slightly over 9 percent, an amount which will allow 
the agency to continue on-going research in basic physics, 
chemistry, mathematics and engineering as well as take 
advantage of the new opportunities which have previously been 
approved by the National Science Board, but which would have 
been blocked by the Bush budget.
    The increases recommended by the Chairman and approved by 
the Committee for NASA are also positive but more complex. The 
bill as reported includes $14,926 million for NASA, an increase 
of $415 million over the President's budget. In addition to 
providing the budget request for the International Space 
Station, $275 million in funds are earmarked for the crew 
return vehicle (CRV), which had been cancelled by the 
Administration. The bill also includes additional amounts for 
space station research and for infrastructure improvements at 
the Kennedy Space Center.
    Given the budget constraints faced by the Committee, the 
Minority is pleased by the increases the Majority was able to 
provide to NASA.However, while these additions represent 
important improvements in the agency's budget, neither the President's 
budget nor this bill solve the underlying problems facing the 
International Space Station project. Cost estimates for the space 
station have risen from $8 billion in the mid-1980's to close to $30 
billion today including the most recent revelation of a $4.8 billion 
new cost overrun. The station has become the ``black hole'' of the NASA 
budget consuming other worthwhile projects at the same time it is being 
downsized to a level that is inadequate to accomplish the science 
mission for which it was originally designed. The Bush plan as 
currently proposed calls for a 3 person station crew, with 2.5 of these 
devoted to operating the Station. This leaves only half of the time of 
a single astronaut to conduct research, a situation that is impractical 
and irresponsible. While the Committee, in allocating initial funding 
for design and construction of a 6 person crew return vehicle, has 
begun to address the problem, this is only a first step. It is 
essential that NASA produce a realistic science and budget plan for the 
space station. Further, it is absolutely critical that the increasing 
and still undefined space station costs not impact the earth and space 
science activities at NASA, which have contributed to most of the 
success that NASA has enjoyed over the years. Failure to do so could 
leave the American people picking up the tab for one of the greatest 
science follies of all time.

Veterans

    As discussed earlier, the very solid funding levels for 
science programs are not matched in many other areas of the 
bill. Veterans programs are an example of an area where, as a 
result of the Majority party's tax-cut driven policy, 
constrained resources have meant that the Chairman was not able 
to address critical needs. He is to be praised for his 
recommendations to add $300 million to the President's request 
for much needed construction at VA facilities and for a 
significant increase for medical research. The Chairman also 
allocated an increase of $300 million over the President's 
budget to support the hospitals, clinics and nursing homes 
which provide care to more than 4 million veterans. 
Unfortunately this level of increase is inadequate--less than 
half the increase needed to meet increased health care 
expenditures nationally. It is $500 million less than 
recommended by the Republican Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. At the levels recommended by the Committee waiting 
times for medical appointments will continue to increase and 
new benefits recently authorized such as expanded long term 
care, mental health, pharmacy and emergency services will be 
delayed. The major veterans service organizations, in a letter 
to the Committee dated July 16, 2001, have stated that the 
funding in the bill ``. . . is simply inadequate to meet the 
needs of sick and disabled veterans . . . at a time of 
skyrocketing health care costs and rising demand from an aging 
veterans' population.'' We in the Minority agree and attempted, 
in the amendment which we offered unsuccessfully at Committee, 
to add an additional $300 million for the medical care account.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

    Overall, the funds provided in the Committee bill for the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development are inadequate. The 
Chairman has provided for the renewal of all section 8 housing 
vouchers, and for some new, incremental housing vouchers, but 
overall funding for critical housing programs serving our most 
vulnerable citizens is reduced by $560 million compared to 
fiscal year 2001. Many accounts within the Department are 
simply zeroed out. The Public Housing Drug Elimination Grant 
program has been eliminated; no funds have been provided for 
Empowerment Zones; no funds have been provided for the Rural 
Housing and Economic Development program, and no funds have 
been provided for the Shelter Plus Care program.
    Public housing is cut in two main areas. First, the Public 
Housing Capital Fund, which provides modernization funds for 
public housing, is reduced by $445 million from last year's 
level of $3 billion despite a growing affordable housing crisis 
in America. Public housing is home to approximately 3.2 million 
low-income Americans--families, elderly, and disabled that 
could not afford housing in the private market. The funding for 
public housing will result in its residents living in less 
secure, less healthy, and increasingly deteriorated housing. 
Our public housing inventory is valued at $90 billion, and has 
a maintenance backlog estimated at nearly $20 billion. It is 
shortsighted to let the taxpayer's investment deteriorate.
    Second, the Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing 
program is completely eliminated. Instead, the majority has 
increased the Public Housing Operating Fund by $110 million 
over the President's request and indicated that housing 
authorities may use these funds for drug elimination purposes. 
These operating funds are to cover all operating expenses, as 
well as drug elimination grant activities. This means other 
activities, includinghigher utility costs, must be paid for out 
of this account, resulting in a decrease in resources for drug 
elimination at those housing authorities that receive funding under 
this account. The Minority believes that funding for drug prevention 
programs will lead to lower costs for property management and better 
security around public housing. This priority program should be 
maintained.
    The Shelter Plus Care program, which provides critical 
funding designed to meet the needs of the homeless, is also 
zeroed out in the bill. The Committee report states that the 
fiscal year 2001 appropriation included sufficient funding to 
fully support all renewal costs for Shelter Plus Care contracts 
for fiscal year 2002. The Minority does not agree. Last year's 
bill did not include an advance appropriation for 2002. In this 
particular program, there is a fairly long lag between an 
appropriation and the awarding of funds. Thus, providing no new 
funds in this year's bill creates a funding gap. Grants that 
would normally be renewed in or around December 2002 will have 
to wait another year to be funded or these renewals will have 
to compete with the general funding round.
    The Rural Housing and Economic Development program is 
another program that was terminated in this bill. This program 
addresses the problems facing residents of rural areas, 
including people living in Colonias, Native Americans, and 
migrant farm workers. But the problem is not limited to these 
populations. The shortage of adequate housing at reasonable 
prices in America's rural areas is a national problem and the 
Minority cannot support the decision to terminate this small 
but important effort to help rural families find decent 
housing.
    It is clear that these shortfalls in funding for key HUD 
programs must be addressed before this bill is acceptable to 
many Members of Congress. The Minority strongly believes that 
restoring funding for many of these activities should be a high 
priority as the bill moves through the House and the Senate.

Environmental Protection Agency

    Although this bill provides an increase above the 
President's request for the Environmental Protection Agency, 
the $7,545 million recommended is still almost $300 million 
below the FY 2001 level. However, the largest issue of concern 
in the environmental area is the strength of federal 
enforcement. Many members have expressed concern about the cut 
to EPA enforcement personnel requested by the President and 
approved by the Committee. This Committee cuts funding for 270 
federal enforcement FTE and, as a replacement, creates a $25 
million grant program for state enforcement, which will only 
award 25 to 35 grants--not enough to cover all states. This 
change weakens enforcement of environmental laws that protect 
human health and our environment--laws which protect children 
from neurological impairments from lead based paint, which 
provide cleaner air to reduce asthma resulting from air 
pollution, and which provide the basis for cleaning up toxic 
industrial contamination in our rivers. The Minority does not 
believe that federal efforts should be reduced, and does not 
consider awarding roughly half the states grants to replace 
that abdication of federal responsibility to be an adequate 
response to nationwide environmental problems.

Corporation for National and Community Service

    As we noted in the beginning of these views, funding for 
the Corporation for National and Community Service has been 
eliminated from the bill. While the Chairman has suggested that 
funding will be restored in conference, that is a very 
dangerous strategy should the Majority stick with its current 
limits on discretionary spending. There is great doubt about 
where the money will come from to restore AmeriCorps and other 
service initiatives funded by the Corporation. Most members do 
not want to terminate funding for a program that provides 
housing to homeless families, arranges for tutors for low 
income students, rehabilitates community buildings and helps 
build Habitat for Humanities homes for low income families.

Disaster assistance

    This bill, in addition to providing for the normal 
operations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, contains 
$1.3 billion of critical emergency funding for disaster 
assistance. This funding will help victims of tropical storm 
Allison, in particular the people of Texas who incurred heavy 
losses from torrential rains and the subsequent flooding which 
followed this storm. It also replenishes the fund for future 
disasters so that other American families and businesses may be 
assisted when disaster hits their community. While the Minority 
believes that it would have been wiser to provide this money in 
the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental, that action was 
unfortunately blocked by the White House. In the view of the 
Minority, the President and his advisers have failed to 
recognize the needs of the people of Texas and many other 
states. While we understand the desire of the President to 
limit the artificial use of the emergency funding procedure, we 
believe that in this case the White House and the OMB have so 
myopically focused on process that they have failed to 
responsibly provide for the current situation--a true natural 
disaster which could not have been anticipated in advance.
    The Minority strongly supports the inclusion of these 
funds, and the request from the Committee to the Rules 
Committee for a waiver allowing this emergency funding, which 
is supported by both the Republican Leadership and by the 
Minority party.

Conclusion

    In summary, the Minority is pleased by the Chairman and the 
Committee's efforts in many areas, especially the funds added 
to the President's request for the National Science Foundation 
and for NASA. However, shortfalls in other areas make the bill 
in its current form an inadequate response to its many 
responsibilities to the American people, and we will need to 
continue to work to improve it as the process moves forward.

                                   Alan Mollohan.
                                   Dave Obey.

                                
