[House Report 107-740]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-740
======================================================================
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003
_______
October 10, 2002.--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. 5605]
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, 2003, 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...... 23
23
Title III--Independent Agencies............................ 68
84
American Battle Monuments Commission............... 68
84
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board..... 69
85
Community Development Financial Institutions....... 69
86
Consumer Product Safety Commission................. 70
86
Corporation for National and Community Service..... 71
87
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.......... 72
89
Department of Defense--Civil, Cemeterial Expenses,
Army........................................... 72
89
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 73
90
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry... 73
91
Environmental Protection Agency.................... 74
91
Office of Science and Technology Policy............ 84
130
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality.......................... 85
130
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.............. 85
131
Federal Emergency Management Agency................ 86
131
Federal Citizen Information Center................. 92
141
National Aeronautics and Space Administration...... 93
143
National Credit Union Administration............... 97
153
National Science Foundation........................ 97
154
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.............. 100
163
Selective Service System........................... 100
163
Title IV--General Provisions............................... 101
164
Summary of the Bill
The Committee recommends $122,568,881,000 in new budget
(obligational) authority for the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 20 independent
agencies and offices.
The following table summarizes the amounts recommended in
the bill in comparison with the appropriations for fiscal year
2002 and budget estimates for fiscal year 2003.
Accrual Funding of Retirement Costs and Post-Retirement Health Benefits
The President's Budget included a legislative proposal
under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government
Reform to charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal
year 2003, the fully accrued costs related to retirement
benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and
retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The Budget
also requested an additional dollar amount in each affected
discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.
Without passing judgment on the merits of this legislative
proposal, the Committee has reduced the dollar amounts of the
President's request shown in the ``Comparative Statement of New
Budget Authority'' and other tables in this report to exclude
the accrual funding proposal. The disposition by Congress of
the legislative proposal is unclear at this time. Should the
proposal be passed by Congress and enacted, the Committee will
make appropriate adjustments to the President's request to
include accrual amounts.
The Committee further notes that administration proposals
requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of
Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate
schedules apart from the regular appropriations requests.
Should such a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally
modifying the President's appropriation request for
discretionary funding is then transmitted to the Congress.
The Committee is concerned that this practice, which has
always worked effectively for both Congress and past
administrations, was not followed for the accrual funding
proposal. In this case, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) decided to include accrual amounts in the original
discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts
are based on legislation that has yet to be considered and
approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to
numerous misunderstandings both inside and outside of Congress
of what was the ``true'' President's budget request. The
Committee believes that, in the future, OMB should follow long-
established procedures with respect to discretionary spending
proposals that require legislative action.
Operating Plan and Reprogramming Procedures
The Committee continues to have a particular interest in
being informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not
change either the total amount available in an account or any
of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally
available, represent a significant departure from budget plans
presented to the Committee in an agency's budget
justifications, the basis of this appropriations Act.
Consequently, the Committee directs the Departments,
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations and offices funded
at or in excess of $100,000,000 in this bill, to consult with
the Committee prior to each change from the approved budget
levels in excess of $500,000 between programs, activities,
object classifications or elements unless otherwise provided
for in the Committee report accompanying this bill. For
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations and offices funded
at less than $100,000,000 in this bill, the reprogramming
threshold shall be $250,000 between programs, activities,
object classifications or elements unless otherwise provided
for in the Committee report accompanying this bill.
Additionally, the Committee expects to be promptly notified of
all reprogramming actions which involve less than the above-
mentioned amounts. If such actions would have the effect of
significantly changing an agency's funding requirements in
future years, or if programs or projects specifically cited in
the Committee's reports are affected by the reprogramming, the
reprogramming must be approved by the Committee regardless of
the amount proposed to be moved. Furthermore, the Committee
wishes to be consulted regarding reorganizations of offices,
programs, and activities prior to the planned implementation of
such reorganizations.
The Committee also directs that the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the
Corporation for National and Community Service, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, and the Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board shall submit operating plans, signed by the
respective secretary, administrator, or agency head, for the
Committee's review within 120 days of the bill's enactment.
Relationship with Budget Offices
Through the years, the Committee has channeled most of its
inquiries and requests for information and assistance through
the budget offices of the various departments, agencies, and
commissions. The Committee has often pointed to the natural
affinity and relationship between these organizations and the
Committee which makes such a relationship workable. The
Committee reiterates its longstanding position that while the
Committee reserves the right to call upon all offices in the
departments, agencies, and commissions, the primary conjunction
between the Committee and these entities must normally be
through the budget offices. The Committee appreciates all the
assistance received from each of the departments, agencies, and
commissions during the past year. The workload generated by the
budget process is large and growing, and therefore, a positive,
responsive relationship between the Committee and the budget
offices is absolutely essential to the appropriations process.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $58,131,067,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation \1\.................... 52,379,398,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 56,938,897,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +5,751,669,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +1,192,170,000
\1\ Includes supplemental funding of $1,100,000,000 for Compensation
and Readjustment benefits and $142,000,000 for Medical Care.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is the third largest
Federal agency in terms of employment with an average
employment of approximately 212,000. It administers benefits
for more than 25,300,000 veterans, and 41,400,000 family
members of living veterans and survivors of deceased veterans.
Thus, close to 66,700,000 people, comprising about 23.3 percent
of the total population of the United States, are potential
recipients of veterans benefits provided by the Federal
Government.
A total of $58,131,067,000 in new budget authority is
recommended by the Committee for the Department of Veterans
Affairs programs in fiscal year 2003. The funds recommended
provide for compensation payments to 2,746,615 veterans and
survivors of deceased veterans with service-connected
disabilities; pension payment for 581,797 non-service-connected
disabled veterans, widows and children in need of financial
assistance; education training, tuition assistance, and
vocational assistance of 632,415 veterans, servicepersons, and
reservists, and 51,746 eligible dependents of deceased veterans
or seriously disabled veterans; housing credit assistance in
the form of 248,000 guaranteed loans provided to veterans and
servicepersons; administration or supervision of life insurance
programs with 4,203,880 policies for veterans and active duty
servicepersons providing coverage of $599,263,090,000;
inpatient care and treatment of beneficiaries in 172 medical
centers; 43 domiciliaries, 137 nursing homes and 864 outpatient
clinics which includes independent, satellite, community-based,
and rural outreach clinics involving 49,222,000 visits; and the
administration of the National Cemetery Administration for
burial of eligible veterans, servicepersons and their
survivors.
Veterans Benefits Administration
COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $28,949,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation \1\.................... 26,044,288,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 28,949,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +2,904,712,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
\1\ Includes a supplemental appropriation of $1,100,000,000.
This appropriation provides funds for service-connected
compensation payments to an estimated 2,746,615 beneficiaries
and pension payments to another 581,797 beneficiaries with non-
service-connected disabilities. The average cost per
compensation case in 2003 is estimated at $9,217, and pension
payments are projected at a unit cost of $5,980. The estimated
caseload and cost by program for 2002 and 2003 are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
Compensation:
Veterans................................ 2,356,600 2,433,216 +76,616
Survivors............................... 308,165 312,297 +4,132
Children................................ 1,044 1,102 +58
Clothing allowance (non-add)............ (79,618) (81,104) (+1,486)
Pensions:
Veterans................................ 347,178 340,374 -6,804
Survivors............................... 234,619 221,072 -13,547
Minimum income for widows (non-add)..... (523) (488) (-35)
Vocational training (non-add)........... (0) (0) (0)
Burial allowances and service connected 97,602 97,393 -209
deaths.................................
===============================================================
Funds:
Compensation:
Veterans................................ $18,711,705,000 $21,191,850,000 +$2,480,145,000
Survivors............................... 3,866,386,000 4,113,572,000 +247,186,000
Children................................ 17,974,000 16,742,000 -1,232,000
Clothing allowance...................... 46,178,000 47,640,000 +1,462,000
Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and 1,286,000 966,000 -320,000
102-568)...............................
Medical exams pilot program (Public Law 37,000,000 38,300,000 +1,300,000
104-275)...............................
Pensions:
Veterans................................ 2,596,916,000 2,595,459,000 -457,000
Survivors............................... 733,584,000 761,037,000 +27,453,000
Minimum income for widows............... 3,444,000 3,292,000 -152,000
Vocational training..................... 0 0 0
Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102- 8,564,000 7,000,000 -1,564,000
568, and 103-446)......................
Payment to medical care (Public Laws 101-508 8,090,000 8,575,000 +485,000
and 102-568)...............................
Payment to medical facilities (non-add)..... (891,000) (937,000) (+46,000)
Burial benefits............................. 141,817,000 159,470,000 +17,653,000
Other assistance............................ 4,887,000 4,935,000 +48,000
Unobligated balance and transfers........... -133,543,000 -838,000 +132,705,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation \1\................... 26,044,288,000 28,949,000,000 +2,904,712,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals do not add due to rounding.
For fiscal year 2003, the Committee is recommending the
budget estimate of $28,949,000,000 for compensation and
pensions. The bill also includes requested language not to
exceed $17,138,000 of reimbursements of which $8,563,000 goes
to the general operating expenses account and $8,575,000 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 VA pension cap for Medicaid-eligible single veterans
and surviving spouses alone in Medicaid-covered nursing homes.
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 to provide a cost-of-living
adjustment, based on the change in the Consumer Price Index, to
all compensation beneficiaries, including dependency and
indemnity compensation (DIC) for spouses and children. It is
currently estimated at 1.8 percent. This is the same as the
COLA that will be provided, under current law, to veterans
pension and Social Security recipients. The increase would be
effective December 1, 2002, and would cost an estimated
$278,900,000 during 2003. Funding for this COLA is reflected in
the Compensation and pensions obligations in the 2003 budget.
The Administration has proposed language that would provide
indefinite 2003 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 2003 recommendation....................... $2,264,808,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 2,135,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 2,264,808,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +129,808,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
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 are 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
$2,264,808,000 for readjustment benefits in fiscal year 2003,
an increase of $129,808,000 over the current year funding
level.
The Administration has proposed language that would provide
indefinite 2003 supplemental appropriations for readjustment
benefits because of legislative changes or year-end funding
shortages. 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
2002 and 2003 are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
Education and training: dependents.................... 49,949 51,746 +1,797
All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
Veterans and servicepersons....................... 326,425 325,815 -610
Reservists........................................ 79,000 81,721 +2,721
Vocational rehabilitation............................. 64,556 64,879 +323
Tuition assistance.................................... 160,000 160,000 0
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 679,930 684,161 +4,231
=====================================================
Licensing and certification tests......................... 25,450 81,150 +55,700
=====================================================
Funds:
Education and training: dependents.................... $206,181,000 $217,472,000 +$11,291,000
All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
Veterans and servicepersons....................... 1,460,321,000 1,759,683,000 +299,362,000
Reservists........................................ 135,750,000 142,858,000 +7,108,000
Vocational rehabilitation......................... 440,896,000 452,029,000 +11,133,000
Tuition assistance................................ 79,040,000 79,040,000 0
Licensing and certification tests................. 5,982,000 19,071,000 +13,089,000
Housing grants.................................... 24,960,000 24,960,000 0
Automobiles and other conveyances................. 8,750,000 8,995,000 +245,000
Adaptive equipment................................ 27,200,000 27,100,000 -100,000
Work-study........................................ 45,900,000 51,408,000 +5,508,000
Payment to States................................. 14,000,000 13,000,000 -1,000,000
Reporting fees.................................... 3,500,000 3,500,000 0
Unobligated balance and other adjustments \1\..... -317,480,000 -534,308,000 -216,828,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation................................. 2,135,000,000 2,264,808,000 +129,808,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes offsetting collections.
VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $27,530,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 26,200,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 27,530,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +1,330,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 $27,530,000 for veterans insurance
and indemnities in fiscal year 2003 is included in the bill,
and increase of $1,330,000 over the current year funding level.
The amount provided will enable VA to transfer more than
$18,920,000 to the service-disabled veterans insurance fund and
transfer $9,150,000 in payments for the 2,970 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 provide
indefinite 2003 supplemental appropriations for the insurance
program. 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
direct loans for
Program account specially Administrative
adapted housing expenses
loans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation........................... $437,522,000 $300,000 $168,207,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation............................ 203,278,000 300,000 164,497,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request........................... 437,522,000 300,000 168,207,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation............ +234,244,000 0 +3,710,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 down payment if the
lender agrees. The Department requires that a down payment 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 $437,522,000) for funding subsidy payments,
$300,000 for the limitation on direct loans for specially
adapted housing loans, and $168,207,000 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 directs the Secretary to continue the vendee
program. An independent study estimated a savings of over
$1,000 per vendee loan property sale, a savings to the
Department of $15-25 million annually. Until the Administration
can provide a study to show that the vendee program is not of
financial benefit to the Department, the Committee directs the
VA to continue the vendee loan program.
The Committee directs the Secretary to implement a housing
counseling requirement for first-time homebuyers. Studies by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) demonstrate that
pre-purchase counseling effectively reduced default rates for
first-time homebuyers. The Committee suggests that the
Department consult with NRC on how to implement this
requirement.
The Committee encourages the Department to consider the
usefulness of automated collateral management systems as a
means to detect predatory loans.
EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Administrative
Program account direct loans expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.............................. $1,000 $3,400 $70,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation............................... 1,000 3,400 64,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.............................. 1,000 3,400 70,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation............... 0 0 +6,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 $70,000 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 2003 recommendation.............................. $55,000 $3,626,000 $289,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation............................... 72,000 3,301,000 274,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.............................. 55,000 3,626,000 289,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation............... -17,000 +325,000 +15,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 $896
(based on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are
available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in
vocational rehabilitation programs when the veterans 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 $55,000 for
funding subsidy program costs and $289,000 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 $3,626,000. It is estimated that VA will make
5,300 loans in fiscal year 2003, with an average amount of
$684.
NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Administrative expenses:
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation................... $558,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation.................... 544,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request................... 558,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation.... +14,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request... 0
This program tests the feasibility of authorizing VA 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, 2005. The bill includes the budget
request of $558,000 for administration expenses, which may be
transferred to and merged with the General Operating Expenses
account.
The Committee directs the Secretary to implement a housing
counseling requirement for first-time homebuyers. Studies by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) demonstrate that
pre-purchase counseling effectively reduced default rates for
first-time homebuyers. The Committee suggests that the
Department consult with NRC on how to implement this
requirement.
GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS PROGRAM
ACCOUNT
Public Law 105-368, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act
of 1998, established this program. All funds authorized for
this program were appropriated in fiscal year 2000. Therefore,
no appropriation request has been included for fiscal year
2003. Bill language is included allowing the use of funds in
Medical Care and General Operating Expenses to administer this
program.
The Committee directs the VA to report on the status of the
guaranteed transitional housing loans for homeless veterans
program by March 14, 2003. The report should include the number
of applicants as of January 1, 2003, the number of qualified
applicants, the grant selection criteria, and the names of any
grant recipients as of March 1, 2003.
Veterans Health Administration
MEDICAL CARE
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $23,889,304,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 21,473,164,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 22,743,761,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +2,416,140,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +1,145,543,000
The Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest
Federal medical care delivery system in the country, with 172
medical centers, 43 domiciliaries, 137 nursing homes, and 864
outpatient clinics which includes independent, satellite,
community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment
of eligible beneficiaries in VA 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 is 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 VA's medical programs.
The bill includes $23,889,304,000 for medical care in
fiscal year 2003, an increase of $2,416,140,000 above the
enacted level and $1,145,543,000 over the budget request. In
addition, the Committee estimates $1,386,000,000 will be
collected and available from the Medical Care Collections Fund
(MCCF). The Committee has not included the bill language
requested in the budget authorizing the VA to implement a $1500
cost share plan for veterans using the VA medical system and
has instead provided additional funds to cover the cost.
The Committee is providing two-year spending authority for
$900,000,000 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
$250,000,000 of funds requested for the equipment and land and
structures object classifications until August 1, 2003,
$250,000,000 less than the budget request. The bill also
includes requested language in the Compensation and Pensions
appropriation transferring $8,575,000 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 supports VHA Directive 2002-057, Priority for
Outpatient Medical Services and Inpatient Hospital Care. The
Committee directs the VA to create a system ensuring that VA
medical and support services are readily available to service-
connected and impoverished veterans. The Committee urges the
Department to be mindful of its core mission to provide first
for those injured in service to our Nation, the impoverished,
the homeless, and the mentally ill.
The Committee believes the VA's response to last year's
concerns regarding atypical anti-psychotic medications is a
step forward and continues to encourage the VA to ensure
uniform information across VA's health system with regard to
prescribing practices. Providing care for the seriously
mentally ill is one of VA's top priorities and requires a
special level of commitment, as this population is especially
vulnerable and difficult to treat. To this end, the Committee
encourages the Secretary to remain vigilant in implementing the
Department's policy that physicians are to use their best
clinical judgment when choosing atypical anti-psychotic
medications as referenced in House Report 107-272.
The Committee directs the VA to ensure that each VISN
follows through on plans to implement mental health services in
each community based outpatient clinic (CBOC) and recommends
that the VA expedite the deployment of adequate mental health
services to CBOCs. Further, the Committee strongly urges the
Department to continue increasing the number of Mental Health
Intensive Case Management teams and fully fund existing teams.
The Committee is encouraged by the findings of the
Department's Procurement Reform Task Force and supports
implementation of the reforms with the intended savings to be
re-invested in healthcare for veterans. The Committee
encourages the VA to focus on the prompt implementation of
prosthetics procurement reforms as a model for further VA
healthcare contracting operations and a continued emphasis on
product standardization, quality assurances, servicing and
outcomes tracking that will maximize veteran care and
acquisition efficiencies due to improved economies of scale,
product reliability, repair, maintenance and inventory
management.
The Committee reiterates its concern for veterans with
hepatitis C, and applauds the Department for the progress made
so far, including establishing screening and testing services
that have reached an estimated 40% of VA health care users,
funding a prevalence study to better define risk factors among
veterans, and creating a National Hepatitis C registry to
better track and manage patients. The Committee recommends that
the Department do more to improve screening and testing for
hepatitis C among all Vietnam veterans; provide tests to other
veterans in the VA system who have risk factors for hepatitis
C; and participate in a national outreach effort with the
American Liver Foundation and veterans service organizations to
inform all veterans not enrolled in the VA medical system about
the disease. The Committee is aware of the August 2002 NIH
Management of Hepatitis C Consensus Conference final statement
which presents new opportunities for treatment of individuals
with hepatitis C and complicating co-morbid conditions as well
as the need for expanded patient education regarding hepatitis
C.
The Committee is aware of studies that have found collagen
based therapies can reduce the need for amputations by
increasing wound healing rates and recommends that VA consider
the utilization of such therapies.
The Committee strongly encourages the continuation of the
partnership and deployment of the Joslin Vision Network.
The Committee is aware of several new cutting-edge
prosthetic and sensory aids devices now available that allow
disabled veterans more mobility, enhanced employability, and
full integration into community life. The Committee encourages
the VA to test these devices with veterans, where and when
medically appropriate.
The Committee believes the CARES recommendation for the
development of a comprehensive resource sharing agreement
between the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center
(NCVAMC) and the Navy Hospital Great Lakes (NHGL) is a perfect
opportunity to provide quality care to both the naval and
veterans populations. However, the Committee is becoming
increasingly frustrated by the unwillingness of VA and Navy
officials to see beyond their jurisdictional squabbles and move
forward with the agreed upon recommendations. The Committee
directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a report
that identifies (1) restrictive regulations, policies, and
regulatory redundancies that specifically inhibit resource
sharing between the NCVAMC and NHGL, (2) how the NCVAMC and
NHGL can share mental health, physical therapy and
rehabilitation services, (3) milestone dates for the VA to
address each restrictive issue, and (4) directives the
Secretary issues to VISN 12 leadership regarding network
support of all CARES recommendations for the joint operations
of the two facilities. This report should be transmitted to the
Committee by March 1, 2003. The Committee expects the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to continue working with the Secretary of
the Navy to make maximum use of the NCVAMC.
The Committee recognizes the need for the Department to be
more responsive to the needs of minority veterans and increase
minority participation in VA medical professions,
administration, training and research. The Committee encourages
the VA to create more affiliations with minority-serving
universities, such as Barry University, for internship,
residency and research opportunities.
The Committee strongly recommends the establishment of
CBOCs in Hayward, Wisconsin; Storm Lake, Iowa; Athens,
Tennessee; Lynchburg, Virginia; and Gladstone, Michigan.
The Committee recognizes the excellent work being done by
the Department of Veterans Affairs to combat antibiotic
resistant infections, particularly its outstanding vaccination
against pneumonia program. The Committee is fully supportive of
this effort and directs the Secretary to be prepared to testify
to the Committee during the fiscal year 2004 budget hearings on
the steps taken by the Department to combat this growing public
health crisis of antibiotic resistance, focusing on the VA's
use of its sophisticated computerized patient databases to
correlate antibiotic usage data with patient outcomes, and with
antibiotic resistant infections throughout the VA healthcare
network.
MEDICAL CARE COLLECTIONS FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The Committee expects the Department to collect
$1,386,000,000 from first and third party payers in fiscal year
2003. Bill language is included transferring those receipts to
the Medical Care account to remain available until expended.
The Department issued a press release in August 2002
lauding the record levels of collections. While this is a
welcome improvement, the Committee is aghast at the millions of
dollars that go uncollected or are lost due to the extreme
tardiness in submitting correct bills to third-party payers.
The Committee directs the Department to refrain from approving
any performance awards for facility directors and billing teams
that fail to submit bills on average of 30 days after service
or cut the average billing time in half from the previous year.
In last year's report to accompany the VA, HUD, Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act (House Report 107-272), the
Committee directed the Department to initiate a multi-year
demonstration at a VISN to enhance the collection efforts for
``third party/first party'' revenues. Additionally, in a report
issued last September, the GAO found the Department's efforts
in this area lacking, substantiating the need for action in the
enhanced collection area. Subsequently, the conference
agreement with the Senate on last year's bill ratified the need
to undertake a demonstration.
The Department has not yet initiated this demonstration.
The Committee understands that the Department is continuing to
work on a comprehensive plan to overcome the deficiency that
exists in third party collections. The Committee believes both
these efforts need to be undertaken. The demonstration could
provide valuable input into the broader, long-term plan.
Accordingly, the Committee reiterates and redirects the
Department to undertake the demonstration called for in last
year's in fiscal year 2003. The Committee again directs that
not less than $3,000,000 be available to continue the
demonstration. The Committee believes that there is tremendous
value in undertaking a small-scale demonstration while the
planning for a Department-wide solution is ongoing. The lessons
learned from a successful demonstration would provide
tremendous input to the overall system design. This
demonstration should not be viewed as a distraction to any
overall system-wide collection efforts, but rather supplemental
to such an effort.
The collections demonstration must provide the VA with the
ability to identify and collect third party/first party
insurance coverage and a National Master Patient File that
provides access to administrators and clinicians to complete an
accurate patient information from any location. 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 insurance coverage or other responsible payer 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. The
Committee recognizes the success of the VistA system from a
clinical standpoint so the financial system must be compatible
with the VistA clinical functionality.
MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $405,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 371,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 394,373,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +31,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +10,627,000
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 $405,000,000 for medical and
prosthetic research in fiscal year 2003. This funding level is
$31,000,000 over the fiscal year 2002 appropriation and
$10,627,000 over the budget request. The bill includes language
transferring $5,000,000 to the Medical Care account for
oversight activities of the research program. The Committee
directs the Department to include funding for this activity
under Medical Care in the fiscal year 2004 budget request.
The Committee is encouraged by the progress made by the VA
and the National Technology Transfer Center in the past year in
identifying promising VA technological advances that offer the
potential for commercial applications. The Committee directs
$1,000,000 for the continuation of this partnership.
The VA has made genuine progress in recent years in funding
for psychiatric research at the VA; however, such research
remains disproportionate to the utilization of mental illness
treatment services by veterans. The Committee supports
increasing the level of research devoted to severe mental
illness, the co-morbidity of substance abuse and mental
disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder.
MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING EXPENSES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation...................... $74,716,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation....................... 66,731,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request...................... 69,716,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation....... +7,985,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request...... +5,000,000
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 $74,716,000, an increase of $7,985,000
from the fiscal year 2002 funding level and $5,000,000 over the
budget request. The Committee has included an additional
$5,000,000 for the reorganization of the VHA headquarters. The
Committee is hopeful that the additional staff will bring much
needed oversight and guidance to the system. Further, the
Committee is hopeful that the new management of the MCCF office
will greatly improve collections. The Committee strongly
encourages the new VHA business office to carefully evaluate
the contracts and contracting staff employed at the
headquarters office for their efficacy and necessity.
Departmental Administration
GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $1,251,418,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 1,195,728,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 1,256,418,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +55,690,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... -5,000,000
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 $169,124,000 in other
accounts for these credit programs. In addition, $8,563,000 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 VA estimates that $38,110,000 will
be utilized for such purposes in fiscal year 2003. Prior to
fiscal year 1996, such costs were included in the general
operating expenses appropriation. Thus, in total,
$1,679,657,000 is requested in fiscal year 2003 for
administrative costs of non-medical benefits.
The Committee recommends $1,251,418,000 for General
Operating Expenses. This amount represents an increase of
$55,690,000 above the current level, and a decrease of
$5,000,000 from 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 two
motor vehicles for the VBA office in Manila, Philippines, and a
travel limitation of $17,082,000. The bill also includes
language directing the VBA to be funded at not less than
$992,100,000.
Of the remaining $259,318,000 for general administration,
the Committee directs the Offices of the Board of Contract
Appeals, Board of Veterans Appeals, Assistant Secretary for
Management, Assistant Secretary for Information Technology,
Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration,
Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning, Assistant
Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, and
Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs
be funded at not less than the levels specified in the fiscal
year 2003 budget justification minus the amounts for the
proposed accrual benefit transfer.
The Committee has not provided any funds for a new
Assistant Secretary of Operations, Security and Preparedness
and does not recommend funding for such office, other than a
coordinator, at the Department. The Committee is very concerned
with the Department's ability to simply fulfill the basic
requirements of providing benefits and medical services in a
correct and timely manner and feels that the Department should
concentrate on meeting the basic mission of the VA rather than
looking to expand its portfolio of responsibilities into the
homeland security area. The Committee feels confident that
other agencies and departments specifically responsible for
homeland security and defense activities are adequately
managing and funding those initiatives.
The Committee suggests that GOE general administration
funds would be better spent to hire more lawyers in the Office
of General Counsel to assist the Department when negotiating
enhanced use lease agreements, especially since CARES is
underway, instead of undertaking a regulation rewrite exercise.
The Committee concurs with the Department's decision to
consolidate management of information technology initiatives in
the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO). The
Committee directs that all cyber-security and enterprise
architecture activities be managed by the CIO.
The Committee is pleased with the Department's progress in
establishing a comprehensive baseline Enterprise Architecture
during the past year and supports the Department's initiatives
to modernize its computing infrastructure against cyber attack
and provide continuing operations. The Committee directs the VA
to fund information technology initiatives, including data
replication technologies, at no less than the levels put forth
in the fiscal year 2003 budget justification materials for all
appropriations accounts and report to the Committee on the
results of these prototype activities and future plans for
implementation by June 30, 2003.
The Committee supports the new management structure and
proposed claims processing system in VBA. However, the
Committee is concerned that by constantly changing the claims
processing system over the past 5 years the Department has not
been able to accurately assess the success of each new
initiative or employee performance. The Committee strongly
urges the Department to keep the proposed claims processing
system in place long enough so that all regional offices can
implement the system, each regional office can standardize its
information technology package, and VBA employees can be fully
trained and fairly evaluated before the Department realigns its
benefits operations again. The Department should quickly
establish new employee performance goals and decision targets
for fair and defendable employee evaluations. Further, the
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Department to work with
the Office of Personnel Management to correctly align VBA
positions with comparable government positions.
NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation...................... $133,149,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation....................... 121,169,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request...................... 133,149,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation....... +11,980,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 servicepersons and discharged veterans, together with
their spouses and certain dependents, and to permanently
maintain their graves; to mark graves of eligible persons in
national and private cemeteries; to administer the grant
program for aid to States in establishing, expanding, or
improving State veterans' cemeteries; and to administer the
Presidential Memorial Certificate Program. This appropriation
provides for the operation and maintenance of 154 cemeterial
installations in 39 States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
The Committee recommends $133,149,000 for the National
Cemetery Administration in fiscal year 2003. This funding level
is $11,980,000 over the 2002 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.
The Committee appreciates the completion of the national
cemetery needs and National Shrine study. The Committee directs
the Department to follow the criteria and findings of those
studies when planning and budgeting for new and expanded
cemetery projects.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation...................... $61,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation....................... 52,308,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request...................... 55,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation....... +8,692,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request...... +6,000,000
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 $61,000,000 for the Office of
Inspector General in fiscal year 2003. This amount is an
increase of $8,692,000 above the current year appropriation and
$6,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee has provided
additional funding for the Office of Inspector General to hire
up to its statutory floor.
CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $193,740,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 183,180,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 193,740,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +10,560,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 VA,
including planning, architectural and engineering services,
Capital Asset Realignment Enhanced Services (CARES) activities,
assessments and site acquisition where the estimated cost of a
project is $4,000,000 or more. Emphasis is placed on correction
of life/safety code deficiencies in existing Department medical
facilities.
The bill provides $193,740,000 for construction, major
projects, in fiscal year 2003 as requested in the budget
justification, an increase of $10,560,000 over last year's
funding level. Also, the bill includes requested language
providing $5,000,000 for CARES and $10,000,000 for the judgment
fund.
The Committee is fully supportive of the CARES initiative
and applauds the Department for moving forward with the
implementation of the VISN 12 plan and Phase II of the study.
The Committee directs VA to keep the Committee apprised of any
additional needs to ensure that the studies and implementation
can move along as scheduled.
The Committee directs the VA to fully fund any CARES
implementation plans in future budgets and report to the
Committee the framework for prioritization of the capital
improvement projects that will be identified as priorities
resulting from the CARES studies. The Committee further directs
the VA to only present CARES recommendations for a VISN if
supporting funds are requested by the Department in budget
justification materials or budget amendments, or provided in
advance by the Congress.
Some VA facilities are consuming tens of millions of
dollars for non-recurring maintenance and repairs and the
facilities themselves are a hindrance to providing safe and
quality medical care. The Committee directs the CARES study to
examine the possibility where, in some markets, the best
recommendation, both in terms of economics and service
delivery, is to build a new facility in full cooperation with
another entity such as the Department of Defense or the state.
In these instances, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must
actively consult with non-VA public entities to plan for a new,
jointly held and funded facility.
The Committee directs that any major construction project
included in future budget submissions be approved by the CARES
study and realignment plan or the national cemetery study.
The Committee's funding recommendation includes $2,000,000
for security studies. These funds are in addition to the
$2,000,000 provided under General Operating Expenses in Public
Law 107-38 and are to be used to evaluate the security and
safety of VA facilities. VA should emphasize security methods
which will not increase FTEs and can be utilized by all VA
facilities. Also, the Committee expects VA to consult with the
General Services Administration (GSA) to ensure that VA's
proposals are within the guidelines set by GSA for other
Federal facilities. These funds are not to be used to evaluate
expanded homeland security opportunities.
The specific amounts recommended by the Committee are as
follows:
DETAIL OF BUDGET REQUEST
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available House
Location and description through 2002 2003 request Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans Health Administration (VHA):
Palo Alto (Palo Alto Division), CA Seismic Corrections, 0 14,013 14,013
Building 2..............................................
Palo Alto (Palo Alto Division), CA Seismic Corrections, 0 21,750 21,750
Building 4 (Research)...................................
San Francisco, CA Seismic Corrections, Building 203...... 0 31,000 31,000
West Los Angeles, CA Seismic Corrections, Building 500... 0 27,200 27,200
Subtotal, Seismic...................................... 0 93,963 93,963
==================================================
Advance planning fund: various stations...................... 0 17,500 17,500
CARES Fund................................................... 0 5,000 5,000
Asbestos abatement: various stations......................... 0 7,977 7,977
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, VHA.......................................... 0 124,440 124,440
==================================================
National Cemetery Administration (NCA):
Pittsburgh, PA National Cemetery, Phase I Development \1\ 0 16,400 16,400
Southern Florida National Cemetery, Phase I Development 0 23,300 23,300
\1\.....................................................
Willamette National Cemetery, Phase I Development \1\.... 0 8,400 8,400
Design Fund: Detroit MI and Sacramento, CA............... 0 3,400 3,400
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, NCA \2\...................................... 0 53,300 53,300
==================================================
Department Advance Planning.................................. 0 2,000 2,000
Claims Analyses: Various locations........................... 0 1,500 1,500
Security Study............................................... 0 2,000 2,000
Judgment Fund: Various locations............................. 0 10,000 10,000
Hazardous Waste: Various locations 0 500 500
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other line items............................. 0 16,000 16,000
Total construction, major projects..................... 0 193,740 193,740
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Land acquisition funds ($15,000,000) in 2001 and design funds ($2,000,000) in 2002 were provided for a new
cemetery in Southern Florida. Eighteen million dollars was provided in 2002 for land acquisition in
Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Sacramento areas.
\2\ National Cemetery Administration total estimated costs include the purchase of pre-placed crypts, which are
funded by the Compensation and Pensions appropriation.
CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $240,700,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 210,900,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 210,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +29,800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +30,000,000
The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department, including planning, 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.
The Committee recommends $240,700,000 for the construction,
minor projects appropriation in fiscal year 2003, $30,000,000
over the budget request and an increase of $29,800,000 over the
fiscal year 2002 appropriation. The Committee directs that
$25,000,000 of the funds provided be used specifically to
address quality and safety issues in VA research facilities.
The Committee directs that VHA's minor construction
resources should be utilized in a manner that is consistent
with current CARES initiatives and the national cemetery study.
A central office work group consisting of both VHA and other
Department officials must review all VHA minor construction
projects. For evaluation purposes, the work group is to utilize
criteria that are consistent with those developed for CARES. If
total costs of projects being initiated at any facility is or
exceeds $4,000,000 (the Capital Investment Board threshold),
the recommendations of the work group must be approved by the
Deputy Secretary.
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for water utility
improvements at the Bay Pines National Cemetery and $847,000
for entrance accessibility improvements at the Syracuse
Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
PARKING REVOLVING FUND
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $0
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 4,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -4,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
This appropriation provides funds for the construction,
alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking
garages at VA medical facilities. The Secretary is required
under certain circumstances to establish and collect fees for
the use of such garages and parking facilities. Receipts from
the parking fees are to be deposited in the revolving fund and
can be used to fund future parking garage initiatives.
No new budget authority is requested for the parking
revolving fund in fiscal year 2003. Leases will be funded from
parking fees collected.
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $100,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 100,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 100,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
This program provides grants to assist States to construct
State home facilities, for furnishing domiciliary or nursing
home care to veterans, and to expand, remodel or alter existing
buildings for furnishing domiciliary, nursing home or hospital
care to veterans in State homes. A grant may not exceed 65
percent of the total cost of the project.
The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for grants for
construction of State extended care facilities in fiscal year
2003. This amount is equal to 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.
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $32,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 25,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 32,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +7,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 $32,000,000
for grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries in
fiscal year 2003, an increase of $7,000,000 over the current
year's funding level.
The Committee encourages the Department to work with the
States of Louisiana, Texas, and California as those states
apply for grants to construct cemeteries.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The bill continues the first ten administrative provisions
from title I contained in Public Law 107-73, the fiscal year
2002 appropriations bill, one provision listed in Public Law
107-73 under title IV, and six new provisions.
Section 110 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 $29,318,000
for ORM and $3,010,000 for OEDCA.
Section 111 requires the Department to notify the Committee
prior to the VA entering into a new property lease if the rent
is more than $300,000.
Section 112 limits funds for medical treatment of non-
service connected veterans to only those who have provided to
the VA accurate third-party reimbursement information and
annually provided income information.
Section 113 delays the implementation of the geographic
means test for one year. While the Committee agrees that
thresholds used by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development might be too disparate for use in VHA's system, the
Committee strongly urges the VA to create an alternate
geographic means test which addresses the concerns of the
original legislation and is practical for VHA to implement.
Section 114 prohibits VBA funds from being used to
adjudicate claims arising from any new concurrent receipt
legislation. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that
enacting concurrent receipt of compensation benefits and
military retirement pay would result in estimated mandatory
costs to VA of approximately $16,000,000,000 over ten years, as
well as administrative costs of $124,000,000 in the first year
and $245,000,000 over a five year period. These estimates do
not include the additional costs to the Department of Defense.
The Department estimates the concurrent receipt claims workload
would add more than 800,000 claims over the next three years.
VA has been working diligently over the years to reduce the
claims backlog and adjudication time. As of August, VA
adjudicated almost 730,000 claims in fiscal year 2002 and still
has a current workload of over 355,000 claims with a lag time
of 225 days. Regardless of the policy surrounding concurrent
receipt, the Committee is concerned that the deluge of new
concurrent receipt claims will paralyze the system and those
veterans who have been waiting for years to get a determination
will never see the benefit. The Committee directs the
Administration to budget appropriate VA funding for both
mandatory and administrative costs should such new concurrent
receipt legislation be enacted.
Section 115 merges the Department of Veterans Affairs
Health Services Improvement Fund into the Medical Care
Collections Fund for purposes of simplicity in accounting and
scorekeeping, and extends the Department's ability to collect
medical co-payments.
Section 116 provides that $19,900,000 of the Department's
total information technology budget shall be used for
conducting prototypes for VA's corporate and regional computing
architecture and be managed by the Department's Office of the
Chief Information Officer.
Section 117 prohibits funds from being used to implement
the provisions of H.R. 3253, and section 118 limits the funds
available in Medical Care and the Medical Care Collections Fund
for security training and equipment to $110,000,000. The
Committee feels the VA needs to focus its efforts on providing
health care and services to veterans, an area clearly needing
improvement, and provide a safe environment for VA employees
and beneficiaries. The Committee believes that any efforts
relating to homeland security and responsiveness is best
handled by other agencies and departments charged specifically
with that mission.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation:
Program Level................................... $36,090,314,000
Fee Collections................................. -3,336,000,000
Rescissions..................................... -1,408,000,000
-------------------
Net Appropriation............................. \1\ 31,346,314,000
===================
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation:
Program Level................................... 34,304,395,000
Fee Collections................................. -2,930,000,000
Rescissions..................................... -1,225,700,000
-------------------
Net Appropriation............................. \2\ 30,148,695,000
===================
Fiscal year 2003 budget request:
Program Level................................... 35,893,091,000
Fee Collections................................. -3,336,000,000
Rescissions..................................... -1,208,000,000
-------------------
Net Appropriation............................. \1\ 31,349,091,000
===================
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation:
Program Level................................... +1,785,919,000
Fee Collections................................. -588,000,000
Rescissions..................................... -182,300,000
-------------------
Net Appropriation............................. \1\ +1,197,619,000
===================
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request:
Program Level................................... +197,223,000
Fee Collections................................. --
Rescissions..................................... -200,000,000
-------------------
Net Appropriation............................. \1\ -2,777,000
===================
\1\ The fiscal year 2003 totals do not reflect legislative proposals
assumed in the budget request regarding accrual funding of retirement
costs and post-retirement costs, the transfer of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) Emergency Food and Shelter Program to the
Department, and a new Colonias initiative.
\2\ The fiscal year 2002 totals do not include one-time emergency
funding and rescissions included in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental
appropriations Acts.
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 a total program level of
$36,090,314,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, a $1,785,919,000 increase above the fiscal year
2002 level, and $197,223,000 above the request. The
recommendation reflects the Committee desire to invest
resources in a manner which best ensures that funds provided
can be used to provide safe, decent and affordable housing and
to promote economic development in communities across the
country. Over the last five years, the Committee has struggled
to balance the need to provide significant increases for the
Section 8 program while also trying to meet the needs of other
important housing and community development programs.
Consequently, the Committee has grown increasingly frustrated
as the huge amounts of Section 8 funding continue to go unspent
each year. The Committee believes that funding decisions for
all programs, including Section 8, must be made based on a
realistic assessment of both the need for, and the ability of
the program to use, the resources provided. The recommendations
made reflects that view.
The Committee recommends increases above the fiscal year
2002 enacted level for the following programs:
Section 8............................................... +$946,012,000
HOME Investment Partnerships............................ +375,000,000
Public Housing Operating Subsidies...................... +105,132,000
Homeless Assistance..................................... +127,745,000
Section 202/Section 811 Programs........................ +75,849,000
Lead Hazard Reduction Program........................... +16,242,000
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS............. +14,568,000
In addition, the Committee has also restored funding for
programs proposed for reduction or elimination in the budget
the following:
Public Housing Capital Fund............................. +$417,500,000
Community Development Fund.............................. +284,500,000
Rural Housing and Economic Development.................. +25,000,000
Enterprise Zones/Enterprise Communities................. +30,000,000
Public and Indian Housing
HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $16,586,987,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 15,640,975,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 17,526,559,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +946,012,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... -939,572,000
The Housing Certificate Fund (HCF) provides funding for
costs associated with the Section 8 program. The account
includes funding for the renewal of expiring Section 8 project-
based contracts, amendments to existing Section 8 project-based
contracts, renewal of expiring Section 8 vouchers, new tenant
protection vouchers including enhanced vouchers, new
incremental Section 8 vouchers, relocation assistance, payment
of fees to public housing agencies administering Section 8
voucher programs, and payment of fees to contract
administrators for project-based Section 8 contracts.
The Committee recommends a total program level of
$18,354,987,000 for the HCF in fiscal year 2003. Of this
amount, $16,586,987,000 is provided as a direct appropriation,
$938,000,000 is available from unobligated carryover balances
in program reserve accounts, and $830,000,000 is available from
unobligated balances in administrative fee reserve accounts.
The recommendation represents an increase of $946,012,000 above
the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
For the last four years, funding for the Section 8 voucher
program has consumed an increasing amount of the Committee's
discretionary resources, driven largely by the rapidly growing
estimates of renewal costs for Section 8 vouchers. Since fiscal
year 1999, the Section 8 program has realized a net increase of
$5,764,433,000, even after accounting for rescissions of
unspent Section 8 funds included in the bill each year. Despite
the Committee's growing concern about the inability of some
public housing agencies (PHAs) to use the funds provided, the
Committee continued to budget for the Section 8 program
assuming PHAs would improve their utilization of vouchers so
that assistance would reach individuals and families as
intended. Unfortunately, after five years, there has been no
significant improvement in the use of these funds. In fiscal
year 1999, 17 percent of the funds appropriated went unspent,
resulting in only 89 percent of the intended families and
individuals being served. By fiscal year 2001, 13 percent of
funds went unspent, resulting in only 84 percent of the
intended families and individuals being served. Consequently,
the Department continues to consistently recapture between
$1,000,000,000 and $1,400,000,000 in unspent Section 8 voucher
funds each year, representing over 200,000 unused vouchers each
year.
The Committee recognizes that under-utilization of Section
8 voucher funds has been, and continues to be, a chronic
problem heavily concentrated in a small number of PHAs. In each
of the last five years, over 50 percent of all recaptures of
unused funds came from less than 4 percent of the PHAs. Last
year, the Committee was told by the Department it would
reallocate unused vouchers to PHAs which have proven to be able
to use them, beginning in July 2002. Accordingly, the
Department's fiscal year 2003 budget request assumed
implementation of this reallocation in its budget estimate for
fiscal year 2003. However, the Committee has learned that the
reallocation was not implemented in fiscal 2002. Consequently,
large numbers of Section 8 vouchers would again go unused in
fiscal year 2003.
The Committee appreciates that there is disagreement as to
the causes of, and appropriate solutions to, under-utilization
of Section 8 vouchers. However, the Committee can no longer
continue to provide large budget increases in the Section 8
voucher program each year when it is clear that huge portions
of those funds will never actually be spent. The Committee does
not believe that this represents sound housing policy, nor does
it represent sound fiscal policy. Therefore, the Committee has
provided funding for the Section 8 voucher program in fiscal
year 2003 in a manner which more closely reflects the ability
of PHAs to fully utilize the funds provided.
The Committee understands that the Department is currently
completing an in-depth study which should help identify the
root causes of the under-utilization problem. The Committee
believes it is imperative that the Department and the relevant
congressional Committees focus their efforts on identifying and
developing effective solutions to those problems, and look
forward to the results of the Department's study. The
Department is directed to provide the Committee with a copy of
this study no later than January 8, 2003.
The recommendation includes the following:
--Renewal of expiring Section 8 contracts: $14,614,970,000
for renewals of project-based Section 8 contracts and Section 8
vouchers.
The Committee recommendation provides an appropriation of
$10,278,000,000 for Section 8 voucher and moderate
rehabilitation renewals, the total amount necessary to renew
all housing units currently leased using a Section 8 voucher
and moderate rehabilitation including Moving-To-Work vouchers,
as reported by PHAs on their most recent financial statements.
Language is included in the bill allocating Section 8 voucher
renewal funds based upon the number of units leased and local
and regional inflation factors.
In addition, the Committee has provided additional funding
in a central reserve fund, as described below, to be allocated
by the Secretary should a PHA require additional renewal
funding for leased units not reflected on their financial
statements. The Committee expects PHAs to utilize their
available program reserves to the extent possible to cover
these additional renewal costs prior to requesting additional
funds from the central reserve fund. While funds made available
to a PHA for renewal costs, including central reserve funds,
may be used to enable a PHA to lease up to its fully authorized
(reserved) level, a PHA may not use such funds to exceed its
reserved level.
Pursuant to the budget request, no new funding is provided
for project-based Section 8 contract amendments for fiscal year
2003, and instead assumes that amendment requirements will be
met through recaptures.
Consistent with the manner in which project-based Section 8
administrative costs are funded, the Committee has appropriated
funds for administrative costs and other expenses of the
Section 8 voucher program separately rather than including this
amount within the funds provided for voucher renewals.
--Central Reserve Fund: $280,000,000 for a central reserve
fund to be allocated by the Secretary to PHAs requiring
additional renewal funds beyond amounts otherwise available to
a PHA. The Secretary may also use such amounts as necessary to
replenish PHA program reserve accounts.
In addition, the Committee recognizes that some PHAs can
successfully use additional section 8 vouchers above their
current authorized level to increase the number of families and
individuals served by the program. For the last three years,
the Committee provided additional funding for this purpose as
incremental voucher funding to be distributed competitively to
eligible PHAs. However, delays in the award of these vouchers
each year resulted in the vast majority of these vouchers going
unused for that year. Therefore, the Committee has instead
included language to permit the Secretary to use any amounts
remaining in the central reserve fund which are not otherwise
needed for renewal costs to provide additional vouchers to
eligible PHAs. In order to be eligible for additional vouchers,
a PHA must have a 97 percent lease up rate and be able to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such
additional vouchers will be put under lease within 90 days of
funds being provided. Should such additional vouchers not be
put under lease within 180 days, the Secretary shall recapture
the unused vouchers for reallocation to other eligible PHAs.
The Committee expects the Secretary to establish such criteria
as necessary to ensure an equitable distribution of additional
vouchers among eligible applicants. Language is included
limiting the amount of additional voucher assistance provided
to an individual PHA to not more than 10 percent of the total
funds available.
Funding included for the central reserve fund is only to be
for rental subsidy costs and replenishment of program reserves.
Funding for associated administrative expenses has been
provided for separately within this account.
Language is included which sets forth the allowable uses of
the fund and reporting requirements.
Language is also included directing the Secretary to
provide quarterly reports to the Committee on the use of funds
from the central reserve fund in accordance with the following
direction: such report shall include, at a minimum, the amount
of funding distributed for additional renewal costs, delineated
by PHA; the amount of funding used to replenish program
reserves, delineated by PHA; the amount of additional voucher
assistance provided to eligible PHAs, delineated by PHA; the
amount of any recaptures, delineated by PHA; and the total
balance remaining in the fund. The Secretary is directed to
provide the first quarterly report no later than January 31,
2003.
--Tenant Protection: $234,017,000 for tenant protection
activities to replace lost project-based section 8 assistance
with tenant-based assistance; for conversion of section 202 and
section 23 projects to section 8 assistance; for the family
unification program; and for the witness protection program.
Again this year, funding for new vouchers under the HOPE VI
program is provided within the Revitalization of Severely
Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI) account. Funding included
for tenant protection is only to be used for rental subsidies.
Funding for associated administrative expenses is provided
separately within this account.
--Incremental Vouchers: $36,000,000 for incremental
vouchers to be made available to non-elderly, disabled
residents who are affected by the designation of public and
assisted housing as ``elderly-only'' developments. The
recommendation reflects the Committee's belief that Section 8
voucher assistance is an effective and necessary tool for
helping people with disabilities live integrated lives in their
home communities. Many people with disabilities are dependent
on Supplemental Security Income or have very low paying jobs.
Absent this rental subsidy, affordable housing for individuals
with disabilities is extremely difficult to find. Therefore,
language is included in the bill earmarking these amounts for
additional vouchers for the Section 8 voucher program for
people with disabilities.
Funding included for incremental vouchers is only to be
used for rental subsidies. Funding for associated
administrative expenses is provided separately within this
account.
--Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators: $46,000,000 for
service coordinator staff in each eligible public housing
agency.
--Administrative Costs--Section 8 Voucher Program: not to
exceed $1,177,000,000 for PHA administrative costs and other
expenses to administer the Section 8 program, of which
$50,000,000 is for associated administrative expenses related
to incremental vouchers and new tenant protection vouchers, as
well as additional administrative costs associated with
renewals funded from the central reserve fund.
For the last four years, the Committee has attempted to
limit the increase in administrative costs and other expenses
of the section 8 program by including a limitation in the bill.
However, administrative costs have continued to rise, and now
account for 10 percent of the total cost of the Section 8
program. The Committee believes that appropriate funding should
be made available to ensure that PHAs can effectively run their
Section 8 voucher programs, including providing assistance to
hard to house families and individuals. However the Committee
believes that a 10 percent rate is more than sufficient to
provide the necessary resources to effectively run a successful
Section 8 voucher program. In addition, the Committee is
concerned that HUD currently allows PHAs to deposit any excess
fees not used to administer the Section 8 program into an
administrative fee reserve account which can then be used for
other purposes unrelated to the Section 8 program. This
practice has resulted in current unspent balances in these
administrative fee reserve totaling over $830,000,000. Language
is therefore included in the bill to limit administrative fees
and other expenses to no more than 10 percent of the rental
subsidy paid, and to require that administrative fee reserve
balances be used to support the Section 8 program, particularly
activities which assist hard to house families and individuals.
Given the large amount of excess balances, the Committee
believes that the current fee structure should be re-evaluated
to assess the actual costs associated with running a successful
Section 8 voucher program. Language is included in the bill
requiring the Department to provide a report to the Committee
no later than March 1, 2003 on the administrative costs and
other expenses associated with the Section 8 voucher program.
Such report shall include, but not be limited to, the
following: the total amount of administrative fees paid
compared to actual administrative costs in fiscal years 2000,
2001, and 2002; the total amount of administrative fee reserve
funds used to support non-Section 8 programs, and the purposes
for which the funds were used; a comparison of the
administrative fees structure used for the Section 8 voucher
program as compared to the current administrative fee structure
used for the Section 8 project-based program; and
recommendations for changes to the administrative fee
structures to better align fees with actual costs.
--Administrative Costs--Project-Based Section 8 Program:
$196,000,000 for contractors to administer the project-based
section 8 program.
--Working Capital Fund: not less than $3,000,000 for
transfer to the Working Capital Fund for the development of and
modifications to information technology systems.
Consistent with the budget request, the Committee
recommends $4,200,000,000 in advance appropriations. In
addition, the Committee recommends a rescission of
$1,300,000,000 from this account to be derived from the
recapture of section 8 funds provided in fiscal year 2002 and
prior years, instead of $1,100,000,000 assumed in the budget
request.
PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $2,843,400,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 2,843,400,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 2,425,900,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ ................
Comparison with Fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +417,500,000
The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for public
housing capital programs, including 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 recommendation includes $2,843,400,000 for
this program, an increase of $417,500,000 above the request and
the same amount provided in fiscal year 2002.
The Committee appreciates the need to modernize public
housing and continues to believe that the residents of public
housing deserve timely facilities improvements. Congressional
concerns over delays in the expenditure of public housing
capital funds led to the enactment of several provisions in the
Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) of 1998 to
compel more timely completion of needed repair and
modernization work to the public housing stock. Section 9(j) of
QHWRA required PHAs to obligate their funds within 24-months
and spend such funds within 48 months. Pursuant to the statute,
a PHA failing to comply with these statutory deadlines would
have all capital funding withheld and unspent funds would be
subject to recapture. Under QHWRA, funds withheld and
recaptured are to be redistributed to PHAs which have proven
capable of utilizing their funds. The Committee remains
concerned that four years after enactment of the statute, HUD
has yet to implement these statutory provisions. Therefore,
language is included in the bill requiring the Secretary to
issue final regulations to implement that statute no later than
May 1, 2003.
In the interim, the Committee has continued language,
included in the fiscal year 2002 bill, designating $550,000,000
to be distributed only to those PHAs which have met the 24-
month and 48-month statutory requirements to obligate and
expend their funds in accordance with QHWRA. This will ensure
that those PHAs which have demonstrated an ability to fully
utilize their funds receive funds in addition to their annual
accrued maintenance allocation to continue addressing their
backlog requirements in fiscal year 2003.
The Committee appreciates the quarterly reports on the
obligation and expenditure of capital funds which have been
provided by HUD. The Committee directs HUD to continue to
provide these quarterly reports to the Committee, with the
first such report to be provided no later than February 1,
2003.
The Committee recommendation does not include funding, or
the necessary authorization language, for the Public Housing
Reinvestment Initiative proposed by the Administration. While
the Committee is interested in exploring additional mechanisms
to leverage private sector financing for improvements in public
housing, the Committee believes that such proposals need to be
more fully examined before significant statutory and funding
changes are made. The Committee understands that under existing
statutory authorities, some PHAs have in fact successfully
pursued private financing. The Committee requests that the
Department provide a report to the Committee no later than
March 1, 2003, on those PHAs which have entered into private
financing partnerships for capital modernization needs, and the
results of those partnerships.
The recommendation also includes funding for the following
activities, as proposed in the budget: $51,000,000 for
technical assistance activities; $500,000 for section 23 lease
adjustments; $55,000,000 for the Resident Opportunity and Self-
Sufficiency program; $15,000,000 for the Neighborhood Networks
initiative program; up to $75,000,000 for emergency and natural
disaster needs; and no less than $18,600,000 for transfer to
the Working Capital Fund to support the development of and
modifications to information technology systems which support
Public and Indian Housing activities.
PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $3,600,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 3,494,868,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 3,530,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +105,132,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +70,000,000
The Public Housing Operating Fund (PHOF) subsidizes the
costs associated with operating and maintaining public housing.
This subsidy supplements funding received by public housing
authorities (PHA) 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 $3,600,000,000 to subsidize PHAs'
fiscal year 2003 operating costs, an increase of $105,132,000
above the fiscal year 2002 level, and $70,000,000 above the
request. Of this amount, $10,000,000 is for transfer to the
Department of Justice to be allocated by the Attorney General
through existing programs, such as Weed and Seed, to those
areas where additional assistance is needed to augment Federal,
State and local efforts to effectively fight crime and drugs in
public housing.
The Committee notes that PHAs are authorized to use their
operating and capital funds for anti-crime and anti-drug
activities. All activities previously authorized under the
public housing drug elimination program (PHDEP) are permissible
activities under the operating and capital fund accounts. The
Committee further notes that PHAs currently have unspent PHDEP
funding which the Committee expects that PHAs continue to use.
Further, the Committee encourages PHAs to continue to support
such programs from within their operating and capital funds.
The recommendation does not include requested language
earmarking $120,000,000 for the proposed Public Housing
Reinvestment Intitiative.
Language is also continued in the bill, carried in prior
years, which prohibits funds from being used for section 9(k)
activities. Language is not included making funds available for
two years.
REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING (HOPE VI)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $574,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 573,735,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 574,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +265,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 program provides PHAs with the
authority to demolish obsolete projects and to provide self-
sufficiency services for families who reside in and around the
facility.
The Committee recommends funding HOPE VI at $574,000,000,
as requested, an increase of $265,000 above the amount provided
in fiscal year 2002. Of the total amount provided, $6,250,000
is for technical assistance and $5,000,000 is for the
Neighborhood Networks program, as requested, and the same
amounts provided for these activities in fiscal year 2002.
The recommendation does not include requested language
earmarking up to $50,000,000 in HOPE VI funds for the proposed
Public Housing Reinvestment Initiative. Language is included in
the bill making funds available for two years.
The Committee is aware of concerns that the HOPE VI Program
has resulted in the displacement of existing residents of
public housing. The Committee requests that the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) take these concerns into
account in its selection criteria and report back to the
Committee on its actions by March 1, 2003.
NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $649,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 648,570,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 646,594,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +430,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +2,406,000
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 $649,000,000 for this account, an
increase of $2,406,000 above the budget request, and $430,000
above the fiscal year 2002 level. The recommendation includes
the following: $2,000,000 for the section 601 Loan Guarantee
program to guarantee a total loan volume of $16,658,000;
$3,000,000 for inspections, training, travel costs, and
technical assistance; $2,200,000 for the National American
Indian Housing Council to conduct training programs and to
provide technical assistance; no less than $600,000 for
transfer to the Working Capital Fund for information technology
systems development and modifications; and $150,000 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 2003 recommendation....... $5,300,000 $197,243,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 5,987,000 234,283,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 5,200,000 197,243,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 -687,000 -37,040,000
appropriation........................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 +100,000 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 $5,300,000 for the section 184
Loan Guarantee program to guarantee a total loan volume of
$197,243,000, an increase of $100,000 above the amount
requested. Of the amount provided, $5,200,000 is for costs
associated with guarantees under the section 184 program, and
$100,000 is for the Indian Land Title Report Commission
authorized pursuant to Public Law 106-569. Language is included
transferring $200,000 to the HUD salaries and expenses account
for administrative expenses. Language is also included
designating $100,000 for the Commission.
NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... \1\0
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ \1\0
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... \1\-10,000,000
\1\ In fiscal year 2002, funding for this program was provided under the
Community Development Fund.
The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide
grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
(DHHL) for housing and housing related assistance to develop,
maintain and operate affordable housing for eligible low-income
Native Hawaiian families.
The Committee does not recommend funding for this program
as a separate account as proposed in the budget, but instead
continues funding for this program under the Community
Development Fund as provided in fiscal year 2002.
NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....... $1,035,000 $39,712,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 1,000,000 40,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 1,035,000 39,712,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 +35,000 -312,000
appropriation........................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 0 0
budget request.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created
the Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund program to
provide loan guarantees for native Hawaiian individuals and
their families, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and private nonprofit organizations
experienced in the planning and development of affordable
housing for Native Hawaiians for the purchase, construction,
and/or rehabilitation of single-family homes on Hawaiian Home
Lands. This program provides access to private sources of
financing that would otherwise not be available because of the
unique legal status of Hawaiian Home Lands.
The Committee recommends $1,035,000 for this program to
guarantee a total loan volume of $39,712,000, the full amount
requested. Language is included transferring $35,000 to the HUD
salaries and expenses account for administrative expenses.
Community Planning and Development
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $292,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 277,432,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 292,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +14,568,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 2003, the Committee recommends
$292,000,000, an increase of $14,568,000 above the fiscal year
2002 level, and the full amount requested. The increase will
allow funding for new jurisdictions expected to become eligible
for funding in fiscal year 2003, 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.
Language is also included, carried in fiscal year 2002, which
requires the Secretary to renew expiring permanent supportive
housing contracts previously funded under the national
competition which meet all program requirements before awarding
new competitive grants.
RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $25,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 25,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +25,000,000
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Rural Housing
and Economic Development program, the same level provided in
fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2003 budget requested
elimination of funding for this program. Language is included,
carried in previous years, requiring the Department to
competitively award funds for this program no later than June
30, 2003.
EMPOWERMENT ZONES/ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $30,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 45,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -15,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +30,000,000
This account provides discretionary grant funding to 15
urban Enterprise Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/ECs)
designated in Round II.
The statute which created Round II EZ/ECs did not authorize
discretionary grant funding for these communities, but instead
authorized tax incentives to stimulate revitalization efforts
in these communities. However, since fiscal year 1999,
discretionary grant funds have been provided under this
account. Therefore, the Committee recommends $30,000,000 in
continued grant funding for the 15 urban Round II EZ/ECs.
Language is making these funds available for obligation for
three years, consistent with the funds availability provided
for other community development activities funded within the
Department.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $5,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 5,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 4,715,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +284,500,000
The Community Development Fund provides funding to State
and local governments, and to other entities that carry out
community and economic development activities under various
programs.
The Committee recommends a total of $5,000,000,000 for the
Community Development Fund account, the same level provided in
fiscal year 2002. Funding under this account is allocated as
follows:
--$4,577,000,000 for Community Development Block
Grant formula grants;
--$70,000,000 for Native American Community
Development Block Grants;
--$9,600,000 for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block
Grant program;
--$29,500,000 for the National Community Development
Initiative (NCDI), as follows:
$4,500,000 for Habitat for Humanity capacity
building activities; and
$25,000,000 for the Enterprise Foundation and
LISC capacity building activities, including
$5,000,000 for activities in rural areas;
--$33,500,000 for section 107 activities, as follows:
$7,000,000 for insular areas;
$10,500,000 for Historically Black Colleges
and Universities;
$3,000,000 for Community Development Work
Study;
$5,500,000 for Hispanic Serving Institutions;
and
$7,500,000 for Community Outreach
Partnerships;
--$3,300,000 for the Housing Assistance Council;
--$2,200,000 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;
--$28,500,000 for the Self-Help Homeownership
Opportunity Program (SHOP);
--$65,000,000 for Youthbuild, including $2,000,000
for capacity building activities;
--$144,600,000 for economic development initiatives.
The Committee notes that numerous programs funded
throughout the bill provide assistance to communities
in economic development, but recognizes that gaps in
financing do exist for community economic development
activities. The Committee has therefore provided
funding for initial planning activities and for ``brick
and mortar'' construction, renovation and
rehabilitation activities for economic development
projects. The Committee expects that this targeted
Federal investment will act as a catalyst to promote
additional Federal, State and local investment in these
economic development projects. Thus, the Committee has
not included funding under this account for water,
sewer, and wastewater infrastructure, land acquisition,
building demolition or acquisition, road construction,
or environmental cleanup activities, as these
activities are traditionally funded by other Federal,
State and local programs. Consistent with previous
appropriations Acts, funds provided for economic
development initiatives may not be used for operating
expenses of a facility, program or organization, and
costs associated with grant and project administration
are limited to no more than 20 percent of the total
grant award. The Committee notes that projects
receiving funding must comply with the environmental
review requirements set forth in section 305(c) of the
Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Act of 1994
(42 U.S.C. 3547); the Committee will not entertain
waivers of this requirement. In addition, funds may not
be used for reimbursement of expenses incurred prior to
the receipt of economic development initiative funding.
Targeted grants shall be provided as follows:
1. $225,000 to continue the rehabilitation of the
former Alaska Pulp Company mill site in Sitka, Alaska;
2. $225,000 to the City of Craig, Alaska for
construction of a Marine Industrial Park;
3. $450,000 to the City of Petersburg, Alaska for
construction of an aquatic center;
4. $25,000 to the Northwest Alabama Children's
Advocacy Center in Florence, Alabama for facility
renovations;
5. $50,000 to the City of Athens, Alabama for
construction of an Alabama Korean War Veterans
Memorial;
6. $50,000 to the City of Tuscumbia, Alabama for
construction of facilities associated with the Helen
Keller festival;
7. $75,000 to the City of Huntsville, Alabama for
facilities construction for the Alabama Constitution
Village Plaza;
8. $100,000 for construction of the Northeast Etowah
County Community and Senior Center, Alabama;
9. $100,000 to the Birmingham, Alabama Regional
Planning Commission for an economic development
planning study;
10. $100,000 to the City of Decatur, Alabama for
planning for a Technical Training Center;
11. $100,000 to the Historic Huntsville Foundation in
Huntsville, Alabama for sidewalks, curbs, street
lighting, outdoor furniture and facade improvements in
the Mill Village neighborhood;
12. $100,000 to the Northwest Alabama Mental Health
Center for facilities renovation;
13. $108,000 to the Randolph County Commission for
facilities renovation for the restoration of the
historic Randolph County Courthouse and Annexes in
Wedowee, Alabama;
14. $135,000 to the Clay County Commission for
facilities renovations for the restoration of the
historic Clay County Courthouse, Alabama;
15. $150,000 for Lawson State Community College in
Alabama for facilities construction for an information
technology training and placement service center;
16. $150,000 to Collinsville, Alabama for renovation
of the Collinsville Public Library;
17. $150,000 to the Russellville Hispanic Coalition
of Alabama for building renovations;
18. $200,000 to Fayette County, Alabama for
construction of the Fayette County Agribusiness
Facility;
19. $225,000 to Huntingdon College in Montgomery,
Alabama for repairs and renovations to the Bellingrath
Natural Sciences facility;
20. $225,000 to Jefferson County, Alabama for
renovation and expansion of the Leroy Brown Health
Education Building;
21. $225,000 to the National Peanut Festival
Fairgrounds for construction of the National Peanut
Festival Agriculture Arena in Dothan, Alabama;
22. $250,000 to the Northwest Alabama Council of
Local Governments in Muscle Shoals, Alabama for the
construction of a joint economic development facility
to be used by the Shoals Economic Development Authority
and the Shoals Chamber of Commerce;
23. $750,000 to the National Children's Advocacy
Center in Huntsville, Alabama for construction of a
research and training campus;
24. $1,800,000 to Spring Hill College in Mobile,
Alabama for construction of a new library and Regional
Resource Learning Center;
25. $200,000 to the City of Bradley, Arkansas for
construction of a community center;
26. $200,000 to the Dermott City Community Nursing
Home in Dermott, Arkansas for facilities construction
and buildout;
27. $225,000 for construction of the North Arkansas
College Conference and Workforce Center in Harrison,
Arkansas;
28. $175,000 to the County of Santa Cruz, Arizona for
restoration of a historic building;
29. $200,000 to the Town of Guadalupe, Arizona for
renovations to the Mercado shopping center;
30. $225,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Scottsdale
for facility construction in Fountain Hills, Arizona;
31. $405,000 to the National Law Center for Inter-
American Free Trade in Tucson, Arizona for facilities
construction;
32. $450,000 to Arizona State University for
facilities construction for the Center for Basic
Research and Applied Research within the Barry M.
Goldwater Center for Science and Engineering;
33. $50,000 to Southeast-Rio Vista YMCA in Huntington
Park, California for renovation of a building;
34. $75,000 to Culver City, California for facilities
restoration of a theatre;
35. $90,000 to the County of San Bernardino,
California for facilities renovation, sidewalk and
facade improvements of the Crestline Revitalization/
Houston Creek project;
36. $90,000 to the County of San Bernardino,
California for facilities expansion for the Big Bear
Zoo;
37. $450,000 to Kelysville Senior Center in Lake
County, California for renovations of a facility into a
senior center;
38. $100,000 to Occidental College in Los Angeles,
California for continued construction of a science
center;
39. $100,000 to the American Film Institute in Los
Angeles, California for renovation of facilities;
40. $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of National
City, California for facilities repairs at the Wayne
Sevier Memorial Gymnasium;
41. $100,000 to the City of Carpinteria, California
for facilities modernization and renovation of the
Carpinteria Veteran's Memorial Building;
42. $100,000 to the City of El Monte, California for
construction of a teen and education center;
43. $100,000 to the City of Fontana, California for
restoration and renovation of recreational facilities;
44. $100,000 to the City of Fresno, California for
facilities construction at the Roeding Business Park;
45. $100,000 to the City of Garden Grove, California
for facilities construction at the West Haven Community
Center;
46. $100,000 to the City of La Puente, California for
construction of a youth activity and learning center;
47. $100,000 to the City of Lawndale, California for
construction of a new senior center;
48. $100,000 to the City of Palo Alto, California for
the rehabilitation and expansion of the Childrens'
Library;
49. $100,000 to the City of San Diego, California for
construction of the Elm Street residences for
transitional housing;
50. $100,000 to the City of San Fernando, California
for a feasibility study of business redevelopment
focused on major commercial corridors;
51. $100,000 to the Contra Costa Community College in
California for the Regional Training Institute's
facility renovation;
52. $100,000 to the Intergenerational Daycare Center,
Organization for the Needs of the Elderly in Van Nuys,
California for facility construction;
53. $100,000 to the Tech Museum of Innovation in San
Jose, California for renovations necessary for theater
improvements;
54. $100,000 to the Watts Theatre and Education
Center in Los Angeles, California for renovations to
the center;
55. $100,000 to the YMCA of San Francisco, California
for construction of a facility in the Bayview-Hunters
Point neighborhood and rehabilitation of the Chinatown
facility;
56. $125,000 for El Rescate in Los Angeles,
California for renovation of a facility to house a
social service agency;
57. $125,000 to the SRO Housing Corporation in Los
Angeles, California for facilities construction for the
James Wood Memorial Community Center;
58. $135,000 to the City of Lancaster, California for
renovation of the Antelope Valley Mental Health
Association headquarters building;
59. $135,000 to the City of Twentynine Palms,
California for construction of the Twentynine Palms
Visitor Center;
60. $135,000 to the Hi-Desert Medical Center in
Joshua Tree, California for facilities expansion for
the Obstetrics Center;
61. $135,000 to the History Department of the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County for facility
improvements for the William S. Hart Museum in Newhall,
California;
62. $135,000 to the Tri-Counties Easter Seals for
construction of a child development center in Ventura
County, California;
63. $150,000 to the City of San Rafael, California
for renovation of the Pickleweed Park Community Center;
64. $150,000 to the City of Santa Monica, California
for renovation of a historic structure for use as a
visitor center;
65. $150,000 to the Spanish Speaking Unity Council in
Oakland, California for rehabilitation of affordable
elderly housing;
66. $180,000 to the City of Lancaster, California for
facilities construction and improvements for the
National Soccer Center;
67. $180,000 to the City of Temecula, California for
construction of the Gymnasium-Old Town Temecula;
68. $180,000 to the Community Action Partnership of
Kern, California for construction of a food bank;
69. $200,000 to the City of Vallejo, California for
historic structure renovations at Mare Island;
70. $200,000 to the Sacramento Housing and
Redevelopment Agency in Sacramento, California for
construction of a learning center;
71. $225,000 to the Agua Caliente Cultural Museum in
Palm Springs, California for facilities construction;
72. $225,000 to the City of Diamond Bar, California
for construction of a community center;
73. $225,000 to the City of East Palo Alto,
California for facilities construction at the
Ravenswood Industrial park;
74. $225,000 to the City of Ripon, California for
construction of a Youth Center Complex;
75. $225,000 to the City of Riverside, California for
facilities construction for the Riverside Regional
Technology Transfer Center;
76. $225,000 to the City of Stockton, California for
renovation of the Fox Theatre;
77. $225,000 to the East County YMCA in La Mesa,
California for facilities construction and
improvements;
78. $225,000 to the Sweetwater Authority for
recreation facilities construction at Sweetwater and
Loveland Reservoirs in San Diego County, California;
79. $250,000 to the City of Eureka, California for
construction of a waterfront facility as part of the
downtown revitalization;
80. $250,000 to the City of Inglewood, California for
construction of a senior center;
81. $270,000 to the Fund for the Preservation of the
California State Mining and Mineral Museum for
facilities construction in Mariposa, California;
82. $300,000 to the City of Salinas, California for
construction of recreational facilities;
83. $315,000 to the City of Citrus Heights,
California for facilities construction for the Sayonara
Neighborhood revitalization project;
84. $315,000 to the City of Shasta Lake, California
for construction of a senior housing complex;
85. $360,000 to the Kern County Office of Education
for facilities construction for the Mobility
Opportunities via Education project in Southeast
Bakersfield, California;
86. $360,000 to the West Side Park and Recreation
District for renovation of the Taft Community Pool in
Taft, California;
87. $400,000 to the City of San Francisco, California
for construction of the Mission Bay Senior Housing
Project;
88. $450,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Las
Virgenes, Inc. for facilities construction in the City
of Thousand Oaks, California;
89. $450,000 to the City of La Mesa, California for
facilities construction and improvements for the La
Mesa PARKS Project;
90. $100,000 to Children's Hospital, San Diego,
California for facilities construction for the
Convalescent Hospital;
91. $450,000 to the City of Westminster, California
for construction of a community center;
92. $450,000 to the Palomar YMCA in Escondido,
California for construction of an aquatic center;
93. $450,000 to the Town of Apple Valley, California
for construction of an aquatic center;
94. $900,000 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California for construction of a senior center;
95. $100,000 to Arvada Center for the Arts and
Humanities in Arvada, Colorado for facilities
expansion;
96. $100,000 to the City of Aurora, Colorado for
planning related to Fitzsimons Commons;
97. $450,000 to the Harp Foundation for construction
of the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk ``Link'' Project of
Pueblo, Colorado;
98. $100,000 for the Hartt School of Performing Arts
Education Center in West Hartford, Connecticut for
building renovations;
99. $100,000 to the City of Meriden, Connecticut for
a study to determine the feasibility of the
construction of a community play house and arts center;
100. $100,000 to the City of Waterbury, Connecticut
for an economic feasibility study focused on
construction of a multi-purpose sports facility;
101. $100,000 to the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art
in Hartford, Connecticut for renovation of facilities;
102. $150,000 to the town of Newtown, Connecticut for
future use planning and renovation of the Batshelder
property;
103. $200,000 to Domestic Violence Services of
Greater New Haven, Connecticut for renovation and
construction of a facility for transitional housing;
104. $250,000 to Columbus House, Inc. in New Haven,
Connecticut for construction of an emergency shelter
for homeless adults;
105. $315,000 to Mystic Seaport for a facilities
restoration and conversion project of the American
Maritime Education and Research Center in Mystic,
Connecticut;
106. $450,000 to the Environmental Learning Centers
of Connecticut for facilities expansion for the Harry
C. Barnes Memorial Nature Center in Bristol,
Connecticut;
107. $450,000 to the New Britain Museum of American
Art in New Britain, Connecticut for facility
construction;
108. $100,000 to St. Petersburg, Florida for
completion of facilities improvements at the Florida
Botanical Garden and Folk Cultural Center;
109. $125,000 to Santa Fe Community College in
Gainesville, Florida for construction of a fine arts
building;
110. $125,000 to the City of Gainesville, Florida for
sidewalk and curb improvements;
111. $225,000 to the City of Clearwater, Florida for
waterfront facilities construction of the ``Beach by
Design Initiative'';
112. $225,000 to the City of Jacksonville, Florida
for facilities construction for the Patriots Village
Transitional Housing Community;
113. $225,000 to the City of Ocoee, Florida for
construction of a senior citizens/veterans services
center;
114. $225,000 to the City of Riviera Beach, Florida
for construction and renovation of facilities as part
of the Urban Commercial Retail Development Project;
115. $225,000 to the City of Sanford, Florida for
construction of a parking facility at the Hotel
Conference Center;
116. $225,000 to the MainStreet Deland Association,
Inc. for restoration of the Athens Theatre in Deland,
Florida;
117. $225,000 to the Tampa, Florida Port Authority
for facilities construction and renovation of a
terminal;
118. $250,000 for Family Resources of St. Petersburg,
Florida for construction of a crisis shelter and family
counseling center;
119. $250,000 to Bethune Cookman College in Daytona
Beach, Florida for construction of a community services
center and student union;
120. $250,000 to the Community Aging and Retirement
Services (CARES) of Pasco County, Florida for
renovation and build out of the Crescent Enrichment
Center & Theater in Dale City, Florida;
121. $360,000 to the Wolfsonian-Florida International
University of Miami Beach, Florida for facilities
expansion and improvements;
122. $375,000 to the City of Plantation, Florida for
construction of an amphitheater;
123. $400,000 for the City of Largo, Florida for
construction of a new downtown Largo library;
124. $400,000 to Refuge House in Tallahassee, Florida
for construction of a battered women's shelter;
125. $450,000 to the Central Florida Community
College in Marion County, Florida for facilities
construction for an information technology center;
126. $450,000 to the Florida International University
College of Law in Miami, Florida for construction of
facilities for a student legal clinic;
127. $500,000 for facilities construction for the
Stetson University College of Law Tampa, Florida
campus;
128. $750,000 for facilities construction for Tampa
Bay Watch in Florida;
129. $750,000 to the Christopher Newport University
Foundation of Newport News, Virginia for facilities
construction and renovation;
130. $1,000,000 for construction of the Eckerd
College Youth Opportunity and Development Center in St.
Petersburg, Florida;
131. $1,000,000 for the City of St. Petersburg,
Florida Manhattan redevelopment project for facilities
renovation and improvements for a business development
center;
132. $1,000,000 for the historic restoration and
renovation of the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables,
Florida;
133. $200,000 to Morehouse College in Atlanta,
Georgia for construction of a performing arts center;
134. $225,000 for facilities construction for the
Dual Rail Industrial Park in Dooly County, Georgia;
135. $225,000 for the Tommy Nobis Center in Marietta,
Georgia for facilities renovations and improvements;
136. $225,000 for the Warner Robins Museum of
Aviation in Houston County, Georgia for expansion of
facilities for the Century of Flight exhibit;
137. $225,000 to Mercer University of Macon, Georgia
for facilities construction for the Critical Personnel
Development Program;
138. $225,000 to Rockdale County, Georgia for
facilities construction for the Georgia Veterans Park;
139. $225,000 to Wesleyan College of Macon, Georgia
for the restoration and renovation of historic
buildings;
140. $315,000 for the preservation of historic
buildings at Georgia College and State University, a
Historically Women's Public College and University;
141. $450,000 to the Liberty County, Georgia
Development Authority for facilities construction at
the Coastal MegaPark;
142. $150,000 to the YMCA of Honolulu, Hawaii for
construction of a multi-purpose community and
recreation center;
143. $100,000 to the Mahaska County Crisis
Intervention Services Domestic Shelter in Oskaloosa,
Iowa for facilities renovation of the domestic shelter;
144. $450,000 to Systems Unlimited, Inc. in the Iowa
City/Cedar Rapids community, Iowa for facilities
expansion;
145. $450,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for
facilities construction for the Des Moines Agrimergent
Technology Park;
146. $450,000 to the City of Fort Dodge, Iowa for
facility renovations for the Senior Citizens Campus
project;
147. $360,000 to Idaho State University for
construction of the L.E. and Thelma E. Stephens
Performing Arts Center;
148. $90,000 to Family House in Peoria, Illinois for
facilities construction;
149. $90,000 to the City of Normal, Illinois for
facilities construction according to the downtown
redevelopment plan;
150. $100,000 to Family Focus in Evanston, Illinois
for facilities improvements;
151. $100,000 to Haymarket Center in Chicago,
Illinois for renovations to a facility to serve as drug
intervention center;
152. $100,000 to Oak Lawn Children's Museum in Oak
Lawn, Illinois for facilities renovations;
153. $100,000 to the Brookfield Zoo in Brookfield,
Illinois for construction of a learning center;
154. $100,000 to the Village of Hampton, Illinois for
construction of the Hampton Heritage Center;
155. $100,000 to the Village of Riverside, Illinois
for restoration of a historic structure;
156. $100,000 to the Village of South Holland,
Illinois for facilities improvements for its community
center;
157. $150,000 to Lewis and Clark Community College in
Godfrey, Illinois for construction of the Great Rivers
Research and Education Center;
158. $75,000 to Ridgeway Senior Center in Gallatin
County, Illinois for renovation of the senior center;
159. $150,000 to the Village of Olympia Fields,
Illinois for construction of a hall, public library and
upgraded commuter station;
160. $180,000 to Eureka College, Illinois for
continued construction of the Science and Technology
Center;
161. $180,000 to Joliet Junior College in Joliet,
Illinois for construction of a multipurpose
agricultural education and event center;
162. $180,000 to the Centers for the Prevention of
Abuse for facilities construction in Peoria, Illinois;
163. $200,000 to the Safer Foundation in Chicago,
Illinois for renovation of a building into transitional
housing;
164. $225,000 to DuPage County, Illinois for
facilities renovations for the Convalescent Center
Rehabilitation Project;
165. $225,000 to Roosevelt University of Chicago,
Illinois for renovations to the auditorium building;
166. $225,000 to the American Red Cross of Greater
Chicago, Illinois for facilities construction;
167. $225,000 to the City of DeKalb, Illinois for
rehabilitation of facilities for the Downtown Community
Center;
168. $225,000 to the Northfield Park District in
Northfield, Illinois for facilities construction;
169. $270,000 for facilities renovation for Teen
Challenge in Decatur, Illinois;
170. $450,000 to the City of Elgin, Illinois for
construction of pedestrian improvements;
171. $675,000 to the Village of Addison, Illinois for
facilities construction for the Addison Neighborhood
Resource Center and Park;
172. $1,400,000 to Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's
Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois for renovations to
the life safety and infant security facilities;
173. $150,000 to the City of Indianapolis, Indiana
for construction at the Life Sciences Research Park;
174. $315,000 to Tri-State University for facilities
construction for the Center for Technology and On-Line
Resources in Angola, Indiana;
175. $450,000 to Madison Township, Indiana for
construction of a construction of a community center;
176. $450,000 to the James Whitcomb Riley Hospital
for Children in Indianapolis, Indiana for improving
inpatient facilities for the Chistian Sarkine Autism
Center;
177. $1,000,000 to Purdue University in West
Lafayette, Indiana for facilities construction for the
Northwest Indiana Purdue Technology Center;
178. $150,000 to the Unified Government of Wyandotte
County and Kansas City, Kansas for sidewalk and curb
improvements;
179. $180,000 for facilities renovation and expansion
of the Oaklawn Community Resource Center in Sedgwick
County, Kansas;
180. $180,000 for facilities renovations and
improvements for the Evergreen Public Library in
Wichita, Kansas;
181. $315,000 to the City of Atchison, Kansas for
construction of a riverfront plaza;
182. $315,000 to the Reno County Historical Society
for the Kansas Underground Salt Museum in Hutchinson,
Kansas for facilities construction and improvements;
183. $73,500 to Kentucky Refugee Ministries in
Louisville, Kentucky for renovation of facilities;
184. $75,000 to the Salvation Army/Boys and Girls
Club--Northfolk, in Louisville, Kentucky for the
renovation of the Northfolk community center;
185. $100,000 to the Greater Community Council in
Louisville, Kentucky for construction of a facility for
low-income, disabled persons;
186. $150,000 to Owen County, Kentucky for facilities
construction;
187. $225,000 to Interlink Counseling in Louisville,
Kentucky for facilities construction;
188. $225,000 to the City of Lebanon, Kentucky for
facilities construction for the Center Square project;
189. $250,000 for the Trinity Family Life Center in
Louisville, Kentucky for facilities construction for
afterschool programs;
190. $250,000 to the Community Economic Empowerment
Corporation of Louisville, Kentucky for construction of
a community and family recreation center;
191. $250,000 to the First Gethsemane Center in
Louisville, Kentucky for renovation of facilities;
192. $250,000 to the Shiloh Community Renewal Center
in Louisville, Kentucky for facilities reconstruction
and rehabilitation;
193. $300,000 for the renovation of the Americana
Community Center in Louisville, Kentucky;
194. $315,000 to the Montgomery County Fiscal Court
of Kentucky for continued construction of a community
center;
195. $315,000 to the the Monroe County Wellness
Center, Inc. of Monroe County, Kentucky for facilities
construction;
196. $450,000 to Pine Mountain Settlement School of
Harlan County, Kentucky for facilities expansion and
renovation;
197. $450,000 to the London-Laurel County Tourist
Commission, Kentucky for facilities construction for
the Blue-Gray Civil War Theme Park;
198. $50,000 to the Town of Clinton, Louisiana for
facilities construction and improvements;
199. $75,000 to Iberia Parish, Louisiana for
construction of the New Iberia conference center;
200. $75,000 to Plan Baton Rouge, Louisiana for
building renovations;
201. $75,000 to St. Mary Parish, Louisiana for
construction of a wildlife refuge interpretive center;
202. $75,000 to the City of Donaldsonville, Louisiana
for construction of riverfront recreational facilities;
203. $75,000 to the City of Gonzales, Louisiana for
building and facade renovations and improvements in the
downtown historic district;
204. $75,000 to the City of Plaquemine, Louisiana for
construction of facilities including a farmers market;
205. $75,000 to the City of Port Allen, Louisiana for
economic development planning and facilities
construction;
206. $75,000 to the Town of Golden Meadow, Louisiana
for construction and renovation of recreation
facilities;
207. $75,000 to the Village of Cankton, Louisiana for
facilities renovations for a community center;
208. $90,000 to the City of New Iberia, Louisiana for
facilities construction as described in the master
plan;
209. $90,000 to the New Orleans Regional Planning
Commission, Louisiana for recreational facilities
improvements and buildout for St. Bernard, St. Charles
and Plaquemines;
210. $90,000 to the Town of Grand Isle, Louisiana for
construction and buildout of the Isle Multi-Use
Facility;
211. $100,000 to the Amistad Research Center in New
Orleans, Louisiana for facilities construction;
212. $100,000 to the Mirabeau Family Learning Center,
Inc. in New Orleans, Louisiana for facilities
construction;
213. $125,000 to the Acadia Economic Development
Corporation in Crowley, Louisiana for facilities
construction for a business incubator;
214. $180,000 to Nichols State University in
Thibodaux, Louisiana for facilities construction for
the Advanced Technology Center;
215. $180,000 to the Port of South Louisiana for
facilities construction for the Globalplex Intermodal
Terminal;
216. $180,000 to the Tangipahoa Parish School System
in Loranger, Louisiana for renovation and restoration
of the Loranger High School building;
217. $202,500 to the City of Mandeville, Louisiana
for the construction of an interpretive center as part
of the Mandeville Trailhead project;
218. $225,000 for the National Federation of the
Blind, Center for the Blind in Louisiana for facilities
construction for the National Research and Training
Institute for the Blind;
219. $675,000 the Biomedical Research Foundation of
Northwest Louisiana for construction of the InterTech
science park;
220. $100,000 to Goodwill Industries of Springfield,
Massachusetts for facilities renovations;
221. $125,000 to the Veterans Benefit Clearinghouse
in Roxbury, Massachusetts for facilities renovation and
modernization;
222. $150,000 to Salem State College in Massachusetts
for construction of an arts center/theater;
223. $150,000 to the Main South Community Development
Corporation in Worcester, Massachusetts for blight
removal and construction related to the Gardner-Kilby-
Hammond Street Neighborhood Revitalization project;
224. $175,000 to the City of Lowell, Massachusetts
for construction of the Jackson/Appleton/Middlesex Area
garage;
225. $200,000 to the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield,
Massachusetts for facilities renovation;
226. $325,000 to Girls Incorporated in Pittsfield,
Massachusetts for facilities renovation;
227. $300,000 to the City of Springfield,
Massachusetts for renovations of a facility to house a
public market;
228. $450,000 to the Massachusetts College of
Pharmacy and Health Sciences for construction of a new
multi-use educational facilities;
229. $75,000 for Arena Stage for facilities
construction in the District of Columbia;
230. $75,000 to the Montgomery Housing Partnership in
Maryland for renovation of the Blair Park apartments;
231. $90,000 to Montgomery County, Maryland for
facilities construction for the Silver Spring
Innovation Center;
232. $90,000 to the Maryland Soccer Foundation, Inc.
for facilities construction for the SoccerPlex in South
Germantown, Maryland;
233. $90,000 to the Montgomery County Department of
Housing and Community Affairs, Maryland for building
renovations, facade improvements, and sidewalk and
beautification improvements in Wheaton;
234. $90,000 to the Montgomery County Government of
Maryland for building renovations, facade improvements,
and sidewalk and beautification improvements for the
Fenton Street Village section of Silver Spring;
235. $100,000 to the City of District Heights,
Maryland for facilities construction in its commercial
area;
236. $100,000 to the City of La Plata, Maryland for
planning of a parking facility;
237. $100,000 to the Melwood Horticultural Center in
Upper Marlboro, Maryland for planning necessary to
construct a multi-purpose job training and employment
facility;
238. $100,000 to the Olney Theatre Center for the
Arts in Olney, Maryland for the construction of a
theater;
239. $100,000 to the West Arlington Improvement
Association in Baltimore, Maryland for construction of
youth multi-purpose center;
240. $112,500 to the Rotary--PAL Building Corporation
of Frederick County, Maryland for facilities expansion
for the Sagner Community Center;
241. $150,000 to Prince Georges County, Maryland for
renovation of a visitor center to accommodate a Space
and Flight Center;
242. $180,000 to the City of Rockville, Maryland for
sidewalk, pedestrian amenities, lighting, and
beautification improvements for the Rockville Town
Center Redevelopment Project;
243. $200,000 to St. Mary's College in Maryland for
waterfront facilities construction;
244. $315,000 to Baltimore Medical System of
Baltimore, Maryland for construction of a new community
health center;
245. $100,000 for L/A Arts in Lewiston, Maine for the
renovation and construction of the ArtsPlace program
building;
246. $125,000 to the Franco-American Heritage Center
at St. Mary's in Lewiston, Maine for renovate
facilities into a performance hall and museum;
247. $125,000 to the University of Maine for
reconstruction of the Jonesboro Blueberry Research
Station;
248. $180,000 to the City of Biddeford, Maine for
restoration of the City Theater;
249. $90,000 to Cleary College in Howell, Michigan
for construction of the Center for Business and
Community Excellence;
250. $225,000 for the National Cherry Festival of
Michigan for the renovation of facilities;
251. $225,000 to the Michigan State Trust for Railway
Preservation, Inc. for construction of facilities for
the Steam Railroading Institute's ``linear museum
concept'' in Shiawasse County, Michigan;
252. $250,000 for the FOCUS: HOPE Institute in
Detroit, Michigan for renovation of a job-training
facility;
253. $250,000 for the Structural Research and
Development Center at Lawrence Tech. University in
Southfield, Michigan for facilities construction and
renovations;
254. $250,000 to Lighthouse of Oakland County, Inc.
for facilities construction in Oakland County,
Michigan;
255. $250,000 to the City of St. Ignace, Michigan for
the construction of a public library;
256. $250,000 to the Michigan Jewish Institute
Academic Activities facility for construction and
renovation;
257. $250,000 to the National Center for
Manufacturing Sciences in Ann Arbor, Michigan for
facilities construction;
258. $300,000 to the Virginia Park Community
Investment, Inc. in Detroit, Michigan for renovations
of the Virginia Park Shopping Center;
259. $450,000 to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of
Michigan for construction of facilities for the Victims
of Crime Program;
260. $75,000 to the YWCA of St. Paul, Minnesota for
facilities renovations associated with expansion;
261. $150,000 to Southside Family Nurturing Center in
Minneapolis, Minnesota for facility rehabilitation;
262. $200,000 to Detroit Lakes, Minnesota for
construction of a community center;
263. $200,000 to Leech Lake Tribal College in Cass
Lake, Minnesota for facilities expansion;
264. $200,000 to the Audubon Center of the North
Woods in Minnesota for capital construction costs and
improvements;
265. $200,000 to the Vinland Center in Minnesota for
facilities improvements for the rehabilitation center;
266. $360,000 to the Cornerstone Advocacy Service,
Inc. in Bloomington, Minnesota for construction of a
multi-purpose Emergency Shelter and Family Services
Center;
267. $600,000 to Reuben Lindh Family Services in
Minneapolis, Minnesota for facility rehabilitation;
268. $50,000 to the City of Arnold, Missouri for
recreation facility improvements;
269. $50,000 to the City of Maplewood, Missouri for
recreation facility improvements;
270. $50,000 to the Town of Herculaneum, Missouri for
an economic development and land use plan;
271. $90,000 to the City of Stanberry, Missouri for
revitalization of the city's bandstand;
272. $100,000 to the East-West Gateway Coordinating
Council in St. Louis, Missouri for a feasibility study
in cooperation with the University City Trolley
Corporation;
273. $100,000 to the St. Louis, Missouri Parks
Department for recreation facility improvements;
274. $100,000 to United Inner Services, Inc. in
Kansas City, Missouri for construction of a community
center;
275. $360,000 to the University of Missouri-Columbia
for facilities construction for the Life Sciences
Technology Incubator;
276. $900,000 to the City of Springfield, Missouri
for construction of a community multipurpose facility;
277. $900,000 to the City of St. Louis, Missouri for
lighting, sidewalks, curbs, and street furniture along
Kings Highway Boulevard and Chippewa Street;
278. $100,000 to the City of Natchez, Mississippi for
a feasibility study to develop a slack water port;
279. $100,000 to the town of Wesson, Mississippi for
the restoration of the Wesson School building;
280. $270,000 to The Mississippi Economic Growth
Alliance and Point of Presence (MEGAPOP) for facilities
construction;
281. $315,000 to the Oktibbeha County Economic
Development Authority in Starkville, Mississippi for
facilities construction for its E-Commerce Park;
282. $315,000 to the Missoula Food Bank, Montana for
facilities expansion and renovation;
283. $90,000 to the North Carolina Advanced Energy
Corporation in Raleigh, North Carolina for a
feasibility study of expanded application of the
``System Vision'' model of housing construction;
284. $100,000 to OPC Mental Health in Carrboro, North
Carolina for construction, renovation and build out of
Club Insight;
285. $100,000 to Orange County, North Carolina for
construction and build out of a farmer's market
facility;
286. $150,000 to Durham County, North Carolina for
construction and build out of a senior center, and
construction, renovation and build out of a homeless
shelter;
287. $160,000 to the North Carolina Community
Development Initiative for renovation and build out of
a vocational training facility in Durham County, North
Carolina and a transitional housing facility in Durham,
North Carolina;
288. $180,000 to the Catawba County, North Carolina
Historical Association for restoration of facilities
for the Harper House--Hickory History Center;
289. $200,000 to the Town of Mooresville, North
Carolina for facilities expansion of the town's
historic library;
290. $225,000 for construction of the National
Academy of Forensics and Computer Investigations at
Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte, North
Carolina;
291. $225,000 to the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum
in Dare County, North Carolina for continued facilities
construction;
292. $270,000 to the Haywood County Agriculture and
Activities Center Association for construction of a
multi-purpose arena in Waynesville, North Carolina;
293. $400,000 to Faquay-Varina, North Carolina for
downtown revitalization consisting of sidewalks,
islands, and a central plaza;
294. $400,000 to UDI Community Development
Corporation in Durham, North Carolina for construction,
renovation and build out for a business incubator
facility;
295. $450,000 for Wake Forest University and Winston-
Salem State University in North Carolina for
construction of a facility for the Idealliance program;
296. $350,000 to Scotland County, North Carolina for
construction and renovation of a community center;
297. $450,000 to the University of North Carolina at
Greensboro, a Historically Women's College and
University, for restoration of historic buildings;
298. $100,000 to Fort Totten, North Dakota for
facilities construction;
299. $100,000 to Fort Yates Hospital, in Fort Yates,
North Dakota for facilities renovations and
construction;
300. $315,000 to Father Flanagan's Girls and Boys
Town of Boys Town, Nebraska for the national priority
projects of Girls and Boys Town USA;
301. $585,000 to the City of Falls City, Nebraska for
renovating and retrofitting a business industry
incubator building;
302. $100,000 to Monmouth University in New Jersey
for library facilities renovations;
303. $300,000 to the Greater Wakefield Resource
Center in Wakefield, New Hampshire for renovation of
facilities;
304. $450,000 to the City of Concord, New Hampshire
for facilities construction of the Sears Block
Redevelopment project;
305. $700,000 to the New Hampshire Community
Technical College for renovation and facilities
expansion for the Emerging Technology Center at Pease
International Tradeport;
306. $100,000 to the Bergen County, New Jersey
Community Action Program for homeless shelter expansion
needs;
307. $100,000 to the Borough of Fair Haven, New
Jersey for restoration of the historic Fisk Chapel;
308. $100,000 to the Hackensack University Medical
Center in Hackensack, New Jersey for facilities
expansion of the Woman's and Children's Pavilion;
309. $100,000 to the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey in New Brunswick, New Jersey
for construction of the Child Health Institute;
310. $125,000 to Babyland Family Services in Newark,
New Jersey for facilities improvements;
311. $125,000 to Englewood Hospital and Medical
Center in New Jersey for modernization and expansion of
the Emergency and Outpatient Clinic;
312. $125,000 to Holy Name Hospital in Teaneck, New
Jersey for facilities expansion of the regional
dialysis center;
313. $125,000 to the YMCA of Eastern Union County,
New Jersey for a building renovations at the Elizabeth,
New Jersey Branch;
314. $150,000 to the New Jersey Community Development
Corporation for facilities construction related to the
Transportation Opportunity Center;
315. $180,000 to Atlantic City, New Jersey for
renovation of the All Wars Memorial Building;
316. $180,000 to AtlantiCare Behavioral Health of
Atlantic City, New Jersey for construction of a
community mental health center;
317. $200,000 to New Jersey City University for
renovation of the science hall;
318. $225,000 to the YMCA of Eastern Union County for
expansion of child care facilities in Union, New
Jersey;
319. $270,000 to Florence Township, New Jersey for
construction of a senior citizens center;
320. $450,000 to Burlington County, New Jersey for
economic development planning for the revitalization of
the Mount Holly Community ($100,000) and facilities
construction ($400,000);
321. $500,000 to Daytop in Morris County, New Jersey
for facilities construction and renovation;
322. $500,000 to Gilda's Club of Northern, New Jersey
for construction and renovation of a facility in the
greater Morris/Essex County area;
323. $100,000 to the City of Aztec, New Mexico for
facility and sidewalk improvements;
324. $225,000 for the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
Aviation Department for facilities expansion and
renovation for the Double Eagle II Airport;
325. $450,000 to the City of Roswell, New Mexico for
renovation and structural upgrades of an aircraft
hanger;
326. $200,000 to the City of Las Vegas, Nevada for
facilities construction for a small business incubator;
327. $150,000 to the Culinary and Hospitality Academy
Center of Las Vegas, Nevada for construction related to
expansion of an education training center;
328. $270,000 to the City of Sparks, Nevada for
renovation of facilities for the Regional Science and
Cultural Center;
329. $75,000 to Babylon, New York for building
renovations at Oak Beach;
330. $75,000 to the City of New Rochelle, New York
for sidewalk and curb improvements;
331. $75,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for
renovations of the Syracuse Open House;
332. $75,000 to the Hebrew Academy for Special
Children in Brooklyn, New York for construction
renovation of a facility;
333. $75,000 to the Town of Mamaroneck, New York for
facilities renovation and improvements for the Hommocks
Conservation Area;
334. $90,000 to the Town of Amherst, New York for the
repair of historic streetscape furniture;
335. $100,000 to New York University Medical Center
for renovations to the Rusk Institute of
Rehabilitation;
336. $100,000 to Onondaga County, New York for
construction of the Borodino Community Center;
337. $100,000 to Phipps House in New York, New York
for facilities renovation and construction in LaPuerta
in the South Bronx to house an educational child care
center;
338. $100,000 to the Alliance for Community Services
for a study of economic development needs of newly
identified immigrant communities in the Bronx, New
York;
339. $100,000 to the Citizens Advice Bureau for
renovations to the Girls' Club Community Center in the
Bronx, New York;
340. $100,000 to the City of Mount Vernon, New York
for building renovations to create a recreational and
job training facility;
341. $100,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for
planning related to the Hancock International Airport;
342. $100,000 to the City of White Plains, New York
for an economic development study for the
revitalization of Westchester;
343. $100,000 to the Flushing, Queens, New York
branch of the YMCA for facilities renovation and
expansion;
344. $100,000 to the Long Island Housing Partnership,
Inc. in New York for a study to identify and plan
revitalization efforts in distressed communities;
345. $100,000 to the McBurney YMCA in New York, New
York for facility construction;
346. $100,000 to the Metropolitan Development
Association in Syracuse, New York to update the VISION
2010 Strategic Economic Development Plan;
347. $100,000 to the State University of New York,
College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry for
planning activities for the Quality Communities
Initiative;
348. $100,000 to the Town of Eastchester, New York
for facilities renovation for the Eastchester Child
Development Center;
349. $125,000 to the City of Yonkers, New York for
facilities construction for the Empowerment Zone
Assistance Center;
350. $200,000 to the Bethel Performing Arts Center in
Bethel, New York for construction of a performing arts
facility;
351. $150,000 to the Harlem YMCA in New York, New
York for renovation of transitional housing;
352. $150,000 to the Jewish Children's Museum in
Brooklyn, New York for facilities construction;
353. $180,000 for facilities renovations and
improvements for the Woolworth Theatre Project in Glens
Falls, New York;
354. $180,000 to the Catskill Mountain Foundation in
Hunter, New York for reconstruction of the Tannersville
Theatre for use as a multifunctional facility;
355. $180,000 to the Village of Valatie, New York for
the renovation of the Valatie Theatre;
356. $150,000 to Boys and Girls Club of Saugerties,
New York for renovation of a multi-purpose facility to
house the club;
357. $200,000 to Elmcor Youth and Adult Activities,
Inc. for construction of an economic development center
serving the needs of Northwestern Queens, New York;
358. $200,000 to HOGAR, Inc. in the Bronx, New York
for planning activities for housing needs ($100,000)
and planning activities for provision of rehabilitative
services to special needs populations ($100,000);
359. $200,000 to the Sunset Park Business Improvement
District in Brooklyn, New York for facade renovations,
sidewalk, curb and street furniture improvements;
360. $225,000 for construction of the Players Theater
Performing Arts Center in Utica, New York;
361. $225,000 to Catholic Health Systems for
construction activities of the Our Lady of Victory
Neighborhood for Seniors Project in Lackawanna, New
York;
362. $225,000 to Elmira College in Elmira, New York
for renovation of Cowles Hall;
363. $225,000 to the Burchfield--Penney Art Center in
Buffalo, New York for construction of a new museum;
364. $225,000 to the Suffolk Sports Hall of Fame,
Sports Research Center in Patchogue, New York for
facilities renovations;
365. $225,000 to the Town of Brookhaven, New York for
facility improvements to the Mastic Town Pool;
366. $225,000 to the Village of Highland Falls, New
York for main street revitalization;
367. $250,000 to Carnegie Hall in New York to
complete construction of Carnegie Hall's Third Stage
Project;
368. $250,000 to Covenant House New York in New York,
New York for shelter renovations;
369. $250,000 to Onondaga County, New York for
facilities construction of the Solvay Library
Centennial Building;
370. $250,000 to the City of Albany, New York for
renovation of the Palace Theater;
371. $250,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for
facilities expansion for the Northeast Community
Center;
372. $250,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for
historic renovations of the Matilda Joslyn Gage House;
373. $250,000 to the Dance Theater of Harlem in New
York, New York for restoration of buildings to support
the Academy Charter School;
374. $250,000 to the Museum of Modern Art in New York
for expansion and renovations to their Education and
Research Center;
375. $250,000 to the Village of East Syracuse, New
York for renovation of the Hanlon Pool;
376. $250,000 to the Village of Manlius, New York for
rehabilitation of the Manlius Recreation Center;
377. $250,000 to VIP Community Services in the Bronx,
New York for construction of homeless transitional
housing;
378. $300,000 to Garth Fagan Dance Studio in
Rochester, New York for construction of a new theater;
379. $300,000 to the Armory Foundation in New York,
New York for conversion of the Washington Heights
Armory into a community center;
380. $300,000 to the City of Buffalo, New York for
facility renovations at Canisius High School in
Buffalo, New York;
381. $400,000 to Cayuga County, New York for
waterfront facilities construction;
382. $450,000 for construction of the Orpheus
Performing Arts and Conference Center in Oneonta, New
York;
383. $125,000 for facilities construction for the
Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks in Tupper
Lake, New York;
384. $450,000 to Christa House of West Babylon, New
York for facilities renovations and repairs;
385. $450,000 to Orange County Community College in
Middletown, New York for facilities construction and
buildout for the establishment of the Benjamin A.
Gilman Institute for Political and International
Studies;
386. $450,000 to St. Bonaventure University in St.
Bonaventure, New York for facilities upgrades for De la
Roche Hall;
387. $450,000 to the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation for construction
of the Purple Heart Hall of Honor in the Town of New
Windsor, New York;
388. $450,000 to the Staten Island Soccer League of
New York for facilities construction;
389. $500,000 to Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York
City for facility construction;
390. $450,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for
sidewalks, street lighting and furniture improvements
and building renovations for the North Salina Street
Corridor;
391. $450,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for
construction of an International Tourism Center at the
Carousel Center;
392. $500,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for
expansion and renovation of Enable facilities;
393. $500,000 to the Rivers and Estuaries Center on
the Hudson in New York for facilities construction;
394. $550,000 to Queens Borough Public Library in
Queens, New York for facilities rehabilitation and
expansion of the Parsons Boulevard complex;
395. $1,000,000 for facilities expansion for the
Everson Museum of Art in Syracuse, New York;
396. $1,000,000 to LeMoyne College in Syracuse, New
York for the construction of a Science Education and
Teaching/Learning Center;
397. $1,000,000 to the New York Olympic Regional
Development Authority for facilities construction for
the Mount VanHoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex;
398. $90,000 to the Rabbit Run Community Arts
Association for renovation of the Rabbit Run Theater
located in Madison, Ohio;
399. $100,000 for facilities renovations and
improvements for the West After School Center in
Lancaster, Ohio;
400. $100,000 to the City of Cleveland, Ohio for
economic development planning for the LTV Steel
Economic Development Initiative;
401. $135,000 to GMN Tri County for construction of a
community center in Guernsey County, Ohio;
402. $135,000 to the Village of Fairport Harbor, Ohio
for renovation of facilities for the Lighthouse
Community Arts Association's Fairport Harbor
Rennaissance Village;
403. $200,000 for Catholic Social Services in
Springfield, Ohio for renovation of a facility to house
the Second Harvest Foodbank;
404. $200,000 for Ross County, Ohio for facilities
renovations and improvements for the Blue Star Mothers
Memorial Stadium in Chillicothe, Ohio;
405. $225,000 for the Community Action Organization
of Scioto County, Ohio for renovation of a facility for
the Head Start program in Portsmouth, Ohio;
406. $225,000 to the City of Clairsville, Ohio for
renovation and restoration of the Clarendon Hotel
building;
407. $225,000 to the City of Marion, Ohio for
construction of an urban plaza;
408. $250,000 to the Columbiana County Port Authority
in Wellsville, Ohio for construction of a cargo
handling system;
409. $270,000 to the National First Ladies Library
Non-Profit Group for facilities construction for the
Women's History Museum in Canton, Ohio;
410. $300,000 to Where Toledo Grows/Greenhouse Row in
Toledo, Ohio for construction of a welcome center;
411. $450,000 to the Johnny Appleseed Heritage
Center, Inc. in Ashland County, Ohio for construction
of facilities;
412. $450,000 to the University of Cincinnati for
renovation of the Medical Sciences Building in
Cincinnati, Ohio;
413. $500,000 for Fayette County Community Action
Council, in Fayette County, Ohio to construct a new
community center and Head Start facility;
414. $630,000 for facilities construction for an
agro-security research center at the Ohio Agricultural
Research and Development Center in Wooster, Ohio;
415. $1,000,000 to the Toledo-Lucas County Port
Authority in Toledo, Ohio for facilities construction
and renovation at the Toledo Shipyard;
416. $270,000 for the Lawton, Oklahoma Public Schools
for the restoration of the historic Lawton High School;
417. $270,000 to the New Cordell Utility Authority of
New Cordell, Oklahoma for renovation of commercial
buildings;
418. $315,000 to Rural Enterprises, Inc. in Durant,
Oklahoma for facilities renovation;
419. $810,000 to the Oklahoma City Maintenance Repair
and Overhaul Technology Center for facilities
construction;
420. $75,000 to the Oregon Food Bank in Portland,
Oregon for facilities expansion;
421. $100,000 to the City of Portland, Oregon for
planning activities for the Central City Streetcar
Extension to the North Macadam District;
422. $180,000 for the renovation of the Tower Theatre
in Bend, Oregon;
423. $200,000 to the Douglas County, Oregon for
construction of a community recreation pavilion at the
Marina RV Resort;
424. $50,000 to the Claysburg Area Community Park for
construction and buildout of an amphitheater in
Claysburg, Pennsylvania;
425. $50,000 to the Susquehanna Neighborhood Advisory
Council in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for a feasibility
study focused on Susquehanna Avenue development;
426. $75,000 to the LaRosa Boys & Girls Club of
McKeesport, Pennsylvania for recreation facility
construction;
427. $75,000 to the Phoenix Project in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania for facility renovations;
428. $75,000 to the Sarah Jackson Black Community
Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for facilities
renovations;
429. $75,000 to the Soldiers' & Sailors' Memorial
Hall and Museum Trust in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for
facilities renovations and improvements;
430. $75,000 to the Swissvale Borough Code
Enforcement Project in Pennsylvania for facility
renovations and upgrades;
431. $75,000 to the Vine Memorial and Community
Development Corporation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
for construction of a community development center;
432. $75,000 to the YMCA of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
for facilities renovation at the East Community Branch;
433. $90,000 for the Planning Commission for Bucks
County, Pennsylvania for the Penndel Economic
Revitalization study;
434. $90,000 to Milford Township, Pennsylvania for
development of a managed growth plan;
435. $90,000 to the Bucks County Planning Commission
for economic development planning for the Lower Bucks
Riverfront Corridor Initiative in Bucks County,
Pennsylvania;
436. $90,000 to the Lawrence County Farm Show, Inc.
for facilities construction in Lawrence County,
Pennsylvania;
437. $100,000 to Connection Training Services of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for renovation and
construction of their workforce training center;
438. $100,000 to the Renaissance Community
Development Corporation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
for construction of a shopping center in an underserved
community;
439. $100,000 to the Youth Leadership Foundation of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for a facilities needs
study;
440. $100,000 to Universal Companies in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania for facility renovations in support of
Royal Theater Redevelopment;
441. $115,000 for facilities construction and
expansion of the Johnsonburg Senior Center of
Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania;
442. $135,000 for facilities reconstruction and
renovation of the Strand Theatre in Zelienople,
Pennsylvania to serve as a Performing Arts, Education
and Community Outreach Center;
443. $135,000 to the Bedford County Agricultural
Society in Pennsylvania for facilities improvements at
the Bedford County Fairground;
444. $150,000 to CitiVest in Wilkes-Barre,
Pennsylvania for facilities construction for commercial
development;
445. $150,000 to Montgomery County, Pennsylvania for
construction of a visitors center;
446. $100,000 for the Titusville Redevelopment
Authority of Titusville, Pennsylvania for facility
improvements;
447. $180,000 to the Volunteers of America of
Pennsylvania, Inc. for facilities renovation in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania;
448. $200,000 to the Urban Education Development
Research and Retreat Center in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania for renovations at the 4601 Market Street
facility;
449. $225,000 to the City of Lebanon, Pennsylvania
for building renovations as part of ``Operation Fight
Blight'';
450. $225,000 to the Historic Preservation Trust of
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania for rehabilitation of
facilities at the Thaddeus Stevens and Lydia Hamilton
Smith historic site;
451. $225,000 to the Windber Research Institute in
Johnstown, Pennsylvania for facilities expansion;
452. $225,000 to the York Agricultural Society for
facilities improvements to the York Expo Center Arena/
Livestock Exhibition Hall;
453. $250,000 to Fort Ligonier in Westmoreland
County, Pennsylvania for facilities renovation;
454. $250,000 to the Freedom Theater in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania for theater renovation;
455. $250,000 to the Kiski Valley YMCA in
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania for facilities
expansion;
456. $250,000 to the Uptown Entertainment and
Development Corporation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
for renovation of an education technology center;
457. $250,000 to the Vandergrift Borough Council in
Pennsylvania for recreation facilities upgrades and
repairs;
458. $270,000 to the Community Action Agency of
Delaware County, Inc. in Pennsylvania for renovation of
emergency shelter facilities and for construction of
transitional housing;
459. $270,000 to University Technology Park in
Chester, Pennsylvania for facilities construction;
460. $300,000 for the Please Touch Museum in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for facilities construction;
461. $315,000 to Pike County, Pennsylvania for
construction of a performing arts center;
462. $300,000 to the City of Arnold, Pennsylvania for
building renovation and rehabilitation in the downtown
business district;
463. $450,000 to the City of Erie, Pennsylvania for
facilities construction for the Erie Technology
Incubator project;
464. $500,000 to the Winnie Palmer Nature Reserve in
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania for facilities
construction;
465. $1,000,000 to the County of Cambria,
Pennsylvania for continued construction of the Northern
Cambria Recreation Facility in the Township of Cambria;
466. $1,300,000 to the American Cities Foundation in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for construction of the Home
Ownership Institute/Community Leadership Center;
467. $100,000 to Providence Children's Museum, Rhode
Island for facilities construction;
468. $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Warwick,
Rhode Island for construction and renovations of the
Norwood and Oakland Beach Clubhouses;
469. $125,000 to the YMCA of Central Falls, Rhode
Island for modernization and upgrade of a facility;
470. $150,000 to Goodwill Industries of Rhode Island
for construction of a central facility located in
Providence, Rhode Island;
471. $100,000 to the City of Columbia, South Carolina
for facilities renovation at Drew Park;
472. $200,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of
Williamsburg County, South Carolina for construction
related to facilities expansion;
473. $225,000 to the Housing Foundation, Inc. of
Charleston County, South Carolina for construction of
the Lincolnville Community Center;
474. $300,000 to the City of Rock Hill, South
Carolina for a feasibility study ($100,000) and
facilities renovations ($200,000) for the redevelopment
of the Bleachery textile mill;
475. $315,000 to the South Carolina School for the
Deaf and Blind in Spartanburg, South Carolina for
facilities construction;
476. $75,000 to the City of Etowah, Tennessee/
Friends of the Old Scout Lodge for facilities
rehabilitation of a historic structure;
477. $90,000 for the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee
for economic development planning;
478. $90,000 for the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee for
economic development planning;
479. $90,000 to Pickett County, Tennessee for
construction of a public library;
480. $90,000 to White County, Tennessee for
construction of a new public library;
481. $100,000 to Dyersburg Army Air Base Memorial
Association in Halls, Tennessee for facilities
expansion of the association's veterans museum;
482. $135,000 to the National Medal of Honor Museum
of Military History Foundation, Inc. for facilities
renovation and construction in Chattanooga, Tennessee;
483. $200,000 to Fisk University in Nashville,
Tennessee for facilities construction;
484. $200,000 to the Second Harvest Food Bank in
Middle Tennessee for facilities construction;
485. $225,000 to the Town of Spring City, Tennessee
for construction of a multi-purpose business and
community center;
486. $283,500 to Knox County, Tennessee for
renovations and construction of parking facilities;
487. $450,000 to the Historical Tennessee Theatre
Foundation, Inc. for continued renovations of the
Tennessee Theatre in Knoxville, Tennessee;
488. $100,000 to Community Family Centers in Houston,
Texas for construction of an early childhood
development center;
489. $100,000 to the City of San Angelo Development
Corporation in Texas for planning for a regional
industrial park;
490. $150,000 to the Abilene Preservation League in
Abilene, Texas for the restoration of historic Swenson
House;
491. $150,000 to the City of Abilene, Texas for
renovation of the Matera Paper Building;
492. $150,000 to the Sulpher Springs Regional
Development Association in Hopkins County, Texas for
construction of a regional education and cultural
center;
493. $225,000 for Texas A&M International University
in Laredo, Texas for construction of outreach centers
in the El Azteca neighborhood and the colonias of El
Cenzio and Rio Bravo;
494. $225,000 to Community Health Development, Inc.
of Uvalde, Texas for facilities expansion and
construction for a dental services and wellness center;
495. $225,000 to the Battleship Texas Foundation for
construction of an interpretive center;
496. $250,000 to Cameron County, Texas for
construction of a Boys and Girls Club facility in Santa
Rosa;
497. $250,000 to the City of Fort Worth, Texas for
building restoration in the city center;
498. $400,000 to the City of Waco, Texas for
construction of a community center;
499. $450,000 to the Family Practice Residency of the
Brazos Valley in Bryan, Texas for construction of a new
center of excellence;
500. $450,000 to the Mercy Health System for
facilities renovations and improvements at Mercy
Hospital in Laredo, Texas;
501. $450,000 to the University of Texas at Arlington
for the continued facilities construction and buildout
for the Nano-Tech Research Institute;
502. $675,000 to the Old Red Courthouse Museum in
Dallas, Texas for the restoration of facilities for the
Museum of Dallas History;
503. $900,000 to the City of Fort Worth, Texas for
waterfront facilities construction for the Trinity
River Visions project;
504. $900,000 to the Globe of the Great Southwest in
Odessa, Texas for facilities expansion and
improvements;
505. $200,000 to the Community Legal Center in Salt
Lake City, Utah for facility renovation;
506. $225,000 to West Valley City, Utah for
construction of a City's Multi-Ethnic Community Center;
507. $25,000 to the Langhorne House in Danville,
Virginia for facilities renovations;
508. $25,000 to the Prestwould House near
Clarksville, Virginia to assist with renovations to the
historic site;
509. $50,000 for the Town of Boydton, Virginia for
facilities improvements in connection with the downtown
revitalization project;
510. $100,000 for Henry County, Virginia for facility
renovations at the Henry County technology campus;
511. $100,000 for the City of Martinsville, Virginia
for the planning for the utilization of an industrial
site;
512. $100,000 for the Town of Altavista, Virginia to
assist with renovations of the shell building
industrial site;
513. $100,000 for the Town of Clarksville, Virginia
to assist with the study on the development of the
downtown area;
514. $100,000 to Arlington County, Virginia for
renovation and buildout for the Bonder and Amanda
Johnson Community Development Corporation facility;
515. $100,000 to the Martinsville-Henry County
Historical Society in Virginia for improvements to the
Old Henry County Court House and Museum;
516. $175,000 to the Arlington Partnership for
Affordable Housing (APAH) in Arlington, Virginia for
facilities construction for a computer technology
information center;
517. $180,000 to Eastern Shore Community College for
construction of the Eastern Shore Workforce Training
and Business Development Center in Melfa, Virginia;
518. $200,000 for the Town of South Hill, Virginia
for the restoration of the Colonial Theatre;
519. $200,000 to the Arlington Housing Corporation in
Arlington, Virginia for construction of a community
center in the Woodbury Park development;
520. $200,000 to the Institute of Advanced Learning
and Research (IALR) in Danville, Virginia for
installation and improvements to high technology
systems;
521. $200,000 to the Rich Valley Fair Association in
Virginia for construction of a new facility to jointly
serve as a community center and indoor space for the
community fair;
522. $225,000 to Mary Baldwin College in Staunton,
Virginia for ongoing construction of the Program for
the Exceptionally Gifted Center;
523. $100,000 to the City of Manassas, Virginia for
restoration of the Liberia House;
524. $225,000 to the City of Suffolk, Virginia for
the renovation and restoration of the old Suffolk High
School for use as a cultural center;
525. $225,000 to the Lynchburg Academy of Music in
Lynchburg, Virginia for facilities construction and
renovation;
526. $200,000 to the Shenandoah Valley Discovery
Museum, Inc. for facilities expansion and buildout;
527. $200,000 to the Town of Edinburg, Virginia for
the renovation and adaptive reuse of the Historic
Edinburg Mill;
528. $225,000 to the Tredegar National Civil War
Center Foundation of Richmond, Virginia for facilities
construction;
529. $240,000 to the Virginia Living Museum in
Newport News, Virginia for construction and renovaiton
of facilities;
530. $250,000 to Edgehill Recovery Retreat Center in
Winchester, Virginia for facilities construction;
531. $450,000 to the Virginia Science Center for
construction of the Belmont Bay Science Center in
Prince William County, Virginia;
532. $500,000 to the St. Coletta School in
Alexandria, Virginia for facilities construction;
533. $100,000 to the Department of Vermont, Veterans
of Foreign Wars for the construction of the Green Block
Veterans Memorial in Brandon, Vermont and the Windsor,
Vermont War Memorial;
534. $75,000 to the Aberdeen Museum of History in
Aberdeen, Washington for facility renovations;
535. $75,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of the
Olympic Peninsula for restoration of their Mt. Angeles,
Washington facility;
536. $75,000 to the Jefferson County Historical
Society in Jefferson County, Washington for building
restoration;
537. $75,000 to the Kitsap County Historical Society
in Kitsap County, Washington for facility renovations;
538. $100,000 to Friends of Youth Griffin Home in
Renton, Washington for renovation of the Matsen House
as a home for abused children;
539. $100,000 to the City of Mount Vernon, Washington
for renovations to the historic Lincoln Theater;
540. $100,000 to the Lummi Indian Nation in Watcom
County, Washington for the construction of a memorial
commemorating Semiahmah and Coastal Salish heritage;
541. $225,000 to the City of Buckley, Washington for
construction of the Buckley Youth Center;
542. $250,000 to the Port of Bremerton, Washington
for facilities construction related to expansion of a
marina;
543. $250,000 to the Port of Grays Harbor, Washington
for facilities construction and buildout for a boat
yard;
544. $450,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Spokane
County, Washington for renovation of facilities;
545. $550,000 to Kent Youth and Family Services of
Kent, Washington for construction of the Building
Better Futures Family Center;
546. $100,000 to the City of Stoughton, Wisconsin for
sidewalk, street lighting and furniture, and building
renovations;
547. $150,000 to the City of Columbus, Wisconsin for
sidewalk, street lighting and furniture, and building
renovations;
548. $150,000 to the Milwaukee Center for
Independence in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for construction
of a Children's Diagnostic Center;
549. $225,000 to St. Norbert College of DePere,
Wisconsin for construction of a library learning
center;
550. $250,000 to the Metcalfe Park Residents
Association in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for sidewalk,
street lighting and furniture, and building
renovations;
551. $700,000 to the Wisconsin Indianhead Technical
College in Rice Lake, Wisconsin for construction and
expansion of facilities at its new technology center;
552. $100,000 to Marshall University's Appalachian
Transportation Institute for a study of economic
development opportunities in southern West Virginia to
support the Southern Highlands Initiative;
553. $100,000 to Marshall University's Appalachian
Transportation Institute for economic development
planning related to recent flooding;
554. $135,000 for the Kanawha Institute for Social
Research and Action for facilities renovation for a
business incubator and community center in Kanawha
County, West Virginia;
555. $180,000 to the Upper Kanawha Valley Enterprise
Community for facilities renovation for a business and
community center;
556. $500,000 to the Greenbrier Valley Economic
Development Authority for facilities construction in
cooperation with the 4-County Economic Development
Authority located in Oak Hill, West Virginia focused on
development along the Interstate 64 corridor;
557. $500,000 to West Liberty State College in West
Liberty, West Virginia for facility renovation;
558. $800,000 to the Grant County Commission in West
Virginia for construction of a community center;
559. $1,000,000 to Glenville State College in
Glenville, West Virginia for construction of a campus
community center;
560. $1,170,000 to the Mid-Atlantic Aerospace
Complex, Inc. in Bridgeport, West Virginia for
facilities construction;
561. $1,250,000 to Concord College in Athens, West
Virginia for facilities construction for an information
technology training center;
562. $1,300,000 to the West Virginia High Technology
Consortium Foundation, Inc. in Marion County, West
Virginia for facilities construction for a high-tech
park;
563. $1,750,000 to the Monongalia County Schools
Foundation, Inc. in West Virginia for construction of
recreational facilities;
564. $100,000 to Arkansas State University-Mountain
Home for the construction of the Vada Sheid Community
Center;
565. $100,000 to Sacred Heart University in
Fairfield, Connecticut for library facilities
renovations;
566. $100,000 to the Chicago, Illinois Parks District
for construction of a fieldhouse located at 39th and
Cottage Grove;
567. $175,000 to the City of Laurel, Maryland for
facilities renovations for the Laurel Community Center;
568. $100,000 to the Sonny Montgomery Leadership
Institute of Meridian, Mississippi for an economic
development planning study;
569. $75,000 to Merwin Rural Services Institute for
an initial planning study in northern New York;
570. $100,000 to the Village of Carthage, New York
for facilities construction and building renovations;
571. $75,000 to the City of Ogdensburg, New York for
facilities construction for the continued development
of the Fort La Presentation project;
572. $75,000 to the Village of Clayton, New York for
waterfront facilities renovations along the St.
Lawrence River;
573. $200,000 to the Mary Mitchell Family and Youth
Center in the South Bronx, New York for facilities
planning ($100,000) and renovations ($100,000);
574. $50,000 to the Institute for the Puerto Rican/
Hispanic Elderly in New York for facilities
renovations;
575. $100,000 to the Jane Stevens Foundation Center
in Sanford, North Carolina for facility renovations;
576. $100,000 to the City of Whiteville, North
Carolina for the restoration of the Whiteville Train
Depot;
577. $100,000 to the City of Toledo, Ohio for site
re-use planning at the former Doehler Jarvis
manufacturing facility and the site of the former
Toledo Federal Building;
578. $150,000 to the Borough of Orwigsburg,
Pennsylvania for sidewalks curbs and street lighting;
579. $150,000 to the City of Pottsville, Pennsylvania
for sidewalks, curbs and street lighting;
580. $100,000 to the Oil Creek Railway Historical
Society, Inc. of Pennsylvania for facilities
renovations;
581. $300,000 to the City of New Kensington,
Pennsylvania for building renovation and rehabilitation
in the downtown business district;
582. $100,000 to the City of Austin, Texas
Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Office
for sidewalks, curbs, street lighting and facade
renovations;
583. $150,000 to Texas A&M University Center for
Housing and Urban Development for construction of a
community center serving colonias;
584. $175,000 to New Hope Housing in Alexandria,
Virginia for renovation of the Mondloch House and
construction at the Kennedy Shelter;
585. $100,000 to the Northeastern Vermont Development
Corporation for construction of a community center in
Orleans County;
586. $75,000 for Loudon Interfaith Relief, Inc. of
Virginia for planning activities for development of a
community kitchen;
587. $200,000 to Vanguard Services Unlimited of
Arlington, Virginia for renovation and improvement of
facilities;
588. $100,000 to Bread and Rose in Olympia,
Washington for renovations to a homeless shelter;
589. $75,000 to Norris City Senior Center in White
County, Illinois for renovation of the senior center;
590. $100,000 to the Vienna Little League in Vienna,
Virginia for facilities construction;
591. $150,000 to the Lorton Arts Foundation in
Lorton, Virginia for the renovation of buildings for a
creative arts center.
--$23,400,000 for the Neighborhood Initiatives
program. Targeted grants shall be provided as follows:
1. $1,400,000 to the Model City Community
Revitalization District Trust in Miami, Florida for the
Model City Homeownership project;
2. $250,000 to the New Zion Community Foundation
Development for continued renovations and improvements
for a community resource center in Louisville,
Kentucky;
3. $100,000 for The Neighborhood House in Louisville,
Kentucky to furnish the community center;
4. $150,000 for the Portland Avenue Community Trust
in Louisville, Kentucky for a multi-purpose facility;
5. $250,000 to the St. Stephen Family Life Center of
Louisville, Kentucky for renovation of a facility for
drug abuse counseling and transitional housing;
6. $150,000 to the New Directions Housing Corporation
in Louisville, Kentucky for renovation of the historic
Reeser Court Apartments;
7. $150,000 to the Shawnee Gardens Development
Corporation of Louisville, Kentucky for the conversion
of a building to serve as an independent living senior
housing facility;
8. $120,000 to the West Broadway Community
Development Corporation in Louisville, Kentucky for
development of a multi-purpose facility;
9. $30,000 to the Coalition for the Homeless of
Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky for a planning
grant;
10. $5,000,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for
the Neighborhood Initiative Program;
11. $500,000 to The Ohio State University for its
Neighborhoods Revitalization Initiative;
12. $8,000,000 for the State of South Dakota to
maintain the physical integrity of the Homestake Mine
in preparation for the potential development of a major
research facility on that site;
13. $1,100,000 to the Northwest Regional Planning
Commission in Spooner, Wisconsin for a revolving loan
fund to assist tornado-damaged areas in northwestern
Wisconsin;
14. $3,000,000 for the Institute for Scientific
Research for construction related to a high-technology
diversification initiative;
15. $3,000,000 for the Vandalia Heritage Foundation,
Inc. for community and neighborhood revitalization and
economic diversification initiatives;
16. $200,000 to Langlade County, Wisconsin for the
restoration of a historic building.
Additionally, not less than $3,400,000 is provided to be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund to support the
development of and modifications to information technology
systems which serve programs or activities under Community
Planning and Development.
The recommendation does not include $16,000,000 for the
Administration's proposed Colonias Gateway Initiative as this
initiative is not currently authorized and the Department has
not yet transmitted its proposal to the Congress for
consideration.
Requested language is not included to change the current
statutory formula for CDBG formula grants for certain
communities.
The Committee directs HUD to provide assistance to State
and local jurisdictions on how to reach out to people with
disabilities and their advocates when developing their
consolidated plans. The Committee again directs HUD to evaluate
consolidated plan submissions for the inclusion of the housing
needs of people with disabilities and the community's efforts
to remove impediments to fair housing for individuals with
disabilities. HUD is directed to provide a report to the
Committee on the results of this evaluation no later than 30
days after completion of its review of these submissions.
Language is included in the bill, similar to language
carried in prior Acts, which: (1) designates amounts available
for the various programs and activities funded under this
account; (2) limits administrative expenses to no more than 20
percent of any grant with certain exceptions; and (3) provides
three-year availability for obligation of funds provided under
this heading.
Language is also included which makes technical changes to
the recipients of grants provided in Public Laws 106-377 and
107-73.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program costs guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation..... $7,325,000 $275,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation...... 15,000,000 608,696,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request..... 7,325,000 275,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 -7,675,000 -333,696,000
appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 an appropriation of $7,325,000 for
the section 108 loan program, as requested, a decrease of
$7,675,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level. Of this amount,
$6,325,000 is provided for the costs to guarantee $275,000,000
in section 108 loan commitments in fiscal year 2003, 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. The recommendation reflects
a realistic estimate of anticipated program demand in fiscal
year 2003.
Language is included in the bill to provide two-year
availability for obligation of funds provided under this
account.
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $25,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 25,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 25,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 2002. The
recommendation retains language, proposed for deletion, to
continue funding the program under current statutory
authorities.
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)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $2,221,040,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 1,846,040,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 2,084,100,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +375,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +136,940,000
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 $2,221,040,000 for activities
funded under this account, an increase of $375,000,000 above
the fiscal year 2002 level and $136,940,000 above the request.
Funds are provided as follows:
--Formula Grants: $1,975,940,000 for formula grants
for participating jurisdictions (States, units of local
government and consortia of units local government) and
insular areas, a $227,152,000 increase--13 percent--
above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and
$104,668,000 above the request. Based on historical
usage, the Committee estimates that 36 percent of funds
will be used for new construction, 47 percent for
rehabilitation, 14 percent for acquisition, and 3
percent for tenant-based rental assistance. Of the
amount provided, pursuant to the statute, at least 15
percent of each participating jurisdiction's allocation
is reserved for housing which is developed, sponsored,
or owned by Community Housing Development Organizations
(CHDOs) The Committee believes that technical
assistance is an important tool for helping local CHDOs
respond to local affordable housing needs. While the
HOME statute authorizes technical assistance to be
provided through contracts with eligible non-profit
intermediaries as well as with other organizations
recommended by participating jurisdictions, the
Committee is concerned that HUD did not utilize non-
profit intermediaries in fiscal year 2002. Therefore,
the Committee has provided an additional $8,000,000
above the budget request and directs the Secretary to
use these additional funds to contract with qualified
non-profit intermediaries to provide CHDO technical
assistance in fisacl year 2003;
--Downpayment Assistance Initiative: $200,000,000 for
the Downpayment Assistance Initiative to be allocated
by the Secretary to participating jurisdictions to
provide downpayment assistance to low-income families
to help them achieve homeownership;
--Housing Counseling: $25,000,000 for housing
counseling programs, an increase of $5,000,000 above
the fiscal year 2002 level. The Committee has continued
funding for this activity within this account, instead
of creating a separate account as proposed in the
budget request;
--HOME/CHDO Technical Assistance: $20,000,000 for
technical assistance activities for State and local
participating jurisdictions and non-profit CHDOs, an
increase of $8,000,000 above the amount provided in
fiscal year 2002;
--Working Capital Fund: no less than $1,100,000 for
transfer to the Working Capital Fund to support the
development of, and modifications to, information
technology systems which serve programs and activities
under Community Planning and Development.
The Committee understands that a recent survey conducted by
the Manufactured Housing Institute found that many
participating jurisdictions were not aware of the fact that
manufactured housing is an eligible activity under the HOME
statute. The Committee is aware that HUD's guidance to field
offices regarding the eligibility of manufactured housing under
the HOME statute expired in 1995. The Committee directs HUD to
update and re-issue its guidance and notify participating
jurisdictions of this guidance in order to remove any ambiguity
or confusion regarding manufactured housing's eligibility under
the HOME statute. The Committee expects that such guidance will
include any downpayment assistance activities funded under this
account.
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 2003 recommendation....................... $1,250,00,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 1,122,525,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 1,129,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +127,475,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
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.
The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at
$1,250,000,000, as requested, an increase of $127,475,000 above
the amount provided in fiscal year 2002. The increase above the
request includes full funding for the costs associated with the
renewal of all expiring Shelter Plus Care contracts. Language
is included in the bill requiring funds to be made available
for this purpose.
The recommendation also includes $11,000,000 for the
national homeless data analysis project, $6,600,000 for
technical assistance, and $1,500,000 for the Interagency
Council on the Homeless for administrative costs, and no less
than $1,500,000 is for transfer to the Working Capital Fund for
development of and modifications to information technology
systems which serve activities under Community Planning and
Development.
In addition, the recommendation includes $10,000,000 to be
used for a two-year demonstration program to test innovate
approaches and document best practices to address the needs of
the homeless, with particular emphasis on programs which
address the housing needs of individuals suffering from the co-
morbidity of mental disorders and substance addiction. The
Committee intends that funds provided in this account would be
used to fund the housing component of a comprehensive approach
to addressing the needs to this population, with funding for
the necessary social services and treatment components to be
derived from other Federal departments and programs. Language
is included requiring this demonstration to be conducted in
consultation with, and full involvement of, the Interagency
Council on the Homeless. The Committee commends the Interagency
Council for its commitment to improving the coordination and
delivery of assistance to individual and families suffering
from homelessness and looks forward to working with the Council
on homeless issues. The Department is directed to provide
quarterly reports to the Committee on the progress of the
programs funded. In addition, at the conclusion of the
demonstration, the Department is to provide a final report to
the Committee summarizing the best practices learned from the
various approaches used by programs funded through the
demonstration, and recommendations for integrating these best
practices within the existing homeless delivery system.
Language is included in the bill which: (1) requires not
less than 30 percent of the funds appropriated, excluding
amounts made available for renewals under the shelter plus care
program, be used for permanent housing; (2) requires the
renewal of all expiring shelter plus care contracts; (3)
requires funding recipients to provide a 25 percent match for
social services activities; (4) requires all homeless programs
to coordinate their programs with mainstream health, social
services and employment programs; and (5) provides two-year
availability for obligation of funds provided under this
account.
Housing Programs
HOUSING FOR SPECIAL POPULATIONS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $1,100,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 1,024,151,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 1,024,151,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +75,849,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +75,849,000
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 $1,100,000,000 for the Housing for
special populations program account, an increase of $75,849,000
above the request and above the level provided in fiscal year
2002. The Committee recommendation also assumes $9,650,000 in
recaptures and cancellations will be available to support a
total program level of $1,109,650,000 in fiscal year 2003, an
increase of $85,449,000 above the fiscal year 2002 level.
The Committee recommendation includes $850,553,000 for
section 202 housing, of which $840,903,000 is provided as a
direct appropriation and $9,650,000 is derived from recaptures.
This represents an increase of $67,267,000 above the request
and above fiscal year 2002 level. Of the total amount provided
for section 202, $704,656,000 is for capital grants and project
rental assistance contracts (PRAC), $50,000,000 is for service
coordinators and the continuation of congregate services
grants, $30,000,000 is for the section 202 conversion grants,
$50,000,000 is for a planning grant program, $15,647,000 is for
the renewal of expiring project rental assistance contracts for
up to a one-year term, and no less than $250,000 is for
transfer to the Working Capital Fund to support the development
of and modifications to information technology systems which
support Housing for Special Populations activities.
The Committee recommendation does not include new language,
requested in the budget, allowing funds provided in this
account to remain available for expenditure for 12 years. While
the Committee is aware that grants awarded under the section
202 program include 5 years of years of operating expenses, the
Committee believes that 7 years to complete construction is
unduly long. As a result of this delay, $1,800,000,000 in
construction funds provided prior to fiscal year 2002 remains
unexpended, including $364,000,000 appropriated prior to fiscal
year 1999. At the same time, the demand for units built under
the program continues to rise. While the Committee appreciates
the complexities involved in building housing, the Committee
believes the current structure of the program should be re-
evaluated to ensure that those projects funded under this
account are brought on line in a more expeditious fashion. The
Committee believes that restructuring the program in a fashion
similar to other Federally-funded construction programs whereby
grants for planning and design, construction, and operations
are provided for separately, based upon the readiness of the
project, would result in improvements to the program.
The Committee believes that a transition to this type of
structure must be explored. Therefore, the Committee has
included $50,000,000 to be competitively awarded for grants to
non-profit organizations only to be used to cover the costs of
architectural engineering work, site control, and other
planning activities related to the development of supportive
housing for the elderly under the Section 202 program. It is
the Committee's intention that projects which successfully
complete the necessary planning and development activities and
achieved site control receive priority consideration under
future capital grant awards.
Language is also included in the bill directing the
Secretary to provide a report to the Committee no later than
March 1, 2003 which includes actions taken, or planned to be
taken, by the Department to accelerate the completion of
projects under this program, and an implementation plan to
restructure the program in a fashion which more closely
resembles other Federally-funded construction programs.
For the section 811 disabled housing program, the Committee
recommends $259,097,000, an increase of $18,232,000 above the
fiscal year 2002 level and $8,232,000 above the request. The
recommendation includes the following: $220,694,000 for capital
grants, PRAC, and voucher activities, $32,157,000 for renewal
costs of section 811 tenant-based rental assistance, $5,996,000
for expiring PRAC contracts for up to a one-year term, and no
less than $250,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund for
the development and maintenance of information technology
systems.
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 not included in the bill to authorize the
Secretary to waive any statutory or regulatory requirements
related to the section 202 and section 811 programs. While the
Committee has carried this waiver in the past, the Committee
believes that any statutory or regulatory problems associated
with these programs should be addressed through the appropriate
legislative or regulatory processes.
HOUSING COUNSELING
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... $35,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ \1\ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... \1\ 0
\1\ In fiscal year 2002, $20,000,000 was appropriated for housing
counseling as a set-aside under the HOME Investments Partnership
Program account.
Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 authorized HUD to provide housing counseling services to
homebuyers, homeowners, low and moderate income renters, and
the homeless.
The Committee does not recommend the creation of a separate
account for housing counseling activities, but instead has
provided $25,000,000 for this activity as a set-aside within
the HOME Investments Partnership Program account, an increase
of $5,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2002.
RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
(RESCISSION)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation...................... -$100,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation....................... 0
Fiscal year 2003 budget request...................... -100,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation....... 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request...... 0
The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized
the section 236 Rental Housing Assistance Program to subsidize
the monthly mortgage payment of an owner of a rental or
cooperative project in order to reduce the rents for lower
income tenants.
The Committee recommends a rescission of $100,000,000 from
amounts appropriated in prior years which are in excess of
amounts required to subsidize mortgages under section 236, as
requested.
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
to support affordable housing projects.
The recommendation includes language, modified from the
request, to allow surplus funds derived from rental collections
which were in excess of allowable rents levels to be returned
to project owners only for the purposes of rehabilitating and
renovating those properties.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $13,000,000
Offsetting collections................................ -13,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 13,566,000
Offsetting collections................................ -13,566,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 13,000,000
Offsetting collections................................ -13,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -566,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
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 $13,000,000 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 a decrease
of $566,000 below the fiscal year 2002 level.
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation of Limitation of Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation..................... $50,000,000 $165,000,000,000 $347,829,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation...................... 250,000,000 165,000,000,000 336,700,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request..................... 50,000,000 160,000,000,000 347,829,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation...... -200,000,000 0 +11,129,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request..... 0 +5,000,000,000 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 follows:
$165,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and $50,000,000 for direct
loans. The recommendation also includes $347,829,000 for
administrative expenses, of which $343,807,000 is transferred
to the Salaries and expenses account, and $4,022,000 is
transferred to the Office of Inspector General. In addition,
$85,720,000 is provided for administrative contract expenses,
of which no less than $21,360,000 is transferred to the Working
Capital Fund for development of and modifications to
information technology systems which serve programs or
activities under Housing Program or the Federal Housing
Administration.
Language is continued, carried in previous years,
appropriating additional administrative expenses in certain
circumstances.
The Committee encourages the Department to consider the
usefulness of automated collateral management systems as a
means to detect predatory loans.
GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation of Limitation of Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation. $50,000,000 $23,000,000,000 $223,716,400 $15,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation.. 50,000,000 23,000,000,000 216,100,000 15,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request. 50,000,000 21,000,000,000 223,716,400 15,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 0 0 +7,616 0
appropriation..................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 0 +2,000,000,000 0 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: $23,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and
$50,000,000 for direct loans, the same levels provided in
fiscal year 2002.
As requested, the recommendation includes a $15,000,000
direct appropriation for credit subsidy. 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 $223,716,400 for
administrative expenses, of which $204,395,400 is transferred
to the Salaries and Expenses account and $19,321,000 is
transferred to the Office of Inspector General. An additional
$93,780,000 is provided for non-overhead administrative
expenses, of which no less than $14,240,000 is transferred to
the Working Capital Fund for development of and modifications
to information technology systems which serve activities under
Housing Programs or Federal Housing Administration.
Language is continued, carried in previous years,
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 2003 recommendation. $200,000,000,000 $10,343,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation.. 200,000,000,000 9,383,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request. 200,000,000,000 10,343,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 0 +960
appropriation..................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 2002. The
Committee also recommends $10,343,000 for administrative
expenses to be transferred to the Salaries and Expenses
account, as requested, $960,000 above the amount provided in
fiscal year 2002.
Policy Development and Research
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $47,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 50,250,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 47,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -3,250,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
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 $47,000,000 for research and technology,
as requested. Of this amount, $7,000,000 is provided for the
Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH)
Initiative.
Language is included making funds available for obligation
for two years.
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $45,899,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 45,899,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 45,899,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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. Of this amount, $25,649,000 is for FHAP
and $20,250,000 is for FHIP, the same amounts provided in
fiscal year 2002.
The Committee expects HUD to continue to provide quarterly
reports on obligation and expenditure of these funds,
delineated by each program and activity, with the first such
report due no later than February 15, 2003.
Office of Lead Hazard Control
LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $126,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 109,758,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 126,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +16,242,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 $126,000,000 for this account as
requested, an increase of $16,242,000 above the fiscal year
2002 level, as follows:
--$96,000,000 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
$16,000,000 increase above the fiscal year 2002 level for these
activities as requested.
--$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.
--$10,000,000 is for technical assistance and support to
State and local agencies and private property owners, a
$242,000 increase over fiscal year 2002 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 and provide a grant if warranted.
Management and Administration
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By transfer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Native Hawaiian
Appropriation FHA funds GNMA funds CPD Title VI housing housing Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2003 recommendation......................................... $530,299,000 $548,202,000 $10,343,000 $1,000,000 $150,000 $200,000 $35,000 $1,090,229,000
FY 2002 appropriation.......................................... 556,067,000 530,457,000 9,383,000 1,000,000 150,000 200,000 35,000 1,097,292,000
FY 2003 budget request......................................... 510,299,000 548,202,000 10,343,000 1,000,000 150,000 200,000 35,000 1,070,229,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation................. -25,768,000 +17,745,000 +960,000 0 0 0 0 -7,063,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request................ +20,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $1,090,229,000
for the salaries and expenses of the Department, a net decrease
of $7,063,000 below the fiscal year 2002 appropriation. The
recommendation reflects an $85,000,000 reduction due to the
transfer of information technology funding previously provided
for in this account to a new Working Capital Fund account in
fiscal year 2003 as requested in the budget submission.
Therefore, the recommendation represents a net increase of
$77,937,000 above the comparable fiscal year 2002 level, of
which $57,937,000 is for inflationary increases necessary to
support 9,100 full-time equivalents, as requested, and
$20,000,000 is available to the Chief Financial Officer only
for activities to improve financial management and funds
control in the Department.
Language is included in the bill setting forth the amounts
provided for the various offices funded under this heading as
follows:
Office of Housing....................................... $294,154,000
Office of Public and Indian Housing..................... 153,971,000
Office of Community Planning and Development............ 76,164,000
Office of Policy Development and Research............... 19,147,000
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity............ 59,973,000
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control......... 2,634,000
Government National Mortgage Association................ 7,233,000
Departmental Management................................. 22,344,000
Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives........ 2,606,000
Office of the Chief Financial Officer................... 53,986,000
Office of the General Counsel........................... 64,486,000
Office of Field Policy and Management................... 77,410,000
Office of Administration................................ 241,761,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Management and Administration................ 1,070,299,000
The Department may reallocate funds between the amounts
specified above for these offices in accordance with operating
plan and/or reprogramming procedures. Amounts provided are
consistent with the Department's budget submission, excluding
amounts assumed contingent upon enactment of legislative
changes to legacy retirement costs, updated to include the
effects of the reorganization implemented during fiscal year
2002. Consistent with modifications to the original budget
submission, the object classification distribution, which shall
also serve as the basis for operating plan and reprogramming
changes is as follows:
Personal Services--$860,693,000
Travel and Transportation of Persons--$25,508,000
Transportation of Things--$700,000
Rent, Communications and Utilities--$124,572,000
Printing and Reproduction--$4,644,000
Other Services--$77,807,000
Supplies and Materials--$4,932,000
Furniture and Equipment--$1,180,000
Indemnities--$194,000
Operating Plans/Reprogramming Requirements.--The Committee
appreciates the need for management flexibility to allocate
management and administrative resources or reorganize offices
and programs to address changing requirements at the
departments and agencies funded in the bill, including HUD. To
provide such flexibility, while ensuring appropriate
consultation and oversight, the departments and some agencies
are required to submit operating plans and reprogramming
letters for Committee approval. Guidance regarding operating
plan and reprogramming requirements is described in greater
detail at the beginning of this report. The Committee is
concerned that HUD has not consistently adhered to these
requirements and instead has reallocated resources among
programs, projects and activities, reorganized offices and
created new offices without prior notification and approval by
the Committee. The Committee expects established procedures to
be followed so that the Committee is kept informed of, and
therefore is better able to respond to, changing requirements
at the Department. Therefore, HUD is reminded that operating
plans or reprogramming requirements apply to any reallocation
of resources totaling more than $500,000 among any program,
project or activity; any proposed creation or elimination of
any program or office, regardless of the dollar amount
involved; and any reorganization, regardless of the dollar
amount involved. Object classification changes above $500,000
also are subject to operating plan or reprogramming
requirements. Unless otherwise specified in this Act or the
accompanying report, the approved level for any program,
project, or activity is that amount detailed for that program,
project, or activity in the Department's annual detailed budget
justification document. These requirements apply to all funds
provided to the Department. The Department is expected to make
any necessary changes during fiscal year 2003 to its current
procedures and systems to ensure that it is able to meet the
necessary operating plan and reprogramming requirements applied
to other agencies funded in the bill.
Funds Control/Financial Management.--For years, the
Committee, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) have raised concerns about the lack
of adequate policies and procedures in place at the Department
to ensure appropriate funds control and financial management,
including its inability to identify and correct deficiencies in
a timely manner in accordance with applicable statutes,
regulations, and circulars. Every Federal department or agency
has a responsibility to obligate and expend its funds in
compliance with all statutes, regulations, and OMB circulars,
including compliance with the Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA). The
Committee expects each department and agency to have vigorous
funds control and financial management policies and procedures
in place so that it may meet its stewardship responsibilities.
Further, the Committee expects each Department or agency to
take all necessary corrective actions to expeditiously resolve
any violation consistent with the law.
Last year, the Committee became aware that the Department
was responsible for three violations of the ADA which occurred
between 1998 and 2001, and became increasingly concerned over
the Department's failure to make timely formal determination of
such ADA violations as required by law. At the same time, OMB
concerns over HUD's funds control systems had become so severe
that in November 2001, OMB warned the Department it would
revoke the Department's authority to hold and distribute its
funding unless HUD updated and strengthened its funds control
systems. In response to these concerns, the Committee directed
its Surveys and Investigations staff to review the Department's
established procedures to investigate and enforce the ADA. This
review found that the Department lacked adequate funds control
policies and procedures with respect to oversight, checks and
balances, automated systems, audits, and training.
Based on the findings, the Committee has included bill
language and additional funding above the request to assist the
Department's efforts to improve funds control and financial
management systems. The Committee notes that the authority and
responsibility to ensure compliance with the ADA and other
appropriations laws and regulations rests with the Office of
the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). Therefore, the Committee
has included $21,000,000 and bill language to ensure that the
OCFO has the tools it needs to fulfill this responsibility.
Language is also included in the bill which vests the OCFO with
the sole authority to investigate, determine, and report
compliance with the ADA and all other appropriations laws;
establishes an appropriations law division within the OCFO and
transfers no less than four appropriations attorneys from the
Office of General Counsel (OGC) to the OCFO for this new
division; reaffirms well-established appropriations law related
to the point of obligation of funds; requires the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) to establish control of and maintain
adequate accounting systems as well as policies and procedures
to investigate and determine potential and actual violations;
requires the CFO to submit a revised departmental funds control
handbook to the Committee; and requires the OCFO to determine
that any official or employee of the Department designated as
an allotment holder of funds has received appropriate training
and has in place adequate funds control systems.
To ensure that the OCFO has the necessary resources to
fulfill these responsibilities, the Committee recommends
$21,000,000 for the OCFO to be used exclusively for funds
control improvements including automated financial management
systems improvements, additional training of departmental
employees, establishment of a division of appropriations law
within the OCFO, and ADA compliance audits of all departmental
programs. Of this amount, $20,000,000 is provided as an
increase above the request for this account, and $1,000,000 has
been transferred from the OGC to the OCFO to reflect the
personnel transfer included in the bill. To improve audit and
compliance at the Department, the Committee directs the OCFO to
contract for independent audit services by an entity with
adequate ADA and appropriations law training, experience, and
resources to conduct rotating ADA compliance audits of all
Department programs, with each program audited no less than
once every three years. All audit reports shall be directed to
the Secretary, the CFO and the Budget Officer.
The Committee believes that funds control and financial
management improvements are critical and looks forward to
working with the Department toward this goal.
Budget Submission.--While the Committee appreciates the
Department's efforts last year to improve the information
included in its annual Budget Justification, the Committee
believes that further improvements are required. The Committee
reiterates that object classification displays are supplements,
not substitutes, for detailed displays which delineate prior
year, current year, and requested funding levels for each
program, project, or activity within each account. In addition,
the Committee directs HUD to submit a detailed budget
justification for the Management and Administration account
which includes prior year, current year, and requested
position, FTE, and funding levels for each program within each
office, delineated by headquarters and field office components.
The Committee expects HUD, in consultation with the Committee,
to further revise its detailed budget justifications to address
these concerns as part of its fiscal year 2004 budget
submission.
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.
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $276,300,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... $276,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ \1\ +276,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
\1\ Previously, funds were provided for by transfer from various HUD
accounts.
The Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 3535 to provide necessary capital for the development
of, modifications to, and infrastructure for Department-wide
information technology systems, and for the continuing
operation of both Department-wide and program-specific
information technology systems.
The Committee recommends $351,400,000 for the Working
Capital Fund, a $300,000 increase over the fiscal year 2002
comparable level, of which $276,300,000 is provided as a
separate account to support Department-wide information
technology systems activities, as requested in the budget
submission. An additional $75,100,000 is provided by transfer
from the following accounts to support program-specific
information technology systems, as requested in the budget
submission:
Salaries and expenses--$10,500,000
FHA, Mutual mortgage insurance fund--$21,360,000
FHA, General and special risk insurance fund--
$14,240,000
Community development fund--$3,400,000
HOME investment partnerships program--$1,100,000
Homeless assistance--$1,500,000
Public housing capital fund--$18,600,000
Native American Indian block grants--$600,000
Housing certificate fund--$3,000,000
Housing for special populations--$500,000
Office of Inspector General--$300,000
In prior years, all information technology system
activities were provided for through transfers from the various
accounts within the bill.
The Committee remains committed to improving HUD's
information technology capacity. To a large extent, both HUD's
and Congress' ability to oversee the effectiveness of HUD's
programs is undermined due to the failure of HUD's information
systems to provide the information necessary to assess program
performance and ensure effective resource management. The
Committee understands that information technology systems
improvements are organizationally and technically challenging
endeavors. Effective development and implementation of such
improvements requires strong oversight by the Department,
strong program management, early and thorough planning, user
input, clearly defined systems objectives and requirements, and
appropriate milestones. Absent a clearly defined framework and
implementation plan, the Committee is concerned that such
endeavors will be vulnerable to uncontrollable cost growth and
mission failure. Based on these concerns, for the last two
years the Department was directed to provide the Committee with
a comprehensive multi-year information technology plan as part
of its budget submissions. In addition, the fiscal year 2002
conference report directed HUD not to expend any of the funds
on planning and development for a re-competition of its
information technology platform and information technology
support services platform--the HUD Information Technology
Services (HITS) contract--until such a plan was provided. The
Department did not deliver the required plan and despite the
Committee's direction, the Department moved forward with the
re-competition.
The Committee understands that the HITS contract is to be a
performance-based, outcome-oriented contract which will provide
the entire physical infrastructure and infrastructure support
services to satisfy HUD's information processing requirements.
The Committee questions how HUD can successfully select and
manage a HITS contract that will fully meet the Department's
long-term needs in a cost effective fashion when HUD still
lacks a comprehensive five year information technology plan
identifying the information technology needs to be supported by
that contract. Therefore, language is included in the bill
prohibiting any funds from being used to award a new HITS
contract until 90 days after the Department submits a
comprehensive five year information technology plan to the
Committee which must include, but is not limited to, the
following: (1) an inventory of all current HUD information
technology systems and the operational status of each system;
(2) a detailed documentation of user systems needs, as
identified by the user community; (3) a detailed documentation
of systems requirements and systems architecture which
addresses the highest priority user needs; (4) a detailed
procurement strategy which incorporates appropriate risk
management and contract management strategies, including
appropriate milestones and deliverables; (5) an evaluation of
the ability of separate HUD systems to be integrated to
maximize efficiencies; (6) a detailed plan identifying the
strategy for integrating existing systems and systems upgrades
into the HITS platform, including an identification of
contractor responsibilities for systems integration and
support; and (6) a complete development and deployment schedule
for all planned HUD systems including detailed cost estimates
for each system. The Committee directs HUD to consult with the
Committee as it develops this plan. Further, the Committee
encourages the Department to use funds provided for the Working
Capital Fund to contract with outside information technology
experts as necessary to successfully develop this five year
plan.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation FHA funds Public housing Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation............. $73,341,000 $23,343,000 \1\ 0 $96,684,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation.............. 66,555,000 22,343,000 \1\ $5,000,000 93,898,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request............. 74,341,000 \1\ 23,343,000 \1\0 -97,684,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 +6,786,000 +1,000,000 \1\ -5,000,000 +2,786,000
appropriation..............................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget -1,000,000 0 0 -1,000,000
request....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2002, a transfer was provided to the Office of Inspector General from the Public Operating
Subsidies account.
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 $96,684,000 for the Office of
Inspector General as requested, an increase of $2,786,000 above
the amount provided in fiscal year 2002. Of this amount,
$23,343,000 is derived from transfers 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)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... -$8,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ -6,700,000
FY 2003 budget request................................ -8,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -1,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 $8,000,000 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 2003 recommendation....................... $30,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 27,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 30,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +3,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
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 $30,000,000,
an increase of $3,000,000 above fiscal year 2002 level and the
same amount included in 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 Secretary to waive certain
requirements related to an assisted living pilot project, as
requested.
Section 206 continues language, carried in previous years
in title IV of the Act, requiring funds appropriated to be
distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.
Section 207 continues language, carried in previous years
in title IV of the Act, regarding the availability of funds
subject to the Government Corporation Control Act and the
Housing Act of 1950.
Section 208 continues language, carried in previous years
in title IV of the Act, regarding allocation of funds in excess
of the budget estimates.
Section 209 continues language, carried in previous years
in title IV of the Act, regarding the expenditure of funds for
corporations and agencies subject to the Government Corporation
Control Act.
Section 210 continues language, carried in previous years
in title IV of the Act, requiring submission of a spending plan
for technical assistance, training and management improvement
activities prior to the expenditure of funds.
The Committee does not recommend four new administrative
provisions requested in the budget.
TITLE III
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $35,246,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 35,466,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 30,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -220,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +4,846,000
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 $35,246,000 for fiscal year 2003
to administer, operate and maintain the Commission's monuments,
cemeteries, and memorials throughout the world. The Committee
is aware of the severe operational difficulties experienced by
the Commission in France resulting from that country's adoption
of a 35 hour work week and has therefore included $846,000
above the budget request for salaries and benefits of up to 20
additional ABMC employees. The Committee expects that these
additional employees will be used on either a full or part-time
basis to meet the manpower needs of any of the ABMC cemeteries
or offices where a manpower shortage has or could potentially
cause delays in necessary maintenance and operations.
The Committee has also included an additional $4,000,000 as
a second installment towards the cost of planning and
construction of a new visitor center at the Normandy American
Cemetery in France. The cemetery averages nearly two million
visitors per year, and the existing facilities are over 40
years old and inadequate to serve this large number of
visitors. The new and expanded visitor center can provide a
fuller array of interpretive services to put the D-Day landings
and the following battles 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. As ABMC has begun initial planning of this
project and may soon move to design and other pre-construction
activities, the Committee withdraws its limitation of
expenditures for non-construction related costs as noted in the
2002 appropriations legislation.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $6,500,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 7,850,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request....................... 7,850,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -1,350,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. -1,350,000
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
$6,500,000, a decrease of $1,350,000 from the level for fiscal
year 2002.
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.
In the five years since the Board began operations, the
Committee has received three independent reports identifying
serious deficiencies in the management, control, and direction
of the Board's activities. The Committee also finds that
despite its past warnings against pursuing outreach and data
activities before becoming fully operational, the Board has
continued to engage in these activities from limited funds and
has pursued these activities at the expense of overextending
its technical staff.
Accordingly, the Committee directs that the Office of
Prevention, Outreach and Policy proposed in the budget request
is to be limited to no more than two positions and that the
three additional positions proposed for this Office be
transferred to the Office of Investigations and Safety Programs
to fill the need for technical investigators. The Committee
also expects that the Board vet future reorganizations of
offices, programs, and activities with the Committee prior to
the planned implementation of such reorganizations, consistent
with the language at the front of this report. Additionally,
the Committee directs that unobligated funds from fiscal year
2002, which are available through fiscal year 2003, be used
first and foremost for hiring and developing technical staff.
At the time of this Committee print, close to $1,400,000, or
more than seventeen percent of the fiscal year 2002
appropriation, was unobligated and carried over from fiscal
year 2002.
Additionally, the Committee directs that of the amounts
approved in this appropriation, the Board must limit transfers
of funds between object classifications to not more than
$50,000 without prior notification of the Committees on
Appropriations. Changes from the budget request in excess of
$250,000 shall be subject to the normal Committee reprogramming
guidelines as outlined at the beginning of this report. No
changes may be made to any expense as reflected in the budget
justification, except as approved by the Committees on
Appropriations, if it is construed by the Committee to be
policy or change in policy. It is the intent of the Committee
that all carryover funds for the Board, including recaptures
and deobligations, are subject to the normal reprogramming
requirements outlined above and at the beginning of this
report. The Committee looks forward to working with the new
leadership of the Board to correct continued management
problems identified by GAO and the Inspector General for the
Board.
Department of the Treasury
Community Development Financial Institutions
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $80,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 80,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 68,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. +12,000,000
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
provides grants, loans and technical assistance to new and
existing community development financial institutions such as
community development banks, community development credit
unions, revolving loan funds and micro-loan funds. Recipients
must use the funds to support mortgage, small business and
economic development lending in currently underserved,
distressed neighborhoods. The 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 2003. The recommendation is an
increase of $12,000,000 to the budget request and the same as
the fiscal year 2002 appropriation. The Committee
recommendation includes bill language designating $2,000,000
for financial and technical assistance for Native American,
Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native communities.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $57,117,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 55,200,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 56,767,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +1,917,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. +350,000
The Consumer Product Safety Act established the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC), 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 $57,117,000
for fiscal year 2003, an increase of $1,917,000 over the fiscal
year 2002 appropriation and $350,000 above the amount included
in the budget request. The increase provided is for additional
salary costs not provided for in the budget request.
The Committee has not included language requested as a
General Provision in this bill to exempt CPSC litigation travel
from the requirements of Section 401 of this Act. The Committee
finds that there are sufficient opportunities to address
changes to litigation travel needs through the Committee's
normal reprogramming procedures.
The Committee is concerned that incidents related to
hairdryers from a specific manufacturer may have increased
since 1994. It is unclear to the Committee how these incidents
compare with and what impact these have on national injury
statistics. Accordingly, the Committee directs CPSC to provide
a report detailing injuries related to specific hairdryers of
concern and any actions taken in recalling defective products
within this category. To the extent data is available to CPSC,
the report shall include injury trend data, by manufacturer,
since 1980. The Committee directs CPSC to provide this report
by January 2003.
The Committee remains concerned about fire injuries related
to children's sleepwear and the limits of data currently
available as identified by GAO in its April 1999 report. The
Committee emphasizes that it is important that CPSC continue
with its efforts to reach out to other interested groups to
improve its data collection efforts related to children's
sleepwear injuries. The Committee therefore directs that CPSC
provide an annual report to the Committee addressing outreach
efforts made to interested groups to improve its data
collection efforts, enforcement actions taken regarding the
current children's sleepwear regulation, and updates on
children's sleepwear related injuries, including the number of
reported injuries and deaths.
The Committee is also concerned about whether small sample
sizes of injuries, particularly burns related specifically to
children's sleepwear, make it difficult for the CPSC to achieve
the most accurate annual national injury estimates. The
Committee therefore directs that CPSC provide a report to the
Committee addressing improvements made in data collection since
the GAO 1999 report and those still needed for developing the
necessary measures to track trends in injuries related to
children's sleepwear and to provide more accurate national
estimates. The report should also identify the cost estimates
for implementing the recommended changes. CPSC is directed to
provide both reports to the Committee by April 2003.
Corporation for National and Community Service
NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS OPERATING EXPENSES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $0
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 401,980,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 631,342,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -401,980,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... -631,342,000
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 through 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 2003 budget request for program and
administrative activities of the Corporation for National and
Community Service is $631,342,000, which would have
dramatically expanded the program and provided earmarked funds
to the Points of Light Foundation and America's Promise. The
Committee recommends eliminating Corporation in fiscal year
2003 and has provided authority for prior year funding to be
used for the orderly termination of operations.
The Committee directs the Corporation to submit an
operating plan within 90 days of enactment of this bill and
abide by the reprogramming requirements outlined at the
beginning of this report.
The Committee is not providing funds for the proposed
Senior Service Initiative. The Corporation should instead
propose streamlining and consolidating the already existing
senior programs and encourage Americorp opportunities for
retirees and young adults alike.
The Committee recommends funding for America's Promise
should the Corporation be funded in the future. In addition,
the Committee recommends funding for the U.S. Soccer Foundation
for the National Soccer Program Development Initiative.
Should the Corporation's programs be reauthorized and
funded in the future, the Committee believes that Corporation
grants should be a catalyst for service organizations, but not
a regular funding stream year after year. The Committee directs
the Corporation to add as a part of its application process an
element requiring all applicants to outline how the
organization will successfully operate in the future without
Corporation funding. The Committee directs the Corporation to
include in the fiscal year 2003 operating plan the details of
how this new requirement was integrated into the application
process.
Further, the Committee is encouraged by the Corporation's
goal to improve the accountability of its grantees. The
Committee directs the Corporation to establish performance
measures with each grantee. The Corporation shall require any
grantee that does not achieve the established levels of
performance on the measures, as determined by the Corporation,
to submit to the Corporation for approval a plan of correction.
If the grantee fails to achieve the established levels of
performance, the Committee directs the Corporation to either
reduce some portion or terminate the entire amount of
assistance provided to the grantee consistent with established
due process requirements.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $5,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 5,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 2003, the same as the budget request and the fiscal
year 2002 funding level.
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $14,326,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 13,221,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 14,612,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +1,105,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... -286,000
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 $14,326,000 for the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $1,105,000
above the current year appropriation and $286,000 below the
budget request.
The bill also identifies $1,045,000 of the funds provided
to fully fund the pro bono representation program.
The Committee is not recommending funds for purchasing all
public spaces in the parking garage of the private building
that currently houses the Court. The Committee strongly urges
the Court to continue working with the General Services
Administration, the building owners, and the other tenants to
come to an agreeable solution. If a solution is not agreed to,
the Committee recommends the Court look for alternative Federal
office space to meet its needs.
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $32,445,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 22,537,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 24,445,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +9,908,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +8,000,000
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 2001, the remains of 289,494
persons were interred/inured in these cemeteries. There were
3,727 interments and 2,212 inurnments in fiscal year 2001. It
is projected that there will be 3,925 interments and 2,700
inurnments in fiscal year 2003. In addition to its principal
function as a national cemetery, Arlington is the site of
approximately 3,100 nonfuneral ceremonies each year and has
approximately 4,000,000 visitors annually.
The Committee recommends $32,445,000 for operations and
maintenance of the Cemetery, an increase of $9,908,000 over the
fiscal year 2002 funding level and $8,000,000 over the budget
request. The Committee has provided an additional $6,000,000
over the budget request for much-needed repairs to the Memorial
Amphitheater in fiscal year 2003.
The Committee has also provided an additional $2,000,000
over the budget request to accelerate phase II of the land
utilization program for Arlington National Cemetery with
respect to the development plan for section 90. There is a
growing demand for burial space in Arlington National Cemetery.
Funding for this project will accelerate the completion of a
boundary wall that will provide space for an additional
columbarium in that section.
Department of Health and Human Services
National Institutes of Health
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $84,074,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 70,228,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... \1\ 74,471,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +13,846,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +9,603,000
\1\ Budget request does not include a proposed transfer of $1,603,000
from the National Cancer Institute.
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 2003 the Committee has recommended a
funding level of $84,074,000, an increase of $9,603,000 above
the budget request and an increase of $13,846,000 over the
fiscal year 2002 level. The Committee's recommendation assumes
inclusion of $1,603,000 proposed by the Administration to be
transferred from the National Cancer Institute to NIEHS, but
not included in the budget documents forwarded to the Congress.
The budget request and the Committee's recommendation thus
provide $48,936,000 for research and $27,138,000 for the worker
training program.
In addition, the Committee has included $8,000,000
previously provided but not requested by the Administration as
a contingent emergency in the fiscal 2002 supplemental
appropriations legislation. These funds, which include
$4,000,000 each for worker training and research programs, are
intended to be used to undertake and continue research and
worker training programs related to the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $88,688,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 78,235,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 77,388,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +10,453,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +11,300,000
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 2003, the Committee has recommended a
funding level of $88,688,000, an increase of $10,453,000 above
the fiscal year 2002 funding level and an increase of
$11,300,000 above the budget request. The Committee's
recommendation provides the budget request as well as an
additional $11,300,000 provided by the Congress in the fiscal
2002 supplemental appropriations legislation but not requested
as a contingent emergency by the Administration. Of this
additional amount, $1,800,000 is to reimburse ATSDR for direct
and indirect costs related to the events of September 11, 2001
which were not assumed in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation,
and $9,500,000 is to be used to enhance the capacity of the
States to respond to chemical terrorism events. As noted in the
past, these and similar expenses are expected to be ``one time
only'' costs of the Agency to assist the States and are not to
become recurring costs in support of new State personnel.
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 2003 recommendation....................... $8,204,465,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 8,078,813,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 7,620,513,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +125,652,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +583,952,000
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, Brownfields, 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. Under existing statutory authority, the Agency
may contribute to specific homeland security efforts and,
additionally, may participate 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 (CERCLA), as amended.
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act of 2001 (amending CERCLA).
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 2003, the Committee has recommended a total
program and support level of $8,204,532,000, an increase of
$125,652,000 above last year's appropriated level and an
increase of $583,952,000 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 2003 recommendation \1\................... $714,578,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 698,089,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 670,008,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +16,489,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +44,570,000
\1\ Total does not include transfer of $86,168,000 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
$714,578,000 for Science and Technology for fiscal year 2003,
an increase of $16,489,000 above last year's spending level,
and an increase of $44,570,000 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. $2,500,000 for the National Decentralized Water Resource
Capacity Development Project, in coordination with EPA, for
continued training and research and development of the program.
5. $5,000,000 for the STAR Fellowship program. The
Committee's recommendation restores this program, eliminated in
the budget request, to more than 50% of its 2002 funding level.
6. $1,000,000 to the American Water Works Association as a
one-time grant to assist AWWA in its drinking water security
training activities.
7. $500,000 for the University of South Alabama, Center for
Estuarine Research.
8. $500,000 for the city of San Bernardino, California/San
Bernardino Valley Metropolitan Water District for the Lakes and
Streams project.
9. $750,000 to the University of California, Riverside for
continued research of advanced vehicle design, advanced
transportation systems, vehicle emissions, and atmospheric
pollution at the CE-CERT facility.
10. $500,000 to the Monterey County, California Water
Resources Association for planning activities for the Salinas
Valley Water Project.
11. $2,000,000 for the International Center for Water
Technology at California State University, Fresno.
12. $1,000,000 for the Central California Air Quality Study
conducted by the Central California Air Quality Coalition.
13. $800,000 to Barry University for minority science
training.
14. $1,000,000 to the University of Miami in Florida for
the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science for
continued research into coral reefs.
15. $300,000 to Florida International University to utilize
non-destructive techniques to characterize and develop
contamination strategies.
16. $250,000 for ongoing research and development of
multipurpose sensors for detecting and analyzing environmental
contaminants at Boise State University, the University of Idaho
and the University of Utah.
17. $500,000 to the Illinois Waste Management and Research
Center through the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
for implementation of a program to increase the adoption of
innovative pollution prevention technologies by businesses.
18. $200,000 for the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium.
19. $500,000 for the National Center for Manufacturing
Sciences in Ann Arbor, Michigan for assisting EPA in meeting
the Strategic Goals Program in the metal finishing sector.
20. $500,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute for
development and demonstration of environmental cleanup
technologies.
21. $500,000 for the Great Lakes Hydrological Center of
Excellence at Western Michigan University.
22. $200,000 to Montana State University Bozeman to develop
a Water Center Drinking Water Assistance Program for Small
Systems.
23. $250,000 to the Desert Research Institute for Clean
Water Research of the Western Great Basin Rivers.
24. $7,650,000 for the Environmental Systems Center of
Excellence at Syracuse University for research and technology
transfer in the fields of indoor environmental quality and
urban ecosystems sustainability.
25. $200,000 to the State University of New York, College
of Environmental Sciences and Forestry for research and
outreach at the Roosevelt Sustainability Center.
26. $500,000 to the Syracuse Research Corporation in
Syracuse, New York, a not for profit corporation, for the
continuation of environmental research at its Probability Risk
Assessment Center.
27. $1,000,000 for the Integrated Petroleum Environmental
Consortium.
28. $500,000 for the University of South Carolina for a
geologic study for uranium groundwater contamination.
29. $2,000,000 for the Mickey Leland National Urban Air
Toxics Research Center.
30. $500,000 for the Texas Institute for Applied
Environmental Research at Tarleton State University.
31. $500,000 for the Texas Institute for Environmental
Assessment and Management at the University of North Texas,
Denton, Texas.
32. $970,000 for the Canaan Valley Institute in close
coordination with the Regional Vulnerability and Assessment
(ReVA) initiative to develop research and educational tools
using integrative technologies to predict future environmental
risks and support informed, proactive decision-making to be
undertaken in conjunction with the Highlands action program.
33. $500,000 for Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Dauphin Island,
Alabama, for coastal ecosystem research.
In addition to the funds provided through appropriations
directly to this account, the Committee has recommended that
$86,168,000 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.
In order to increase the flexibility of the Office of
Research and Development in the hiring of necessary and
appropriate personnel, the Committee has included bill language
which will give EPA the ability to contract for the temporary
or intermittent services of students or recent graduates.
Identical language was used in Public Law 106-113 to provide
such authority to the United States Geological Survey.
The Committee continues to support the partnership between
the EPA and the National Technology Transfer Center and directs
that the Agency continue the cooperative agreement at the
fiscal year 2001 funding level.
The Committee is concerned with the progress of completing
IRIS assessments in a timely manner. The Agency is strongly
urged to provide adequate resources to the IRIS program. The
Agency is also expected to consolidate all IRIS resources to be
centrally managed by the Office of Research and Development to
accelerate both the development of IRIS values as well as
update current ones.
The Committee has long been aware of the environmental
concerns in and around the Coeur d'Alene River Basin in
northern Idaho resulting from over a century of hard rock
mining and decades of ore smelting. This region at one time
produced nearly 50% of the nation's silver and about 30% each
of the nation's lead and zinc. However, smelting operations
ceased in the early 1980's and, since 1983, a 21 square-mile
area surrounding the Bunker Hill mining and smelting complex
has been on EPA's Superfund National Priority List (NPL). The
second largest Superfund site on the NPL, this area has been
undergoing remediation activities throughout the 1990's. In
1997, EPA expanded its investigations beyond the Bunker Hill
site and, in October 2001, proposed a 20 to 30 year remediation
program on an area that would grow from 21 square miles to
approximately 1500 square miles. Predictably, this plan to
exponentially expand the mandated remediation area has resulted
in severe criticism and has brought to question the scientific
and technical merits of EPA's assessments and decision making
process.
Because of the unique nature of EPA's proposal, the
Committee believes it is particularly important to have the
benefit of an independent, scientific review of the decision.
Accordingly, $850,000 is made available from within available
funds for the Agency to contract with the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) so that the NAS can independently evaluate the
Coeur d'Alene Basin Superfund site in its examination of EPA's
scientific and technical practices in Superfund site
definition, human and ecological assessment, remedial planning,
and decision making. NAS is further expected to assess the
adequacy and application of EPA's own Superfund guidance in
terms of currently available scientific and technical knowledge
and best practices, as well as to provide guidance to
facilitate scientifically based and timely decision making for
the Coeur d'Alene site. While the NAS report may discuss
various remedial options, the Committee does not expect the NAS
to recommend a specific remedial strategy for this site.
The Agency is directed to execute a contract with the NAS
for this study within 120 days of approval of this legislation,
and the NAS is expected to complete the study within 24 months
of the contract date. In directing this study, it is not the
intent of the Committee that ongoing and planned remediation
activities with the original 21 square mile NPL site be
disrupted or adversely impacted in any way.
The Committee is impressed by very recent technological
breakthroughs in the delivery of ultra-high intensity pulsed
ultraviolet (PUV) light that may present advances in
environmentally safe disinfection of water and wastewater as
well as protections and methods for defeating air- and water-
borne biological and chemical attacks. The Committee
understands that newly commercialized PUV machines deliver
light at very high energy levels utilizing advanced technology
that eliminates environmental compromises involving the use of
toxic chemicals and/or mercury-based lamps. The Committee
believes that such technology could present a significant
advancement in the areas of water treatment and security, and
requests that the Agency prepare and make available to the
Committee within 120 days of passage of the bill a report which
details the potential impact of such new PUV technology on
process safety, plant safety and security, and potential
defense of biological terrorism in public water and wastewater
treatment applications as well as public and private buildings.
The Committee continues to support the Gulf Coast Hazardous
Research Center and directs that the Agency continue funding
for the Center at no less than the fiscal year 2002 level.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $2,111,677,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 2,054,511,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 2,047,704,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +57,166,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +63,973,000
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 2003, the Committee has recommended
$2,111,677,000 for Environmental Programs and Management, an
increase of $63,973,000 above the budget request and an
increase of $57,166,000 above the fiscal year 2002 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 recommendation includes the following
changes to the funding levels included in the budget
submission:
1. $21,000,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Program, an
increase of $349,000 above the budget request;
2. $15,500,000 for the Great Lakes National Program
Office, an increase of $372,000 above the request;
3. $23,521,000 for the National Estuary Program, an
increase of $4,275,000 above the budget request;
4. $5,500,000 for the Gulf of Mexico program, an
increase of $1,173,000 above the budget request;
5. $2,000,000 for the Long Island Sound Program
Office, an increase of $1,523,000 above the budget
request;
6. $5,000,000 for Environmental Justice programs, an
increase of $921,000 above the budget request;
7. $177,183,000 for the Compliance Assistance,
Compliance Monitoring, and Civil Enforcement programs
within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, an increase of $10,407,000 above the budget
request;
8. $10,000,000 for Capacity Building, an increase of
$489,000 above the fiscal year 2002 funding level;
9. $13,057,000 for Information Integration, an
increase of $7,273,000 above last year's level;
10. $42,000,000 for Legal Services, an increase of
$216,000 above the fiscal 2002 level;
11. $102,291,000 for Management Services and
Stewardship, an increase of $5,956,000 above last
year's funding level;
12. $41,000,000 for Planning and Resource Management,
an increase of $2,440,000 above the fiscal year 2002
funding level;
13. $14,750,000 for the TRI/Right-to-Know program,
and increase of $549,000 above last year;
14. $27,200,000 for the EPM account's portion of the
Brownfields program, an increase of $24,381,000 above
the level provided in fiscal year 2002.
The Committee's recommended appropriation also includes the
following increases to the budget request:
1. $18,000,000 for rural water technical assistance
activities and groundwater protection with distribution
as follows: $10,000,000 for the NRWA; $4,000,000 for
RCAP, to be divided equally between assistance for
water programs and assistance for wastewater programs;
$1,000,000 for GWPC; $2,000,000 for Small Flows
Clearinghouse; and $1,000,000 for the NETC.
2. $1,000,000 for implementation of the National
Biosolids Partnership Program.
3. $2,000,000 for source water protection programs.
4. $5,000,000 for a cost-shared grant program to
school districts for necessary upgrades of their diesel
bus fleets.
5. $3,000,000 to the NRWA to assist small water
systems to conduct vulnerability assessments as
required in title IV of the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act of 2002.
6. $3,000,000 for EPA's National Computing Center to
provide for the remote mirroring of all critical
information and related systems to achieve a
Continuance of Operations (COOP)/Disaster Recovery
capability.
7. $6,000,000 for grants to interested States to
establish a long-term ambient monitoring and assessment
framework at relevant geographic scales to support all
water quality management objectives.
8. $250,000 to the University of Arkansas to develop
bio-engineering solutions to provide state of the art
watershed management tools.
9. $500,000 for the San Joaquin River Resource
Management Coalition of California.
10. $100,000 to the Tuolumne Utility District in
California for the canal optimization study.
11. $250,000 to establish a Santa Ana River Watershed
Research and Training Program at the Water Resources
Institute of California State University, San
Bernardino.
12. $250,000 for the San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District for research and design (cost evaluation
and environmental studies) of a mitigation project
addressing the city's contaminated high groundwater
table and dangers presented by liquefaction.
13. $300,000 for the Sacramento River Toxic Pollutant
Control Program and Sacramento River Watershed Program.
14. $250,000 to Edward Waters College of
Jacksonville, Florida for research education and
training with regard to community environmental
conditions.
15. $1,500,000 for enhanced environmental education,
research and training programs at Florida Gulf Coast
University's Institute for Coastal and Watershed
Studies.
16. $300,000 to Miami-Dade County, Florida for lead
screening, testing, outreach, and education in the
Liberty City Neighborhood.
17. $300,000 to Miami-Dade County, Florida to expand
the existing environmental education program.
18. $500,000 to the Georgia Environmental Training
and Education Authority for a lagoon waste management
demonstration project.
19. $1,000,000 to the Columbus Water Works, Columbus,
Georgia for an Advanced Biosolids Flow-Through
Thermophilic Treatment Process demonstration project.
20. $200,000 to Cerro Gordo County, Iowa for
environmental planning related to the Ventura Marsh
initiative and overall water quality assessment in
connection with the Clear Lake, Iowa Restoration
Project.
21. $300,000 to the Friends of the Teton River, Inc.
for the Upper Teton Watershed project.
22. $750,000 to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency for the Fox River Watershed Management Program.
23. $500,000 to Purdue University in Indiana for the
Contaminant Remediation Optimization Program (CROP).
24. $200,000 for the Equus Beds Water Quality
Protection program in Wichita, Kansas.
25. $100,000 for the Metropolitan Area Planning
Council for a Comprehensive Water Resources Strategy
for the I-495 Corridor of Massachusetts.
26. $300,000 to Caroline County, Maryland for the
initial design and engineering of a regional plan for
wastewater needs.
27. $175,000 for the Hypoxia Education and
Stewardship Project in Kansas City, Missouri.
28. $250,000 for continuation of the Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina Surface Water Improvement
Management Initiative.
29. $850,000 for continued activities of the North
Carolina Central University research initiative.
30. $250,000 for Wake County, North Carolina for
planning, environmental analysis and design of a
watershed management plan.
31. $250,000 to Rowan University in Glassboro, New
Jersey for the Environmental Community Revitalization
and Research Initiative.
32. $1,000,000 to continue the sediment
decontamination technology demonstration in the New
York-New Jersey Harbor.
33. $500,000 to the Tompkins County, New York Soil
and Water Conservation District for the Cayuga Lake
Watershed Protection Project.
34. $500,000 for the Alfred University Center for
Environmental and Energy Research.
35. $150,000 to the Town of North Salem, New York for
the Peach Lake pollution study.
36. $750,000 to Columbia University in New York City,
New York for education, training and equipment related
to ongoing biomedical research on environmentally
induced cancers and immunological responses, at the
Audubon Biomedical Science and Technology Park.
37. $1,000,000 for the Water Systems Council
WellcareTM Program.
38. $250,000 to the Rochester Institute of Technology
(RIT) for the National Materials Recovery and Recycling
Center of Excellence.
39. $1,500,000 for continued work on water management
plans for the Central New York watersheds in Onondaga
and Cayuga counties.
40. $750,000 to Cortland County, New York for
continued work on the aquifer protection plan, of which
$150,000 is for continued implementation of the
comprehensive water quality management program in the
Upper Susquehanna Watershed.
41. $100,000 for a Water Consortium Feasibility Study
in Oklahoma with Washington County Water District #3,
Rogers County Rural Water District #3, the City of
Collinsville, and the City of Owasso.
42. $500,000 to Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma, Inc.,
a non-profit organization, for demonstration projects
which include research, education and training
activities related to the development of
environmentally beneficial vermicomposting processes.
43. $500,000 for the City of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania's Department of Health in consultation
with the Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth
for lead screening, testing, outreach, and education
throughout the City.
44. $2,000,000 to the Neighborhood Environmental
Action Team of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (N.E.A.T.
Philadelphia), in support of N.E.A.T.'s comprehensive
neighborhood based, environmental education and
awareness project in the West Philadelphia
neighborhood.
45. $500,000 for the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station in Tarrant County, Texas for research of water
supplies and development of an integrated watershed
protection plan.
46. $350,000 to the Brazos River Authority of College
Station, Texas for the Brazos/Navasota Watershed
Management Project.
47. $500,000 to the Southwest Clean Air Agency for
the Columbia River Gorge Phase I Technical Foundation
Study.
48. $200,000 to the Tri-State Water Council for the
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Tri-State Water Quality Study.
49. $1,630,000 for on-going activities at the Canaan
Valley Institute, including activities relating to
community sustainability.
50. $1,700,000 for the Canaan Valley Institute to
continue to develop a regional sustainability support
center and coordinated information system in the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands.
51. $900,000 to the Polymer Alliance Zone's MARCEE
initiative.
52. $300,000 to the West Virginia High Technology
Consortium Foundation, Inc. (WVHTCF) for research to
demonstrate the capture and utilization of CO2 and CH4
at the Meadowfill Landfill near Bridgeport, West
Virginia.
53. $450,000 to the Fayette County Commission of West
Virginia for a wastewater treatment engineering study
to address water quality concerns in the New River
Gorge National River.
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, the
same as for fiscal year 2002. Also from within available funds,
the Agency is provided $350,000 for the maintenance and
updating of the Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System
(CARES) software program, and $250,000 to continue development
of BASINS models, GIS mapping, integration with other financial
and planning tools, and incorporation of cost-effectiveness
considerations into integrated priority ranking systems.
Again this year, the Agency is directed to provide no less
than the budget request levels for Pesticide Registration and
Re-registration programs and, from within available funds, no
less than last year's level of $9,160,000 for the Environmental
Education programs. The Agency is directed to distribute funds
under the Environmental Education program proportionally in a
manner consistent with the provisions of the National
Environmental Education Act.
Bill language has been included under Administrative
Provisions which authorizes for one year the collection by EPA
of $20,000,000 in maintenance fees. The Committee expects that,
in the absence of a new tolerance fee, funds requested in the
budget submission to support FTEs in the re-registration
program may be used to support tolerance reassessment
activities. Bill language is also once again included under
Administrative Provisions prohibiting the use of funds 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; and
prohibiting the collection of pesticide registration fees if a
new maintenance fee has gone into effect.
Bill language has also been included which directs the
Administrator to certify two grant amendments regarding the
Landis Sewerage Authority in Vineland, New Jersey. The
Committee notes that this action is of a technical nature and
is required only because the State of New Jersey can no longer
certify a grant amendment as required under the former EPA
construction grant program.
For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has provided
$177,183,000 for the Compliance Assistance, Compliance
Monitoring, and Civil Enforcement programs under the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, an increase of
$10,407,000 over the budget request and an increase of
$5,785,000 over the fiscal 2002 funding level for those
programs. In making this recommendation, the Committee has
provided sufficient funds to retain the 88 FTEs associated with
these three programs which have been proposed for reduction in
the fiscal 2003 budget submission. The Committee expects to be
kept informed on a regular basis as to the Agency's activities
and progress toward maintaining an OECA workforce at the levels
provided herein.
In addition to funds provided to the NRWA, RCAP, the GWPC,
NETC, and the Small Flows Clearinghouse, the Committee has
again provided $2,000,000 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.
With regard to Brownfields, the Committee has
enthusiastically supported the budget request of slightly more
than $170,000,000 for various programs under the State and
Tribal Assistance Grant account. In addition, $27,200,000 has
been provided in this account for, among other things, the
hiring of up to 40 additional FTEs necessary to operate this
enhanced program. The total FTE level thus supported through
the EPM account should thus not exceed 127.
The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 to begin a new
program to provide grants to local school districts to reduce
emissions from their buses. Specifically, the Committee intends
that these grants are to be used in part for diesel particulate
filters, oxidation catalysts, and other similar retrofit
technologies that can maximize the removal of the particulate
matter and hydrocarbons emissions from school buses. Such
grants to school districts should be awarded first based on the
age and condition of a district's current bus fleet, then to
those areas where large numbers of children ride the bus or
where children ride the bus for extended periods, and to those
areas where predominantly economically-disadvantaged children
live and ride the bus. It is the Committee's intent that in
developing this new program the Agency should require, where
appropriate, a modest cost-share commitment on the part of the
recipient school district.
In a further effort to assist the States in assessing the
health of watersheds and to develop plans to address concerns
in this regard, the Committee has provided $6,000,000 for
grants to States to establish a long-term ambient monitoring
and assessment framework at relative geographic scales to
support all water quality management objectives. It is the
Committee's intent that this framework should include a plan
for assessing biological, physical and chemical conditions and
should be aimed at all waters of a state, not just a subset.
Additionally, the framework should indicate how each
participating State plans to link watershed-based ambient
monitoring with traditional compliance or source monitoring,
and should also outline how the state will incorporate data
readily available and of sufficient quality from private and
public sources. The Committee expects that the Agency may
reserve up to five percent from the total appropriation to
administer the program and enable it to provide technical
assistance to States in developing and implementing multi-year
ambient monitoring and assessment frameworks.
Earlier in the year, the Agency was asked to undertake an
agreement with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review
the current draft dioxin reassessment. Since that time, another
NAS committee assessing the impact of dioxin on the food supply
has delved into the scientific methods used by the Agency. In
addition, the EPA has determined to send the draft dioxin
reassessment to an Interagency Working Group on Dioxin (IWG).
The Committee understands that the IWG includes representatives
from the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the Centers for Disease Control, the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of
Management and Budget, as well as other government agencies.
The Committee further understands, that the IWG review will
address many of the toxicological questions that have been
raised concerning the dioxin reassessment, including, but not
limited to, the scientific evidence used to classify the
carcinogenicity of dioxin to humans, the Agency's use of a
linear dose-response model to estimate cancer risk levels, the
scientific support for the use of the Toxic Equivalency Factors
for dioxins, and the use of body burden as the appropriate dose
metric.
The Committee acknowledges that the issues addressed by the
Agency's risk assessment for dioxin are highly complex. There
are significant limitations in the current knowledge and
understanding of dioxin's mechanism of action, and these data
gaps affect the Agency's ability to characterize the risks that
result from exposure to dioxins. While some at the SAB and
elsewhere have suggested that additional research may not
bridge many of these important data gaps, the EPA Science
Advisory Board has also emphasized the need for the Agency to
develop improved risk assessment procedures to better
characterize the range of exposures and exposure-response
relationships.
The Committee's interest and concerns regarding this
important issue are longstanding, and the frustrations
surrounding the lack of progress on the part of EPA and others
are shared by many. The Agency and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy are thus expected to move swiftly with the
other participants of the IWG to review the draft dioxin
reassessment and make appropriate recommendations as to how
this matter should proceed. Should such review not move forward
in a progressive manner, the Committee believes that further
action on its part may be necessary.
The Committee has provided $900,000 to the Polymer Alliance
Zone's MARCEE Initiative with oversight intended to be provided
by the Office of Solid Waste. Recycling and remediating e-waste
has become an issue of national urgency. The Committee
recognizes the Polymer Alliance Zone's (PAZ) important
contributions to developing national recycling and reuse
solutions for this growing waste stream, including development
of: 1) electronics demanufacturing business simulation
modeling, 2) national supply chain logistics planning, 3)
comprehensive recycling e-commerce platform (Green Online), 4)
economics modeling for recovery of e-waste and plastics
separation, and 5) alliance with the European Union's Virtual
Environmental Recycling Center (VERC) to create a global best
practices template for e-waste recovery. The Committee supports
PAZ's continued efforts to forge relationships with the leading
private sector, public sector, and non-governmental
stakeholders to help build a national consensus for efficient
and environmentally preferable recovery of e-waste.
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 Committee expects EPA to establish and implement a
Highlands Action Program (HAP) in partnership with Canaan
Valley Institute (CVI) to take action on the problems
identified in the follow-up Mid-Atlantic Highlands report that
Congress directed the EPA to prepare in the Fiscal Year 2002
House and Conference Reports. The HAP should, among other
things, use environmental indicators, strong science, and
partnerships to identify the causes of those problems; develop
solutions and management actions to resolve the identified
problems; and develop a management plan that includes states,
non-governmental organizations, local communities and the
private sector. The Agency is expected to periodically assess
the status of the HAP and report back to Congress on the
findings and the successes of the program.
The Committee is fully supportive of the children's health
research centers program jointly funded by the EPA and the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at NIH and
looks forward to continuation of this constructive partnership.
The Committee is pleased to note that in response to
Congressional direction in the 2002 Committee report, EPA plans
to send the current version of the Multi-Media, Multi-Pathway,
Multi-Receptor, Risk Assessment (3MRA) model and sample results
from the model to the Science Advisory Board (SAB) for its
review. The Committee again strongly encourages the Agency to
spend no resources to use the 3MRA risk model or any portion of
the model, for any regulatory or other similar purposes until
recommendations of the Science Advisory Board are incorporated
into the model.
The Committee is concerned with regulations proposed by EPA
that will allocate companies' HCFC production and consumption
allowances based on their historic production of HCFCs. It is
the Committee's understanding that the proposed rules would
permit production allowances to be transferred to foreign
countries. A former U.S. manufacturer could use its production
and consumption allowances to produce HCFCs in a foreign
country and then import HCFCs into the United States. The
unintended result of the proposed rules would be to encourage
the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas. The Committee strongly
urges EPA to ensure that the proposed regulations do not
allocate allowances to companies that have stopped producing
HCFCs in this country prior to January 1, 2003. The Agency is
further encouraged to not promulgate an arbitrary allocation
system that promotes market distortion and the movement of jobs
outside of the United States.
The Committee expects EPA to continue to work with the
Maritime Administration to implement a pilot program to export
obsolete vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet of the
Maritime Administration. This program should ensure the
expeditious implementation of a pilot program for export and
disposal of obsolete vessels during fiscal year 2003.
The Committee is aware that through a recently issued
document the Agency has given guidance on the CERCLA/EPCRA
definition of federally permitted releases. In it, EPA
clarifies certain issues relating to air releases and states
that it supports, and is apparently willing to move forward
with, in accordance with law, an administrative exemption from
CERCLA and EPCRA reporting for specific NO and NO2 releases.
The Committee strongly urges the Agency to utilize appropriate,
available funding resources to move expeditiously to complete
this process.
The Committee is aware of the recent decision by the Board
of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) in
Orange County, California to move as expeditiously as
practicable to full secondary treatment and to withdraw from
the Clean Water Act Sec. 301(h) waiver program. The Committee
is also aware that the Clean Water Act has no provision for
such an eventuality. Therefore, the Committee strongly urges
the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California
to work with OCSD to protect OCSD from lawsuits and
administrative penalties while it pursues the difficult
challenge of achieving the secondary treatment standard under
the terms and conditions of the Clean Water Act and the
compliance schedule in the applicable NPDES permit issued by
EPA and the State.
The Committee notes that a fundamental goal of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act is the recovery and conservation
of energy and materials that would otherwise be discarded.
Nonetheless, industrial secondary materials largely remain
untapped resources for such recovery. The Committee is aware of
EPA's initiative to identify opportunities to further the goal
of resource conservation and recovery while remaining true to
the mission of ensuring safe and protective waste management
practices. The Committee supports the initiative and encourages
the use of Agency funding and staff resources to implement the
necessary policy changes to further this important statutory
goal.
The Committee is aware of the urgent need for certainty
with respect to regulations governing the underground injection
of treated waste-water in south Florida and Miami-Dade County
and thus strongly urges the Agency to issue, no later than
March 1, 2003, a final rule for the revision of the federal
underground injection control requirements for class 1
municipal wells in Florida that conforms to section 1421(d)(2)
of the Public Health Service Act as amended by the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)(2)).
The Committee urges EPA to cooperate with the manufactured
housing industry, including the Manufactured Housing Research
Alliance (MHRA), to facilitate industry participation and
research planning for the Energy Star Labeled Homes Program.
The Committee directs the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to report to the Congress, not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment, on the pending
radon in drinking water regulaions. In developing such report,
the Administrator shall (1) consult with the State drinking
water, air, and radiation programs; and (2) evaluate options to
implement a single drinking water standard for radon.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation \1\................... $35,325,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 34,019,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 35,325,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +1,306,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
\1\ Total does not include transfer of $12,742,000 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 2003, the Committee recommends a total
appropriation of $48,067,000 for the Office of Inspector
General, an increase of $2,181,000 above last year's funding
level and the same as the budget request. Of the amount
provided, $12,742,000 shall be derived by transfer from the
Hazardous Substance Superfund account.
Bill language has been included which directs the Inspector
General to prepare and submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and the Senate an audit management
plan and the personnel requirements which will enhance the
expertise and maximize the efficiencies of the Office.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $42,918,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 25,318,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 42,918,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +17,600,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 $42,918,000, the budget
request, for Buildings and Facilities. This funding level
represents an increase of $17,600,000 above the fiscal year
2002 funding level. This recommendation provides for necessary
maintenance and repair and improvement costs at Agency
facilities and the ongoing renovation of EPA's new
headquarters.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $1,422,888,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 1,270,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 1,272,888,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +152,888,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +150,000,000
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 2003, $1,422,888,000 has been recommended
by the Committee, an increase of $150,000,000 above the budget
request and an increase of $152,888,000 above last year's
funding level. Bill language is included which provides
$711,444,000 of the appropriated amount from the Superfund
Trust Fund and an identical amount from general revenues of the
treasury.
Bill language has been included which transfers $12,742,000
from this account to the Office of Inspector General and
$86,168,000 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:
$1,006,952,000 for Superfund remedial, removal and other
response/cleanup activities.
$143,600,000 for enforcement activities.
$134,600,000 for management and support.
$12,742,000 to be transferred to the Office of Inspector
General. Bill language is included which provides for this
transfer.
$86,168,000 to be transferred to Science and Technology for
research and development activities. Bill language is included
which provides for this transfer.
$28,150,000 for the Department of Justice.
$10,676,000 for other necessary, reimbursable interagency
activities, including reimbursements to the Department of the
Interior, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, and the United States Coast Guard.
In providing over $1,000,000,000 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.
For several years, the Committee expressed its concern that
any reversal of the long-standing policy of the EPA to defer to
the NRC for cleanup of NRC licensed sites was 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--threatened to create
legitimate stakeholder concerns regarding the authority and
finality of NRC licensing decisions, the duration and costs of
site cleanup, and the potential future liability of parties
associated with affected sites. The Committee of course
recognized that there may exist circumstances at specific NRC
licensed sites where the EPA's expertise may be of critical use
to the NRC. In the interest of ensuring that sites do not face
dual regulations, the Committee had each of the past few years
directed both agencies to enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) which clarifies the circumstances for EPA's
involvement at NRC sites when requested by the NRC.
The Committee is aware that the two parties have completed
an MOU and it is expected to be signed. While this is certainly
a step in the right direction, the Committee is also aware that
the proposed MOU does not completely address the intent of the
Committee because the threat of dual regulation will remain for
certain NRC licensees. The Committee's direction was for the
two agencies to enter into an MOU which would clarify the
circumstances for EPA's involvement at NRC sites ``when
requested by the NRC.'' This direction was not followed.
The Agency is, therefore, directed to enter into an amended
Memorandum of Understanding which completely addresses the
previous direction of the Committee. In addition, the Agency is
directed to provide a report to the Committee no later than the
28th day of each month following approval of this legislation
detailing the progress that has been made in following this
explicit direction of the Committee.
The Committee notes that the proper selection, design,
implementation, enforcement and use of institutional controls
are critical to the successful remediation and reuse of
redeveloped brownfields, CERCLA, and RCRA sites. The Committee
also recognizes that mechanisms must be implemented to ensure
that institutional controls are well designed, cost-effective,
implemented as planned, operated and maintained over time, and
enforced as needed. The Committee therefore expects the
Environmental Protection Agency to work closely with state and
local governments, communities and site owners to develop
administrative mechanisms that will ensure that institutional
controls are implemented, maintained, and enforced over time so
that the public will have confidence that these tools are an
effective and reliable component of remedial action. The
Committee also encourages the EPA to fund pilot projects that
would evaluate the extent to which insurance products, third-
party oversight, and various systems for tracking institutional
controls may supplement state and local government and
responsible party roles in future maintenance of site
institutional controls.
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $72,313,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 73,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 72,313,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -687,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
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.
For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has provided
$72,313,000, a decrease of $687,000 below last year's
appropriated level and the same as 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 2003 recommendation....................... $15,581,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 15,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 15,581,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +581,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as 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;
and, conducting research of oil clean-up techniques. 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, as amended. Pursuant to law, the Trust Fund is managed by
the United States Coast Guard.
The Committee recommends $15,581,000 for fiscal year 2003,
the same as the budget request and an increase of $581,000
above the fiscal year 2002 spending level.
STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $3,789,185,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 3,733,276,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 3,463,776,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +55,909,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +325,409,000
The State and Tribal Assistance Grant account provides
grant funds for programs operated primarily by state, local,
tribal and other governmental partners. The account provides
funding for infrastructure projects through the State Revolving
Funds, geographic specific projects in rural Alaska and Alaska
Native Villages and on the United States-Mexico Border, and
other targeted special projects. In addition, the account funds
Brownfields assessment and revitalization grants as well as
miscellaneous categorical grant programs.
The largest portion of the STAG account is the State
Revolving Funds (SRFs), which provide Federal financial
assistance to protect the nation's water resources. The Clean
Water State Revolving Funds 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. This program
provides resources for municipal, inter-municipal, state,
interstate agencies, and tribal governments to plan, design,
and construct wastewater facilities and other projects,
including non-point source, estuary, stormwater, and sewer
overflow projects. The Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
program finances improvements to community water systems so
that they can achieve compliance with the mandates of the Safe
Drinking Water Act and continue to protect public health.
This account also funds various categorical grant programs
to ensure continued environmental protection nation-wide. Among
these are non-point source grants under Section 319 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, Public Water
System Supervision grants, Section 106 water quality grants, a
new targeted watershed grant, Clean Air Act Section 105 and 103
air grants, a program targeted to environmental information,
Brownfields cleanup grants, and other grants utilized by the
states, tribes, and others to meet Federal environmental
statutory and regulatory requirements.
For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends a total of
$3,789,185,000, an increase of $55,909,000 above the current
fiscal year spending level, and $325,409,000 above the level
proposed in the budget request.
The Committee's recommendation includes the following
program level:
$1,300,000,000 for Clean Water State Revolving Funds;
$850,000,000 for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds;
$75,000,000 for high priority U.S./Mexico border
projects;
$35,000,000 for Alaska rural and Native Villages;
$120,500,000 for Brownfields assessment and
revitalization grants;
$8,225,000 for the National Community Decentralized
Wastewater Demonstration program;
$1,172,882,000 for state and tribal program/
categorical grants; and
$227,578,000 for a program targeting grants to
communities for the construction of drinking water,
wastewater and storm water infrastructure and for water
quality protection.
Bill language has been included which provides specific
dollar amounts for each of the above listed programs. In
addition, new bill language has been included which stipulates
that, consistent with section 603 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, $75,000,000 of the
$1,300,000,000 proposed for the Clean Water SRF program is to
be made available by the States for interest-free loans that
increase non-point and non-structural, decentralized
alternatives, thus expanding the choices available to
communities in their fight for clean water. Finally, bill
language has been included which makes a technical
clarification to grants made for a specific basin stormwater
retention and reuse project, and which makes a technical
clarification with respect to a grant made for water
infrastructure improvements.
Under the language proposed herein, projects which receive
awards must have as their primary purpose the protection,
preservation, or enhancement of water quality. Projects must
also address sewage or stormwater pollution with one or more
approaches which include, but are not limited to, decentralized
or distributed stormwater controls, decentralized wastewater
treatment, conservation easements, on-site source controls
(such as green roofs and rain gardens), stream buffers, low-
impact development and urban redevelopment, water conservation
and reuse, and wetlands restoration.
From within the Committee's $75,000,000 recommendation for
the United States-Mexico Border program, the Agency is expected
to provide $2,000,000 for continuation of the Brownsville,
Texas area water supply project, and $7,000,000 for
continuation of the El Paso, Texas area desalination and water
supply project.
For the first time since fiscal year 2000, the Committee is
recommending $8,225,000 for continuation of the National
Community Decentralized Wastewater Demonstration Project. This
program, developed initially by the Committee, has shown
tremendous success in meeting its goal of developing and
transferring technologies which offer alternatives to
centralized wastewater treatment facilities. The six projects
proposed for fiscal 2003 include Lowndes County, Alabama
($575,000); Upper Patuxent River Watershed, Maryland
($1,000,000); West Philadelphia and Rodale Institute Farm,
Pennsylvania ($1,700,000); Upper Rio Grande Valley Colonias,
Texas ($900,000); Chittenden County, Vermont Integrated Water
Resource Project ($3,050,000); and Mud River Watershed, Lincoln
County, West Virginia ($1,000,000). As in previous years, these
projects were determined by non-governmental, independent
analysis based upon their unique and diverse geology and
geography, their ability to provide the greatest technological
diversity using limited financial resources, and the commitment
of each community or regional area to find and fund appropriate
alternative technologies to resolve their wastewater treatment
needs. The Committee expects the Agency to continue the cost
share requirements for these six projects as was provided
previous projects under this program.
The Committee has provided an increase of $14,606,100 above
the budget request for state and tribal program assistance/
categorical grants. The Committee's recommendation for each
categorical grant follows:
(1) $225,000,000 for air resource assistance to State
and local governments under sections 103 and 105 of the
Clean Air Act, including $10,000,000 for the five
State/Regional Haze planning organizations;
(2) $11,044,500 for air resource assistance grants to
Tribal governments;
(3) $8,139,900 for radon grants;
(4) $195,000,000 for water pollution control agency
resource supplementation under section 106 of FWPCA;
(5) $10,000,000 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;
(6) $5,000,000 for Homeland Security State Counter-
terrorism coordinators under PWSS;
(7) $250,000,000 for section 319 of FWPCA non-point
source pollution grants, including programs formerly
eligible under the section 314 Clean Lakes program;
(8) $14,967,000 for wetlands program development
grants;
(9) $18,958,200 for water quality cooperative
agreements under section 104(b)(3) of FWPCA;
(10) $93,100,200 for public water system supervision
grants;
(11) $10,950,900 for underground injection control
grants;
(12) $106,363,600 for RCRA financial assistance
grants;
(13) $50,000,000 for Brownfields categorical cleanup
grants;
(14) $11,918,400 for underground storage tank grants;
(15) $13,085,500 for pesticides program
implementation grants;
(16) $13,682,000 for lead risk reduction grants;
(17) $5,138,800 for toxic substances compliance/
enforcement grants;
(18) $19,867,800 for pesticides enforcement grants;
(19) $24,999,900 for the information exchange network
program;
(20) $5,986,300 for pollution prevention incentive
grants;
(21) $2,209,300 for sector and multimedia enforcement
and compliance grants;
(22) $57,469,700 for Indians general assistance
grants; and
(23) $20,000,000 for targeted watershed grants.
Section 106 pollution control grants have been provided
$195,000,000 an increase of $14,623,100 above the budget
request and $2,523,100 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
$250,000,000, an increase of $11,523,200 above the budget
request and $12,523,200 above last year's appropriated level.
The Committee has increased grants to state and local air
quality agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air
Act by $3,459,900 over the Administration's request and the
fiscal 2002 funding level. Of the total funding amount,
$10,000,000 is for the Regional Haze program.
The Committee has not recommended funding for EPA's new
Enforcement Grant program which would have made small grants
available to States for specific enforcement plans or programs.
For a targeted program making grants to communities for the
construction of drinking water, wastewater and storm water
infrastructure and for water quality protection, the Committee
has provided $227,578,000. As in past years, these grants shall
be accompanied by a cost-share requirement whereby 45 percent
of a project's cost is to be the responsibility of the
community or entity receiving the grant. In those few cases
where such cost-share requirement poses a particular burden on
the recipient community or entity, the Agency retains its long-
standing administrative flexibility to reduce or waive this
requirement.
The distribution of funds under this program is as follows:
1. $200,000 to Attalla, Alabama for sewerage system
improvements.
2. $200,000 to Powell, Alabama for sewerage system
improvements.
3. $100,000 to Lawrence County, Alabama for the
Bankhead Forest Water Project.
4. $100,000 to Phil Campbell, Alabama for water
system improvements.
5. $1,000,000 to Fort Payne, Alabama for sewerage
system improvements.
6. $300,000 to Franklin County, Alabama for water
infrastructure improvements.
7. $200,000 to Douglas, Alabama for sewerage system
improvements.
8. $200,000 to Marion County, Alabama for water
system improvements.
9. $100,000 to the Fayette Water Board, Fayette,
Alabama for water security system improvements.
10. $150,000 to the Cullman County Commission,
Alabama for the North Cullman County water systems
upgrades.
11. $250,000 to the City of Calera, Alabama for water
and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
12. $250,000 to the City of Alabaster, Alabama for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
13. $1,700,000 to South Alabama Utilities of the town
of Citronell, Alabama for water infrastructure
improvements in western Mobile County.
14. $500,000 to the Southwest Alabama Regional Water
Authority for water infrastructure improvements.
15. $750,000 to the City of Huntsville, Alabama for
water system improvements.
16. $750,000 to the City of Moulton, Alabama for
wastewater system improvements.
17. $125,000 to the Town of Woodville, Alabama for
wastewater system improvements.
18. $200,000 to the Limestone County, Alabama Water
and Sewer Authority for drinking water improvements.
19. $200,000 to the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water
Authority for drinking water improvements.
20. $275,000 to the Town of Littleville, Alabama for
wastewater system improvements.
21. $200,000 to the City of Athens, Alabama for
wastewater system improvements.
22. $350,000 to the City of Montgomery, Alabama for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
23. $350,000 to the Coosa Valley Water Authority for
water infrastructure improvements in St. Clair County,
Alabama.
24. $500,000 for the Osage Basin Wastewater District,
Arkansas for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
25. $250,000 to the Town of Menifee, Arkansas for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
26. $500,000 to the City of Scottsdale, Arizona for
the Scottsdale Arsenic Removal pilot project.
27. $1,000,000 to Huachuca City, Arizona for its
effluent recharge project.
28. $250,000 to the City of Goodyear, Arizona for
water infrastructure improvements.
29. $500,000 to the Litchfield Park Service Company
for construction of the Litchfield Park arsenic
treatment facility in Arizona.
30. $750,000 to the Mission Springs Water District in
California for groundwater protection and water
infrastructure improvements.
31. $750,000 to the City of Murrieta, California for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
32. $1,000,000 to the City of Newport Beach,
California for the Big Canyon Reservoir Cover Project.
33. $700,000 to the Irvine Ranch Water District of
Irvine, California for improvement for the San Diego
Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System.
34. $700,000 to the City of Laguna Beach, California
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
35. $1,900,000 to the Olivenhain Municipal Water
District in Encinitas, California for water
infrastructure improvements.
36. $2,000,000 to the Placer Nevada Wastewater
Authority for wastewater infrastructure improvements in
Placer County, California.
37. $1,500,000 for water infrastructure improvements
for the Cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre, California.
38. $500,000 to the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California for the Desalination Research and
Innovation Partnership.
39. $600,000 to Ventura County, California for water
and wastewater infrastructure improvements related to
the completion and implementation of the Calleguas
Creek Watershed Management Plan.
40. $500,000 to the United Water Conservation
District for groundwater protection in Ventura County,
California.
41. $250,000 to the County of Ventura, California for
wastewater infrastructure needs for El Rio.
42. $350,000 to the City of El Segundo, California
for sanitary sewer overflow infrastructure
improvements.
43. $500,000 to the City of Redding, California for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements for
the Redding Stillwater Industrial Park.
44. $500,000 for stormwater pollution mitigation
improvements and infrastructure in Los Angeles County,
California.
45. $275,000 for the City of Oceanside, California
for infrastructure improvements to the Mission San Luis
Rey Waterline.
46. $500,000 to the City of Brisbane, California for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
47. $100,000 for the Mojave Water Agency for design
and construction of a pipeline and facilities to supply
supplemental water to the Mojave River Middle Basin
Transition Zone.
48. $300,000 for the continuation of water
infrastructure improvements in Twentynine Palms,
California.
49. $250,000 for the Warren Valley Basin Recharge/
Reuse project in Yucca Valley, California.
50. $100,000 for the Lower Owens River Project in
Inyo County, California.
51. $100,000 for the continuation of water
infrastructure improvements in the Yucaipa Valley Water
District in Yucaipa, California.
52. $100,000 for the development of a water master
plan to serve the water infrastructure needs of the
City of Hesperia, California.
53. $100,000 for planning and design of a sewage
treatment and water reclamation facility in Apple
Valley, California.
54. $50,000 for Basin Water to conduct a national
demonstration project for Highly Efficient/Minimum
Waste Ion Exchange Treatment of Potable Water Supplies.
55. $1,000,000 to the City of Sacramento, California
for combined sewer system improvements.
56. $250,000 to the City of Compton, California for
water infrastructure improvements.
57. $250,000 to the City of Chino Hills, California
for stormwater infrastructure improvements for the
intersection of Eucalyptus and Peyton Drive.
58. $250,000 to the City of Brea, California for
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure improvements.
59. $250,000 to the City of Norwalk, California for
drinking water infrastructure construction and
improvements for the Norwalk Reservoir Project.
60. $1,000,000 to the City and County of San
Francisco, California for water and wastewater
infrastructure improvements for the Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard.
61. $500,000 to the City of Ripon, California for
water infrastructure improvements to assist in the
removal of arsenic from drinking water.
62. $350,000 to Madera County, California Resource
Management Agency for wastewater infrastructure
improvements in Oakhurst, California.
63. $1,000,000 to the City of Huntington Beach,
California for stormwater and sanitary sewer
infrastructure improvements.
64. $250,000 to the City of Garden Grove, California
for stormwater infrastructure improvements.
65. $500,000 to the City of Glendale, California
working in conjunction with the Utah State University
in Logan, Utah, the University of Colorado in Boulder,
and UCLA for a research study and pilot treatment plant
focused on the removal of chromium 6 from drinking
water.
66. $350,000 to the City of Willits, California for
wastewater infrastructure improvements and wetlands
mitigation.
67. $250,000 to Sonoma County, California for
wastewater infrastructure improvements for the Canon
Manor community.
68. $250,000 to Marin County, California wastewater
infrastructure improvements for Tomales Bay.
69. $1,000,000 to the City of New Britain,
Connecticut for water infrastructure improvements.
70. $500,000 to the City of Southington, Connecticut
for water infrastructure improvements.
71. $500,000 for the Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission in Massachusetts and the Metropolitan
District Commission in Connecticut for wastewater
infrastructure and combined sewer overflow improvements
on the Connecticut River in Connecticut and
Massachusetts.
72. $175,000 to the Town of Wolcott, Connecticut for
water infrastructure improvements.
73. $175,000 to the Town of New Fairfield,
Connecticut for water infrastructure improvements.
74. $750,000 to the towns of Vernon and Bolton,
Connecticut to support the Vernon-Bolton Lake Sewer
Project System.
75. $1,000,000 to the District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority to mitigate combined sewer overflows
into the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers.
76. $500,000 to the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
77. $500,000 to the City of Clearwater, Florida for
wastewater and reclaimed water infrastructure
improvements.
78. $900,000 to the Taylor County, Florida Water and
Sewer District for wastewater infrastructure
improvements.
79. $500,000 to Orange County, Florida for wastewater
infrastructure improvements.
80. $250,000 to the City of Jacksonville, Florida for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
81. $350,000 to the City of Tampa, Florida for the
South Tampa Area Reclaimed Project.
82. $1,000,000 to the City of Sweetwater, Florida for
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure improvements.
83. $1,000,000 to the Solid Waste Authority of Palm
Beach County, Florida for pre-construction engineering
and design of the Tri-County Biosolids Pelletization
Facility.
84. $150,000 to the City of South Miami, Florida for
drinking water,wastewater, stormwater and sewer
infrastructure improvements.
85. $150,000 to the City of Opa-locka, Florida for
drinking water, wastewater, stormwater and sewer
infrastructure improvements.
86. $1,000,000 to the Volusian Water Alliance of
Volusian County, Florida for the Regional Aquifer
Management Project and water infrastructure
improvements.
87. $500,000 for the Sarasota County, Florida
Phillippi Creek Septic System Replacement Project.
88. $250,000 to the Escambia County, Florida Utility
Authority for its Wastewater Treatment Public/Private
Partnership project.
89. $500,000 to DeSoto County, Florida for water and
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
90. $250,000 to the Sebring Airport Authority of
Florida for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements for a light industrial/commercial business
park.
91. $500,000 to the City of Boca Raton, Florida for
improvements for the Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment
Facility.
92. $500,000 for the City of West Palm Beach, Florida
for its wetlands-based water project.
93. $250,000 to the City of Lighthouse Point, Florida
for stormwater system upgrades and repairs.
94. $500,000 to the City of Umatilla, Florida for
stormwater infrastructure improvements.
95. $9,000,000 to the Southwest Florida Water
Management District for continuation of the Tampa Bay
Reservoir Project.
96. $1,000,000 for Lake Seminole, Pinellas County,
Florida for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements.
97. $1,000,000 to the Metropolitan North Georgia
Water Planning District for water and wastewater
infrastructure improvements.
98. $750,000 to the City of Roswell, Georgia for the
Big Creek Watershed Demonstration Project.
99. $450,000 to the Liberty County, Georgia
Development Authority for water and wastewater
infrastructure improvements for the Coastal MegaPark.
100. $750,000 to Gwinnett County, Georgia for water
and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
101. $500,000 to continue the Ground Water
Chlorination System Replacement and Upgrade Project on
Guam.
102. $500,000 to the City of Ottumwa, Iowa for
comined sewer overflow system improvements.
103. $1,000,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for
stormwater and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
104. $800,000 to the City of Mason City, Iowa for
water infrastructure improvements and a radium
reduction project.
105. $250,000 to the Bayview Water and Sewer District
of Idaho for the Cape Horn Area Clean Water Compliance
Project.
106. $500,000 to DuPage County, Illinois for water
infrastructure improvements.
107. $500,000 to the Lake County Stormwater
Management Commission of Lake County, Illinois for
stormwater detention, infrastructure, modeling, design
and management activities in the Upper Des Plaines
River watershed.
108. $500,000 to the Village of Johnsburg, Illinois
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
109. $200,000 to the Village of Port Byron, Illinois
for water infrastructure improvements.
110. $200,000 to the City of Hamilton, Illinois for
water infrastructure improvements.
111. $200,000 to the Dallas Rural Water District,
Illinois for water infrastructure improvements in
Hancock County, Illinois.
112. $700,000 to the Village of Montgomery, Illinois
for removal of lead-based paint from water storage
tanks.
113. $260,000 to the Village of Somonauk, Illinois
for construction of a water storage tower.
114. $1,000,000 for the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Chicago, Illinois for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
115. $500,000 to the Village of Granville, Illinois
for water infrastructure improvements.
116. $500,000 to the Village of Toulon, Illinois for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
117. $250,000 to the Village of LaGrange, Illinois
for water infrastructure improvements.
118. $250,000 to the Village of Justice, Illinois for
water infrastructure improvements for the Wesley Fields
water system.
119. $500,000 to the City of Galena, Illinois for
construction of a wastewater treatment plant.
120. $250,000 to the City of Flora, Illinois for
water infrastructure improvements for the Gateway
Regional Water System.
121. $400,000 to the City of Breese, Illinois for
water infrastructure improvements.
122. $25,000 to the Village of Patoka, Illinois for
water infrastructure improvements.
123. $100,000 to the City of Salem, Illinois for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
124. $750,000 to the City of Wilmington, Illinois for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
125. $750,000 to the City of Carmel, Indiana for
water infrastructure improvements.
126. $100,000 to Madison Township, Indiana for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
127. $165,000 to the Town of Cicero, Indiana for its
stormwater infrastructure improvements and pollution
prevention project.
128. $250,000 to the Twin Lakes Sewer District in
White County, Indiana for wastewater infrastructure
improvements.
129. $350,000 to Tell City, Indiana for wastewater
infrastructure improvements.
130. $750,000 to the City of Hobart, Indiana for
wastewater infrastructure improvements for the Green
Acres subdivision.
131. $300,000 to the City of Ottawa, Kansas for water
and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
132. $500,000 to Augusta, Kansas for water
infrastructure improvements.
133. $500,000 to the Franklin County Fiscal Court of
Kentucky for the Choateville Sewer Project.
134. $250,000 to the Spencer County, Kentucky Fiscal
Court for water infrastructure improvements.
135. $250,000 to the City of Shepherdsville, Kentucky
for wastewater infrastructre improvements.
136. $250,000 to the City of Carrollton/Carrollton
Utilities of Kentucky for wastewater infrastructure
improvements at the Carroll-Gallatin-Owen Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
137. $500,000 to the Louisville/Jefferson County
Redevelopment Authority for water infrastructure
improvements for a technology park in Louisville,
Kentucky.
138. $605,000 to the City of Paintsville, Kentucky
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
139. $400,000 to the City of Morehead, Kentucky for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
140. $1,000,000 to the City of Corbin, Kentucky for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
141. $400,000 to the City of Monticello, Kentucky for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
142. $750,000 to the City of Prestonsburg, Kentucky
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
143. $400,000 to the City of Beattyville, Kentucky
for water infrastructure improvements.
144. $200,000 for the City of Clay, Kentucky for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
145. $200,000 to the Marshall County Sanitation
District #2 for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements for the City of Draffenville, Kentucky.
146. $200,000 for the City of Bardwell, Kentucky for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
147. $200,000 for the City of Greenville, Kentucky
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
148. $500,000 to the Military Department of Louisiana
for wastewater infrastructure improvements for the
Gillis W. Long Center.
149. $1,000,000 the Sewerage and Water Board of the
City of New Orleans, Louisiana for continuation of the
New Orleans Sanitary Sewer System Inflow Infiltration
project.
150. $1,000,000 to the City of Shreveport, Louisiana
for installation of backflow preventers within the
water distribution system ($500,000), and for water and
wastewater infrastructure improvements associated with
programs of the Red River Watershed Management
Institute ($500,000).
151. $1,000,000 to St. John the Baptist Parish,
Louisiana for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements.
152. $200,000 to the City of New Iberia, Louisiana
for joint water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements with Iberia Parish.
153. $200,000 to St. Martin Parish, Louisiana for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
154. $250,000 to St. Charles Parish, Louisiana for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements
related to the Lake Pontchatrain Basin project.
155. $250,000 to St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
156. $100,000 to St. James Parish, Louisiana for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements
coordinated with the Town of Gramercy.
157. $500,000 to the City of Hammond, Louisiana for
wastewater infrastructure improvements related to the
Lake Pontchatrain Basin project.
158. $250,000 to the City of Slidell, Louisiana for
wastewater infrastructure improvements related to the
Lake Pontchatrain Basin project.
159. $200,000 to the City of Brockton, Massachusetts
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
160. $150,000 for combined sewer overflow mitigation
in Lawrence, Massachusetts.
161. $250,000 to the City of Baltimore, Maryland for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
162. $500,000 to the Town of Elkton, Maryland for
biological nutrient removal upgrades.
163. $500,000 to the Town of Federalsburg, Maryland
for biological nutrient removal upgrades.
164. $1,045,000 for water supply and distribution
infrastructure improvements, sanitary sewer collection
system modifications, and wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure improvements in La Plata, Maryland.
165. $500,000 for wastewater infrastructure
improvements for Woodlawn Village in Maryland.
166. $1,250,000 to the City of Rockville, Maryland
for its Stormwater Management Improvement Project.
167. $500,000 to the Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission for water infrastructure improvements in
Prince George's and Montgomery Counties, Maryland.
168. $300,000 to the City of Bad Axe, Michigan for
water infrastructure improvements.
169. $1,000,000 for continuation of the Rouge River
National Wet Weather Demonstration Project.
170. $750,000 to the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan
for combined sewer overflow infrastructure
improvements.
171. $500,000 to the Genesee County Drain Commission
for the North-East Relief Sewer and Kearsley Creek
Inceptor project.
172. $400,000 to the Detroit Water and Sewer
Department, Michigan for water, wastewater and combined
sewer overflow infrastructure improvements.
173. $1,500,000 for the Evergreen-Farmington Sanitary
Sewer Overflow demonstration project in Oakland County,
Michigan.
174. $1,000,000 to Oakland County, Michigan for water
and wastewater infrastructure improvements within the
George W. Kuhn Drainage District.
175. $1,500,000 to the City of Springfield, Missouri
for feasibility studies, design and construction of
stormwater infrastructure improvements for the Upper
James River.
176. $350,000 to the City of St. Louis, Missouri for
water infrastructure improvements for Forest Park.
177. $2,000,000 to the Clean Water Committee of
Jefferson County, Missouri for wastewater
infrastructure improvements.
178. $350,000 to Caldwell County, Missouri for water
infrastructure improvements.
179. $500,000 to the Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water
Commission for water infrastructure improvements in
Monroe County, Missouri.
180. $500,000 to the City of Lake Saint Louis Duckett
Creek Sanitary District, Missouri for wastewater
infrastructure improvements and watershed protection
projects.
181. $750,000 to the City of Lake, Mississippi for
water infrastructure improvements ($72,000), and the
City of Louisville, Mississippi for Water Treatment
system upgrades ($678,000).
182. $500,000 to the City of Newton, Mississippi for
wastewater infrastructure improvements for an
industrial park.
183. $300,000 to the City of McComb, Mississippi for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
184. $300,000 to the City of Gulfport, Mississippi
for water infrastructure improvements.
185. $550,000 to the City of Corinth, Mississippi for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
186. $500,000 to the City of Tupelo, Mississippi for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
187. $200,000 to the Town of Granite Falls, North
Carolina for water infrastructure improvements.
188. $300,000 to the Town of Bakersville, North
Carolina for water infrastructure improvements.
189. $200,000 to the Town of Valdee, North Carolina
for the Inflow/Infiltration Reduction Sanitary Sewer
Project.
190. $100,000 to the Town of Drexel, North Carolina
for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
191. $200,000 to the Town of Spruce Pine, North
Carolina for construction of the Cemetery Hill Water
Storage Tank.
192. $500,000 to the City of Henderson, North
Carolina for the next phase of the rehabilitation and
expansion of the water treatment facilities of the Kerr
Lake Regional Water System.
193. $1,000,000 to the City of Concord, North
Carolina for the Tri-County Regional Water Project in
Cabarrus, Rowan, and Stanly Counties, North Carolina.
194. $250,000 to the County of Granville, North
Carolina for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements.
195. $750,000 to Richmond County, North Carolina for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
196. $1,000,000 to the Neuse Regional Water and Sewer
Authority in Lenoir County, North Carolina for water
infrastructure improvements.
197. $1,000,000 for Orange County, North Carolina for
wastewater infrastructure needs.
198. $400,000 to the Town of Cary, North Carolina for
construction of a biosolids dryer facility.
199. $500,000 to the Town of Highlands, North
Carolina for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements.
200. $500,000 to the Buncombe County, North Carolina
Solid Waste Management Facility for water and
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
201. $400,000 to the Town of Mooresville, North
Carolina for water infrastructure improvements.
202. $600,000 for Wayne State College of Wayne,
Nebraska for the Wayne Community Greywater project.
203. $400,000 to Lincoln, Nebraska for the South Salt
Creek Sanitary Sewer project.
204. $500,000 to the City of Omaha, Nebraska for a
combined sewer overflow project.
205. $1,000,000 to the City of Nashua, New Hampshire
to mitigate combined sewer overflows.
206. $600,000 to the City of Portsmouth, New
Hampshire for mitigation of combined sewer overflows.
207. $500,000 to the City of Somersworth, New
Hampshire for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
208. $435,000 to the Borough of New Providence, New
Jersey for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements.
209. $1,000,000 to the Township of Jefferson, New
Jersey for wastewater infrastructure improvements to
help protect water quality of Lake Hopatcong, New
Jersey.
210. $2,500,000 to the Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commission for its combined sewage overflow reduction
program and the Passaic River/Newark Bay Restoration
program.
211. $250,000 for the North Hudson Sewerage Authority
for combined sewer overflow improvements.
212. $1,000,000 to the City of Ruidoso, New Mexico
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
213. $500,000 to the City of Los Lunas, New Mexico
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
214. $500,000 to the City of Belen, New Mexico for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
215. $200,000 to the Greater Chimayo Mutual Domestic
Water Consumers Association for water infrastructure
improvements.
216. $200,000 to the City of Bloomfield, New Mexico
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
217. $350,000 to the Town of Bernalillo, New Mexico
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
218. $350,000 to the Village of Los Lunas, New Mexico
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
219. $700,000 to the Virgin Valley Water District,
Nevada for construction of an arsenic treatment
facility for the cities of Mequite and Bunkerville,
Nevada.
220. $1,000,000 to the City of Little Falls, New York
for water infrastructure improvements.
221. $250,000 for the Village of Floyd, New York
Water Quality/Quantity Improvement Project.
222. $250,000 to the Village of Whitney Point, New
York for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
223. $1,000,000 to the Village of Walden, New York
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
224. $500,000 the the State of New York for the South
Shore Estuary Reserve Council of Long Island, New York
for stormwater infrastructure improvements.
225. $750,000 to the Town of North Hempstead, New
York for stormwater management infrastructure
improvements within Manhasset Bay and Hempstead Harbor
on the Long Island Sound.
226. $1,000,000 to the City of Niagara Falls, New
York for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
227. $500,000 to the City of Rye, New York for water
and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
228. $500,000 for the Lake Neatahwanta Reclamation
project in Oswego County, New York.
229. $1,000,000 to the City of Oswego, New York for
combined sewer overflow system improvements.
230. $200,000 to the Village of Sloan, New York for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
231. $500,000 to the Town of Hamburg, New York for
sanitary sewer overflow improvements.
232. $1,000,000 to the City of Buffalo, New York
Water Division for water infrastructure improvements.
233. $1,000,000 to the Monroe County, New York Water
Authority for construction of a covered reservoir and
security improvements.
234. $1,000,000 to the Saratoga County Water
Committee for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements.
235. $12,000,000 for continued clean water
improvements for Onondaga Lake, New York.
236. $2,000,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
237. $500,000 to the Village of Port Byron, New York
for construction of a wastewater treatment plant.
238. $6,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure
needs in the New York City watershed.
239. $4,000,000 for water quality infrastructure
improvements for Long Island Sound, New York.
240. $500,000 to the Cortland County Industrial
Development Agency for water and wastewater
infrastructure improvements to the Cortland County
Business Park.
241. $500,000 to the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing
Authority for water infrastructure improvements for the
``City West'' community.
242. $250,000 to the City of Van Wert, Ohio for
expansion of a drinking water reservoir.
243. $375,000 to the City of Napoleon, Ohio for water
infrastructure improvements.
244. $800,000 for water infrastructure upgrades for
Northern Perry County Water District, Ohio.
245. $750,000 for water infrastructure upgrades for
the Village of Crooksville, Ohio.
246. $200,000 for the Village of Amanda, Ohio for
water infrastructure improvements.
247. $500,000 for the Village of Spring Valley, Ohio
to upgrade its water treatment and distribution system.
248. $400,000 for Greene County, Ohio for water and
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
249. $100,000 for the Pickaway County Sewer District
for a regional sewer study in Pickaway County, Ohio.
250. $750,000 to the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District for the Doan Brook Watershed Area in Ohio for
continued development of a storm water abatement system
in the Doan Brook Watershed Area of Ohio.
251. $1,800,000 for the City of Toledo, Ohio for the
development of facilities related to its Methane
Biogases Capture and Reuse Initiative.
252. $700,000 to the City of Port Clinton, Ohio for a
wastewater infrastructure improvements and mitigation
of combined sewer overflows.
253. $500,000 to Perry County, Ohio for water
infrastructure improvements.
254. $1,000,000 to the City of Delphos, Ohio for the
Tri-County Regional Water System Reservoir Project.
255. $1,000,000 to the City of North Canton, Ohio for
a water treatment project.
256. $1,000,000 for the City of Massillon, Ohio for
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure improvements.
257. $200,000 for the Mahoning County, Ohio for
wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements in
Springfield Township.
258. $200,000 to the Village of Morristown, Ohio for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
259. $250,000 to the Village of Hartford, Ohio for
wastewater and sanitary sewer infrastructure
improvements.
260. $250,000 to the City of Hulbert, Oklahoma for
wastewater infrastructure improvements for the Hulbert
Community Health Center.
261. $500,000 to the City of Midwest City, Oklahoma
for water infrastructure improvements.
262. $500,000 to the City of Altus, Oklahoma for
water infrastructure improvements.
263. $500,000 to the City of Portland, Oregon for its
wet weather pollution control program.
264. $500,000 to the City of Albany, Oregon for the
Albany-Millersburg Joint Water project.
265. $200,000 for Tillamook County, Oregon for
construction of a animal waste composting facility.
266. $500,000 to La Pine, Oregon for wastewater
infrastructure improvements.
267. $300,000 to the City of North Plains, Oregon for
water infrastructure improvements.
268. $2,500,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather
Demonstration program in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.
269. $540,000 for wastewater infrastructure
improvements for the City of Hermitage, Pennsylvania
and the Borough or Sharpsville, Pennsylvania.
270. $1,500,000 to Derry Township Municipal Authority
in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania for wastewater
infrastructure improvements.
271. $500,000 for Pulaski Township, Pennsylvania for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
272. $500,000 to the Wyoming Valley Sanitary
Authority of Pennsylvania for combined sewer overflow
infrastructure improvements.
273. $430,000 to the Nanty Glow Water Authority of
Cambria, Pennsylvania for water infrastructure
improvements.
274. $500,000 to the Derry Borough Water Authority in
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania for water
infrastructure improvements.
275. $300,000 to the Borough of Wellsboro,
Pennsylvania for combined sewer overflow improvements.
276. $500,000 to the City of Franklin, Pennsylvania
for combined sewer overflow infrastructure
improvements.
277. $500,000 to the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania
for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
278. $350,000 to the York City Sewer Authority for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
279. $500,000 to Lycoming County, Pennsylvania for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements in the
Boroughs of Hughesville and Muncy and at Halls Station.
280. $500,000 to the Department of Susquehanna County
Economic Development in Montrose, Pennsylvania for
water infrastructure improvements.
281. $350,000 to the Chestnut Ridge Area Joint
Municipal Authority for wastewater infrastructure
improvements for East St. Clair, West St. Clair, King
and Napier Townships and in New Paris Borough,
Pennsylvania.
282. $500,000 to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Sewer and Water Authority for wastewater infrastructure
improvements in the municipality of Arecibo.
283. $500,000 to the City of Woonsocket, Rhode Island
for water infrastructure improvements.
284. $250,000 to the Narragansett Bay Commission,
Rhode Island, for wastewater and combined sewer
overflow infrastructure improvements.
285. $500,000 to Berkeley County, South Carolina for
extension of water lines to Cross Community Schools.
286. $500,000 to the City of Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina Downtown Redevelopment Corporation for
stormwater infrastructure improvements for the Pavilion
Area Master Plan.
287. $500,000 to the City of Florence, South Carolina
for continued construction of a regional surface water
plant.
288. $250,000 to the Town of Eastover, South Carolina
for water infrastructure improvements.
289. $190,000 to the Town of Jackson, South Carolina
for removal of radium from the water supply.
290. $220,000 to the City of Walhalla, South Carolina
for water infrastructure improvements in Oconee County.
291. $500,000 to Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities,
South Carolina for a phosphorous reduction program.
292. $200,000 to Charleston County, South Carolina
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
293. $500,000 to the City of Groton, South Dakota for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
294. $500,000 to the City of Elk Point, South Dakota
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
295. $450,000 to the River Road Utility District for
water infrastructure improvements in Cheatham County,
Tennessee.
296. $390,000 to the City of Cross Plains, Tennessee
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
297. $1,500,000 to the Athens Utilities Board of
Tennessee for wastewater infrastructure improvements at
the Oostanaula Wastewater Treatment Plant.
298. $500,000 to the City of Lawrenceburg, Tennessee
for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
299. $100,000 to the Watauga River Regional Water
Authority in Carter County, Tennessee for water
infrastructure improvements.
300. $1,200,000 to Polk County, Tennessee for water
infrastructure improvement for the Linsdale community.
301. $1,000,000 to the City of Eagle Pass, Texas for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
302. $1,000,000 for West Fort Bend County, Texas for
water infrastructure improvements.
303. $500,000 to the City of Meridian, Texas for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements for
the Meridian/Bosque Regional Water Supply and Treatment
Project.
304. $1,000,000 to the City of Dallas, Texas for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
305. $300,000 to the City of Port Arthur, Texas for
water infrastructure improvements in the Sabine area.
306. $500,000 to Park City, Utah for water
infrastructure improvements at the Park City Judge
Tunnel Water Treatment Plant.
307. $500,000 for Tooele City, Utah for water and
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
308. $250,000 to Sandy City, Utah for water and
stormwater infrastructure improvements.
309. $1,000,000 to the Town of Dublin, Virginia for
water infrastructure improvements.
310. $350,000 to the Town of Orange, Virginia for
construction of a raw water storage basin.
311. $1,000,000 to Dale Service Corporation for water
and wastewater infrastructure improvements in Dale
City, Virginia.
312. $950,000 to the Fairfax County Water Authority
of Virginia for water system infrastructure and
security enhancements.
313. $525,000 to Chesterfield County, Virginia for
drainage and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
314. $400,000 for Nelson County, Virginia for water
and wastewater system installation and improvements.
315. $150,000 for Camp Virginia Jaycee in Blue Ridge,
Virginia for a wastewater treatment project.
316. $400,000 to Fluvanna County, Virginia for water
and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
317. $350,000 for St. Paul College in Lawrenceville,
Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements.
318. $400,000 for Pittsylvania County and the Town of
Gretna, Virginia for water infrastructure improvements.
319. $300,000 for Franklin County, Virginia for a
drinking water infrastructure project.
320. $300,000 for Buckingham County, Virginia for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements for
Buckingham County and the Town of Dillwyn.
321. $200,000 for Cumberland County, Virginia for
water infrastructure improvements.
322. $2,000,000 to the City of Richmond, Virginia
($1,000,000) and to the City of Lynchburg, Virginia
($1,000,000) for combined sewer overflow infrastructure
improvements.
323. $750,000 to the City of Alexandria, Virginia for
the sanitary and stormwater sewer reconstruction and
extension project to mitigate overflows polluting Four
Mile Run Creek.
324. $350,000 to Accomack County, Virginia for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
325. $200,000 to the City of Norfolk, Virginia for
wastewater infrastructure improvements at the North Fox
Hall and Sewell Garden pump stations.
326. $200,000 to the City of Norfolk, Virginia for
wastewater infrastructure improvements in Fairmont
Park.
327. $1,000,000 to Loudon County, Virginia Department
of Building and Development for the Water Resources
Management Program.
328. $500,000 to the Government of the Virgin Islands
for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
329. $900,000 to the City of Shelton, Washington for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
330. $110,000 to the Town of South Prairie,
Washington for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
331. $500,000 to Parker, Washington for water
infrastructure improvements.
332. $500,000 to the City of Roslyn, Washington for
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
333. $250,000 to the City of Blaine, Washington for
completion of a feasibility study for the Northwest
Whatcom County Wastewater Management Plan, Lummis
Diviersion, and for related updates of the City's
general sewer plan.
334. $375,000 for the Village of Curtiss, Wisconsin
for the expansion of their wastewater treatment plant.
335. $925,000 for the Town of Mercer, Wisconsin for
the extension of their water infrastructure to the new
business park.
336. $1,200,000 for the City of Wisconsin Rapids,
Wisconsin for the extension of sewer and water to the
East Side Business Park and the Village of Biron.
337. $300,000 for the Putnam County Commission of
West Virginia for the Fishers Ridge water
infrastructure project.
338. $265,000 to the Midland Public Service District
in Randolph County, West Virginia for the extension of
waterlines for Haddix Road.
339. $2,717,000 to the City of Weirton, West Virginia
for water treatment plant upgrades.
340. $2,500,000 to the City of Moundsville, West
Virginia for construction of a water treatment
facility.
341. $2,050,000 to the City of Grafton, West Virginia
for upgrades to the Berkeley Run Pump Station, Front
Street sewer improvements, Fannie Street sewer
improvements, Bluemont Cemetery sewer improvements, and
Fetterman's sewer improvements.
342. $2,155,000 to the City of Grafton, West Virginia
for wastewater treatment plant upgrades.
343. $506,000 to the City of Sistersville, West
Virginia for water treatment plant upgrades.
344. $560,000 to the City of Wellsburg, West Virginia
for replacement of the 11th Street Wastewater Lift
Station.
345. $635,000 to the Village of Beach Bottom, West
Virginia for the extension of water lines, water plant
construction and water line replacement.
346. $250,000 to the City of Cudahy, California for
wastewater and sewer infrastructure improvements.
347. $250,000 to the City of Maywood, California for
wastewater and sewer infrastructure improvements.
348. $1,000,000 to the City of Manchester, New
Hampshire for wastewater infrastructure improvements
associated with a combined sewer overflow project.
349. $100,000 for the City of Fulton, Alabama for
water system improvements.
350. $650,000 for the City of Jackson, Alabama for
water infrastructure.
351. $250,000 for the Mobile County Water, Sewer and
Fire Protection Authority, Alabama for water system
improvements.
352. $700,000 for the Cities of Daphne, Foley and
Fairhope, Alabama for comprehensive water
infrastructure assessment.
353. $650,000 for Mobile Area Water and Sewer System
and the City of Prichard, Alabama for combined sewer
outflow project.
354. $100,000 for Mt. Vernon, Alabama for water
system improvements.
355. $100,000 for Summerdale, Alabama for water
infrastructure.
356. $400,000 to the Town of Exeter, New Hampshire
for planning and design of new wastewater
infrastructure facilities.
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 non-point 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 non-point-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 non-point 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, EPA, at the request of the
Committee, established during the Spring of 2002 a working
group of representatives from many stakeholder groups in order
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 were 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 has been kept apprised of the developments of
this working group and expects that the group's report
addressing the aforementioned questions and other related
issues be fully utilized by the Agency.
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 authorizes for one
year the collection by EPA of $20,000,000 in maintenance fees.
This provision extends to September 30, 2003 the date upon
which such authority for collections expires. Bill language is
also once again included prohibiting the use of funds 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; and
prohibiting the collection of pesticide registration fees if a
new maintenance fee has gone into effect.
Executive Office of the President
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $5,750,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 5,267,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 5,368,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +483,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. +382,000
The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was
created by the National Science and Technology Policy,
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP advises the
President and other agencies within the Executive Office on
science and technology policies and coordinates research and
development programs for the Federal Government.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,750,000 for
fiscal year 2003, an increase of $483,000 above the fiscal year
2002 appropriation and $382,000 above the budget request to
address unfunded salary needs.
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $3,031,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 2,974,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 3,031,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +57,000
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 2003, the Committee has recommended the
budget request of $3,031,000 for the CEQ and OEQ, an increase
of $57,000 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.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $30,848,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 33,660,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 30,848,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -2,812,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 $30,848,000 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 2003.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation................... $3,611,895,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation.................... $10,535,825,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request................... $6,703,912,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation.... $-6,923,930,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request... $-3,092,017,000
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 2003, the Committee recommends
$3,611,895,000 which represents a decrease of $6,923,930,000
from the fiscal year 2002 appropriation and a decrease of
$3,092,017,000 from the 2003 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.
The Committee urges the Federal Emergency Management Agency
to work with the U.S. Forest Service and state and local
officials to develop disaster mitigation measures to avoid
potentially catastrophic forest fires in the Angeles, San
Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests. Extreme drought
conditions and insect depredations have killed tens of
thousands of trees in these national forests and on adjacent
private property. The Committee urges FEMA to deal with this
problem.
The Committee is disturbed that FEMA did nothing during the
last fiscal year to implement the minority emergency
preparedness demonstration program which was authorized by a
general provision of the fiscal year 2002 VA-HUD appropriations
bill. In the future, the Agency is cautioned that its personnel
must read the entire appropriations bill and follow all
direction in the bill and accompanying reports, including the
general provisions in title IV. The Committee directs FEMA to
report to the Committee by February 3, 2003 on the actions it
has taken to implement the minority emergency preparedness
demonstration program. At a minimum, FEMA is directed to spend
no less than $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2003 to implement the
program.
DISASTER RELIEF
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $1,820,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 9,171,571,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 1,842,843,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -7,351,571,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... -22,843,000
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has responsibility
for administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating
the Federal response in Presidential disasters declarations.
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 2003, the Committee recommends
$1,820,000,000 for disaster relief, a decrease of $22,843,000
from the budget request and a decrease of $7,351,571,000
compared to the fiscal year 2002 level.
The budget request included a proposal to discontinue the
section 404 post-disaster mitigation grants program and replace
it with a competitive pre-disaster mitigation grant program.
The Committee agrees with the objectives of a pre-disaster
mitigation program and has addressed this issue in the
appropriate place in the report. With regard to the section 404
grant program, the Committee has proposed a change in statute
which will reduce the amount of funding for the program, but
maintains the program as an effective mechanism to ensure
mitigation activities are undertaken when the need is most
apparent which is immediately after a disaster strikes. The
Committee is concerned that the section 404 program is not
being fully utilized in a timely manner, and directs FEMA to
take any steps necessary to ensure that mitigation projects are
approved quickly and work is accomplished within a reasonable
amount of time. At a minimum, FEMA should consider rules or
regulations which will recapture any funds not spent within
four years.
The Committee is aware of two issues related to repairs
undertaken by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) to
Project 184, a 22 megawatt hydropower plant and associated
water supply flumes, as a result of landslides and flooding
that occurred on January 4, 1997. First, the Committee
understands that FEMA has imposed a deadline of October 31,
2002, for EID to complete all of the required repair work. The
Committee is concerned that this deadline may be unrealistic
given the environmentally sensitive location of the repair
work, the complex licensing requirements of the Federal Power
Act, and the delays caused by the events of September 11, 2001,
related to the importation of equipment critical to the repair
from overseas. Therefore, the Committee urges FEMA to extend
the deadline for completing the repair for a minimum of 6
months.
Second, the Committee is concerned that FEMA's
determination to approve improved project status to the Mill
Creek to Bull Creek tunnel portion of the repair work may have
been based upon erroneous damage survey reports that may have
underestimated the actual costs associated with the repair
work. Therefore, the Committee urges FEMA to reexamine the
damage survey reports in light of all currently available
information.
The Committee recognizes that the citizens and the medical
community of Houston, Texas suffer unprecedented losses due to
Tropical Storm Allison and that the Texas Medical Center
provides important services to its 42 member hospitals and
institutions that provide medical care and vital medical
research. Therefore, it is the Committee's direction that the
Texas Medical Center is to be provided Public Assistance and
Hazard Mitigations grants as if it were an eligible applicant
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act and has included bill language to that effect.
However, specific projects are still subject to Federal and
State eligibility criteria and guidelines except that the
eligibility of applications submitted due to Tropical Storm
Allison shall be considered as of the day of receipt.
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 which has been carried in prior years' appropriations
bills. 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.
NATIONAL PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUND
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $250,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 0
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 300,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +250,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... -50,000,000
The Committee recommends a fiscal year 2003 appropriation
of $250,000,000 for the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund,
a decrease of $50,000,000 from the budget request. While there
was no appropriation for this fund in fiscal year 2002, the
Congress did provide an appropriation of $25,000,000 for
Project Impact, an initiative to demonstrate the viability of
pre-disaster mitigation. The Committee has found that Project
Impact achieved its goals and it is now time to move on to a
more robust competitive program to undertake mitigation
projects that will significantly reduce damages from and costs
of natural disasters. The Committee does not believe this fund
should be used for mitigation projects primarily caused by non-
natural forces and directs FEMA to issues rules and regulation
accordingly. The Committee believes that State and local
entities would benefit from a grant program for planning pre-
disaster mitigation projects and directs FEMA to provide
$250,000 per year to each State, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
Finally, the Committee notes that in September of 2000 FEMA
selected five universities to join the University of California
at Berkeley in the pilot phase of the Disaster Resistant
University program: University of Alaska/Fairbanks, University
of Miami, University of North Carolina/Wilmington, Tulane
University, and University of Washington/Seattle. The purpose
of the program is to help the nation's colleges and
universities facing the threat of natural disasters to assess
their vulnerabilities and find ways to protect their research,
facilities and the lives of students, faculty and staff. The
Committee directs FEMA to continue the Disaster Resistant
University Program with grants of $500,000 to each of the six
pilot Disaster Resistant Universities and $100,000 each to at
least six additional universities, including at least one HBCU,
to join the program.
The Committee recognizes the need for continued mitigation
research integral to natural disasters, particularly those
associated with hurricane and high wind damage. The Committee
therefore directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) to work with the State University System of Florida on
comprehensive hurricane mitigation research.
COMMUNITY DISASTER LOAN PROGRAM
The Committee notes that previous direction of the Congress
with regard to the Community Disaster Loan Program has
restricted the use of the funds solely for loans to municipal
governments for emergency education operations assistance where
school districts have incurred unanticipated requirements
because of displacement of students. The Committee understands
that there may have been overwhelming justification for such a
restriction in the past, but does not believe the same
circumstances exist today. Therefore, FEMA may make loans under
this program for any purpose henceforth.
DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT
STATE SHARE LOAN
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... 0
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ $405,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -405,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
Limitation on Administrative
direct loans expenses
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation..... ($25,000,000) $557,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation...... (25,000,000) 543,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request..... (25,000,000) 557,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 (0) +14,000
appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 (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 2003, the Committee recommends no funding
for the cost of State Share Loans, a decrease of $405,000 from
the fiscal year 2002 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 $557,000 for
administrative expenses of the program.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $250,690,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 233,801,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 239,690,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +16,889,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... +11,000,000
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 $250,690,000 for salaries and expenses,
an increase of $11,000,000 from the budget request, and an
increase of $16,889,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2002
appropriation.
FEMA has experienced significant increases in program
growth and responsibility over the past few years and with this
budget undertakes two new initiatives that will severely tax
its capabilities. The recommendation includes, in addition to
the budget request, 64 new full time equivalents for the
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division, 27 for the United
States Fire Administration, and 24 for the Financial and
Acquisition Management Division. Funding for these positions
totals $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and has been added to
the budget request.
FEMA is directed to provide $1,750,000 to the
Administrative and Resource Planning Directorate for its
efforts to archive key agency documents by digitization to
optical disks, including related activities.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $11,549,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 10,303,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 11,549,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +1,246,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 2003, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $11,549,000 for the Office of Inspector
General, an increase of $1,246,000 above the fiscal year 2002
appropriation and the same as the President's budget request.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation \1\................... $367,040,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ \2\ 850,023,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 3,747,214,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -482,983,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... -3,380,174,000
\1\ Does not include funding for Fire Fighters Assistance grants.
\2\ Includes $360,000,000 in Fire Fighters Assistance grants.
This appropriation provides program resources for the
majority of FEMA's ``core'' activities, including, response and
recovery; preparedness, training and exercises; mitigation
programs, fire prevention and training; information technology
services; operations support; and executive direction. Costs
for the floodplain management component are borne by
policyholders and reimbursed from the National Flood Insurance
Fund.
The Committee recommends a fiscal year 2003 appropriation
of $367,040,000, a decrease of $482,983,000 to the fiscal year
2002 level and a decrease of $3,380,174,000 to the fiscal year
2003 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. This account
has in the past included funding for Fire Fighter Assistance
grants. With this bill, the fire fighter grant program is given
its own account.
Of the amount provided, no more than $30,000,000 is
provided for the Citizen Corps program, up to $30,000,000 is
provided for all-hazard planning activities, and $78,000,000 is
provided for communications interoperability.
The Committee expects that comprehensive State strategies
will address immediate State and local responder needs to
effectively respond to all types of terrorist or weapons of
mass destruction attacks. These plans should include the
equipment, training, exercise, technical assistance, and
planning needs for all types of State and local first
responders including law enforcement, fire, emergency, medical
service, and hazardous material response. In the development
and implementation of their plans, States are expected to
consult with local governments regarding the scope, design, and
allocation of resources so that State and local strategies are
consistent.''
The September 11th attacks taught Federal, State, and local
first responders the importance of having communications
equipment and plans that allow all types of responder from
multiple jurisdictions to maintain communications lines during
an emergency. This interoperability program shall provide State
and local agencies with grants to develop multi-jurisdiction
emergency communications plans, procure emergency
communications equipment, and procure equipment allowing
existing communications systems to be interoperable. The
Committee remains concerned about the inefficient use of
appropriated funds. The Committee notes that, historically,
efforts to address public safety wireless issues have been
fragmented resulting in duplication and wasted resources. The
Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program,
known as Project SAFECOM was established to promote a more
efficient and coordinated effort to achieve critical network
interoperability. The Committee endorses Project SAFECOM as the
means to accomplish this purpose. FEMA, through Project
SAFECOM, is directed to develop requirements, goals, and
timeframes and report back to the Committee by March 31, 2003
on its efforts.
The Committee directs FEMA, within 90 days of enactment of
this legislation, to update its guidance on outdoor warning and
mass notification systems, CPG 1-17, and immediately upon its
publication to disseminate the guidance to units of government
at the federal, state and local level to aid them in the
purchase of this equipment. The committee recognizes that many
of the basic principles outlined in the guidance document
continue to apply to these systems, but the guidance document
must be updated to reflect some of the technological advances
that have taken place since originally published in 1980. The
updated guidance shall reflect the benefits of using voice
technology to address all natural and man-made hazards,
including acts of terrorism, and shall require that all warning
systems be operable in the absence of AC power supply. Further,
the Committee urges FEMA to consult with other relevant
agencies and use the updated CPG 1-17 as the baseline for
formulating a national standard for outdoor warning and mass
notification that reflects the latest state-of-the art
technology.
FEMA is directed to continue its partnership with the
National Technology Transfer Center at the fiscal year 2000
level to bring technology applications to the local, state, and
Federal levels of the emergency management community for the
purpose of responding to both natural disasters and terrorist
attacks and reducing their impact.
FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $450,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ \1\ 360,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ \1\ +90,000,000
Comparison with budget request........................ +450,000,000
\1\ Funding for this activity was included under Emergency Management
Planning and Assistance.
This account supports a grant program of assistance to
local fire fighting departments for the purpose of protecting
the health and safety of the public and fire fighting
personnel, including volunteers and emergency medical service
personnel, against fire and fire-related hazards.
The Committee recommends funding of $450,000,000 in fiscal
year 2003, an increase of $90,000,000 when compared to fiscal
year 2002 appropriations and an increase of $450,000,000 when
compared to the budget request. A provision is included in the
bill which transfers a portion of these funds to Salaries and
Expenses to necessary administrative costs.
The Committee urges FEMA to work in a collaborative and
inclusive manner in the planning, training and equipping of all
front line responders, including but not limited to all
components of EMS, fire, police, and other parties a locality
may employ. Additionally, the Committee believes that FEMA
should give priority to applicants proposing entry-level
physicals or immunizations under the Health and Wellness grant
category.
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 2003.
EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $153,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 140,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 153,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +13,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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
McKinney-Vento 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 $153,000,000 for the
Emergency Food and Shelter Program, an increase of $13,000,000
when compared to the fiscal year 2002 appropriation and the
same as the budget request. The budget had proposed that this
program be transferred to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development in an effort to consolidate ``homeless'' programs.
The Committee recommends that the program remain at FEMA where
it has a proven track record of providing assistance to those
most in need at the lowest possible cost.
Once again this year, bill language is included which
limits administrative costs to 3.5% for fiscal year 2002.
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $200,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 0
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 300,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +200,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... -100,000,000
The budget request included $300,000,000 for the Flood Map
Modernization Fund in recognition of the overwhelming need to
update maps which are on average close to 14 years old. Maps
this old do not always reflect the current state of development
and hydrology and in many cases are of little use in
determining the true risk to homes or buildings. The Committee
noted last year that floods are the nation's most costly and
frequent natural disasters and at that time proposed funding of
over $150,000,000 to begin a robust flood map modernization
program. Unfortunately, the Conference on this bill last year
was not able to endorse the House position due to a lack of
funding. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003
includes $200,000,000 for the Flood Map Modernization Fund.
The Committee wants to emphasize that modernization of
flood maps should not sacrifice quality for quantity and
program performance goals should not emphasize short-term
quantity over product quality. At a minimum, the Committee
directs FEMA to use no less than $75,000,000 for ``basin-wide''
analyses and up to $45,000,000 shall be dedicated to working
with State and local communities to build on local knowledge
and capabilities through Cooperating Technical Partnership
agreements.
The Committee commends FEMA for its development of
Cooperating Technical Partnerships with local and state
governments and regional entities. Such involvement of state,
local, and regional government bodies is encouraged since such
engagement improves the quality of the new maps and fosters
heightened local risk awareness. Voluntary contributions,
either monetary or in-kind, are expected so that the investment
of federal dollars is leveraged. Recognizing that some
communities can commit significantly more resources than others
and that accurately mapping risk serves the national interest
and assists in reducing natural disaster costs to the nation,
cost shares will vary on a case by case basis but a goal of 20%
is to be sought. 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.
FEMA is directed to make $250,000 available to the Canaan
Valley Institute to develop flood plane maps of West Virginia
for areas that are currently unmapped and/or update existing
flood plain maps.
The Committee has been made aware that the state of Alabama
is in the process of developing a statewide Geographic
Information System (GIS) clearinghouse responsible for
collecting and distributing GIS data to the various federal,
state, local and private users. The Committee is encouraged by
this GIS initiative and believes it is consistent with the
overarching goals of FEMA's Flood Map Modernization Program.
Therefore, the Committee urges FEMA to partner with the Alabama
Department of Revenue and the state of Alabama in order to
further develop the Alabama statewide GIS initiative.
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 $32,393,000, and for mitigation activities,
not to exceed $77,666,000. 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 2003 does not currently
exist. The Committee has included bill language which extends
this authority through December 31 of 2004 to ensure the
seamless operation of the program.
NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $20,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 20,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 20,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriations....... 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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
2003, to be derived by transfer from the National Flood
Insurance Program.
ADMINISTRATION PROVISION
The Committee has included an administrative provision
which specifies that a hospital meeting the standard for
occupancy under regulations established by the California
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD)
shall also have satisfied FEMA's criteria for ``Immediate
occupancy.'' The Committee has taken this action because FEMA
has been unable to resolve a dispute with regard to Valley
Presbyterian Hospital in California as directed in the report
accompanying the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill.
The Committee has included an administrative provision
which gives FEMA authority to provide funds to the City of New
York and the State of New York for costs unreimbursed under the
Stafford Act. These funds are to be derived from appropriations
for the Disaster Relief account made available under Public Law
107-117. It is the understanding of the Committee that the
categories of costs will include, but not be limited to,
salaries for uniformed and other personnel, capital expenses
necessary to protect public safety and health, and fire
department costs. It is not the intent of the Committee that
any of these funds shall be used for the non-Federal share of
any cost share programs. Prior to receipt of these funds, the
City of New York and the State of New York shall provide FEMA
and the Committee with a detailed spending plan with full cost
justifications. These plans must include a certification that
the items paid for with these funds have not been reimbursed
under the Stafford Act.
General Services Administration
FEDERAL CITIZEN INFORMATION CENTER FUND
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $11,541,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 7,276,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 12,541,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +4,265,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. -1,000,000
The Consumer Information Center (CIC) was established
within the General Services Administration (GSA) by Executive
Order on October 26, 1970, to help Federal departments and
agencies promote and distribute consumer information collected
as a byproduct of the Government's program activities.
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, contractual services are used 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. 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.
During fiscal year 2002, the Federal Consumer Information
Center became part of GSA's newly established Office of Citizen
Services and Communications and was renamed the Federal Citizen
Information Center (FCIC). The new Office serves as a central
federal gateway for citizens, businesses, other governments,
and the media to obtain information and services from the
government. FCIC assumed operational control of the
FirstGov.gov website and in fiscal year 2003 plans to begin
accepting e-mail and fax inquiries from the public.
Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a
revolving fund for the CIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities
are financed from the following: annual appropriations from the
general funds of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies for
distribution of publications, user fees collected from the
public, and any other income incident to FCIC activities. All
are available as authorized in appropriation acts without
regard to fiscal year limitations. The bill includes a
limitation of $18,000,000 on the availability of the revolving
fund. Any revenues accruing to this fund during fiscal year
2003 in excess of this amount shall remain in the fund and are
not available for expenditure except as authorized in
appropriation Acts.
For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $11,541,000,
an increase of $4,265,000 over the level for fiscal year 2002
and a decrease of $1,000,000 from the budget request. The
Committee recognizes the importance and is supportive of the
Administration's interest in expanding FCIC services to the
public. To this end, the Committee has increased funding for
FCIC by almost sixty percent over the level provided in fiscal
year 2002.
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 2003 will total approximately
$15,946,000.
The Committee is supportive of the expansion of the Federal
Citizen Information Center to include management of the
FirstGov portal. This is in keeping with the FCIC mission to be
a one-stop, multi-channel provider of Federal information to
the public through print, the media, and online. Further, the
Committee is strongly opposed to any weakening in staffing of
the consumer mission of the program and firmly believes that
moving the consumer media staff outside of FCIC would seriously
diminish FCIC's ability to inform and educate the public about
vital consumer issues. Additionally, the Committee is convinced
that removing the Comptroller of the FCIC Fund out of the FCIC
organization would fragment the fiduciary accountability of
this appropriation.
Because of the Committee's commitment to protect and
strengthen both the FCIC program as a whole and its financial
integrity, and to avoid any conflict of Committee jurisdiction,
the Committee directs that the FCIC organization and management
structure as presented in the fiscal year 2003 Congressional
Justification be retained, notwithstanding the changes that
have already been implemented to incorporate the management and
staffing of the FirstGov portal.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $15,300,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 14,901,700,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 15,000,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +398,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. +300,000,000
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
$15,300,000,000 in fiscal year 2003, which is an increase of
$300,000,000 from the budget request and an increase of
$398,300,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2002 enacted
appropriation.
The Committee strongly believes that NASA's goal of
significantly improving the agency's financial management
process, as a primary goal, is noteworthy. The Committee is
convinced that this increased emphasis on financial management,
and the improved cost visibility that will result from these
efforts, will yield substantially improved decision making in
the future.
Integrated Financial Management Program. The Committee is
aware that there have been two previous NASA attempts at
fielding a new financial management system, neither of which
was successful. The Committee concurs with recent revisions to
the program, which, in order to reduce risk, has focused on
fielding the core financial programs initially, and on reducing
overlap with follow-on modules. However, the Committee is
concerned about the current estimated overall cost of the IFMP
at $644,300,000. The Committee directs that NASA undertake a
comprehensive review of all elements of IFMP and follow-on IFMP
modules in order to reduce the overall cost; this review should
include consideration by NASA of other financial applications
already operating within the government. NASA is directed to
submit the results of this review not later than February 15,
2003.
Working Capital Fund. In support of efforts to improve cost
visibility, the Committee has authorized the establishment of a
working capital fund. The Committee recommends that information
technology (IT) be adopted as the first area for inclusion in
the fund since Agency reports indicate that IT funding has not
been sufficiently managed in the past, and this lack of control
has threatened the performance of numerous Agency-wide systems,
not the least of which has been information financial
management. The Committee cautions the Agency that the working
capital fund should not be used as a means to circumvent the
normal appropriations process.
Full Cost Accounting/Reports. The Committee also notes that
the Agency plans to submit the fiscal year 2004 budget under a
full cost model. It should be noted, however, that there are
numerous recurring reports and cost limitations that may be
affected as a result of this change, not the least of which is
the limitation on expenditures for the International Space
Station. NASA is directed to submit, in conjunction with the
fiscal year 2004 budget, recommended changes to existing law,
if necessary, to the ``cost caps'' to reflect full cost
methodology.
Title IV of the bill includes four general provisions which
directly affect NASA operations. Section 419 provides for the
establishment of a working capital fund. Section 420 provides
NASA with enhanced lease authority. Section 421 provides NASA
with authority to privatize certain utility systems. This
authority is similar to that provided to the Department of
Defense. The Committee has taken this action in anticipation of
NASA getting more reliable and cost efficient utility service
in selected locations. Included in the legislation is direction
requiring NASA to present to the Congress a detailed economic
analysis prior to entering into any agreement to convey
utilities to a private party. Finally, Section 422 extends
NASA's authority to offer buy-out incentives to employees for
three additional years.
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $6,130,900,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 6,912,400,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 6,130,900,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ -781,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. +0
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 $6,130,900,000 for the
human space flight account in fiscal year 2003.
In the past this Committee and the Congress have been
staunch supporters of NASA's efforts to upgrade its shuttle
fleet in the areas of safety and reliability. It is with deep
regret that the Committee notes that once again, major safety
upgrades funded in prior years' budgets have been cancelled due
to technological obstacles or cost constraints. The Committee
is frustrated that NASA cannot seem to accurately evaluate the
risks of its proposed upgrade program components and the cost
of those components. The Committee directs NASA to undertake a
serious evaluation of the process by which safety upgrades are
proposed and approved, only to be cancelled or deferred less
than one year later. NASA is directed to report to the
Committee on Appropriations within 60 days on the steps being
taken to correct deficiencies in the process.
SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $9,144,500,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 7,889,600,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 8,844,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +1,287,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. +300,000,000
This appropriation provides for the research and
development activities of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. These activities include: space science, life
and microgravity science, earth sciences, aero-space
technology, advanced concepts and technology, space operations,
and academic programs. Funds are also included for the
construction, maintenance, and operation of programmatic
facilities. Starting in fiscal year 2002, this account also
includes funding for activities previously carried in the
Mission Support appropriations account.
The Committee recommends $9,144,500,000 for Science,
Aeronautics and Technology in fiscal year 2003. The amount
recommended is an increase of $300,000,000 to the budget
request, and $1,287,400,000 more than the fiscal year 2002
appropriation.
Space Science
Within the Space Science portion of this account, the
Committee recommends $3,556,200,000, a net increase of
$141,900,000 to the budget request.
The Committee is supportive of the New Frontiers Program as
a competitive process to undertake missions to the outer
planets. The Committee is concerned that the New Frontiers
Program as proposed by NASA may be unduly constrained by a
uniform cap on mission costs of $650 million. Since the purpose
of the program is to undertake scientifically valuable
missions, the cap should not limit the mission options being
considered. The Committee supports New Frontiers with a
flexible cap for each new opportunity ($500 million to $1
billion in fiscal year 2002 dollars) prior to open competition,
giving due consideration to specified scientific objectives.
The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the
budget request:
1. An increase of $2,500,000 for the Center for Space
Sciences at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
2. An increase of $105,000,000 for the Kuiper Belt/Pluto
mission.
3. An increase of $40,000,000 for the Europa mission. In
light of the high priority by the National Academy decadal
study for a Europa Orbiter Mission and the public support for
Europa exploration as indicated by the recent survey of the
Planetary Society, the Committee directs NASA to conduct a
focused technology program and begin Phase A activities to
ensure that this mission is ready at the earliest possible
opportunity and that NASA preserves its core capabilities to
implement and manage such a mission at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. The Committee recommendation includes $30,000,000
for this activity and an additional $10,000,000 for instrument
technology. The Committee is aware that JPL has an
relationships with research universities on its outer planetary
programs and anticipates that a majority of the $10,000,000
million will be expended solidifying those relationships.
4. An increase of $500,000 for Morehead State University,
Kentucky, for upgrades to its ADAS satellite tracking facility.
5. An increase of $2,000,000 for propulsion testing
facilities at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
6. An increase of $500,000 for the Ultra-lightweight
Electroformed Segmented Large Aperture Optics program at
Alabama A&M University.
7. An increase of $900,000 for High-Energy Photonics
Instrumentation at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
8. An increase of $7,500,000 for development of a
lightweight carrier pallet to support the Hubble Space
Telescope program. The recent success of the Hubble servicing
mission has underscored the continued importance of the Hubble
Space Telescope. NASA's plan for HST has been to discontinue
servicing missions after 2004 in order to create a funding
wedge for the next generation space telescope (NGST), the
community's highest priority, and to return HST to earth in
2010. Although this scenario creates an important funding
wedge, it also leads to a significant probability that HST will
degrade over the intervening six-year period and become
inoperable well before 2010. This gap may be so long that HST
archival data alone may not sustain a productive scientific
community. The Committee directs that NASA carry out an in-
depth study of possible alternatives to the 2010 return mission
that would increase the probability of operating HST until NGST
becomes available. This study should address the possibility of
an additional servicing mission, SM5, and as an alternative, a
final servicing mission in 2007 in lieu of the 2010 mission
that would include a means of disposing of HST other than by
Shuttle return. This study should address the relative costs of
such scenarios, the potential scientific benefits, and the
mission constraints that will need to be considered for the
2010 return mission.
9. An increase of $19,900,000 to the Mars program to cover
recent cost increases. This funding is derived through a
decrease in funding for the flight projects building, a
cancelled project at the Jet Propulsion Lab.
10. A decrease of $10,000,000 from the Nuclear Electric
Propulsion program and a decrease of $7,000,000 from the
Nuclear Power System program.
Biological and Physical Research
Within the Biological and Physical Research portion of this
account, the Committee recommends $854,200,000, a net increase
of $11,900,000 to the budget request.
Within the amount provided, the Committee directs NASA to
establish a floor of funding support for the National Space
Biomedical Research Institute at $30,000,000 in fiscal year
2003.
The Committee remains committed to a healthy and productive
Materials Science research program. This program has undergone
multiple reviews by the National Research Council. It has also
produced a backlog of well-respected investigators whose
experiments have undergone multiple peer reviews, certifying
that they will provide useful scientific returns that can only
be obtained in the microgravity environment of space.
The Committee is concerned that recent changes to the
Materials Science program have jeopardized the ability of the
International Space Station to support a robust materials
science research program. Therefore, the Committee expects NASA
to maintain its commitment to a healthy materials research
program, which at a minimum includes the timely completion of
the Materials Science Research Rack--1, its experiment modules
and module inserts, and the planned, peer-reviewed materials
investigations that were to utilize this facility.
The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the
budget request:
1. An increase of $4,000,000 for the Space Radiation
program at Loma Linda University Hospital.
2. An increase of $1,000,000 for Canisius College for
multi-user scientific equipment in life sciences.
3. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Institute for
Proteomic and Nanobiotechnology at Northwestern University.
4. An increase of $400,000 for the Center for Research and
Training in gravitational biology at North Carolina State
University.
5. An increase of $5,000,000 for the National Center of
Excellence in Bioinformatics in Buffalo, New York.
6. An increase of $8,000,000 for procurement of animal and
plant habitats for the international space station.
7. A decrease of $11,200,000 from the Generations program.
The Committee recognizes the value of the research being
proposed through the Generations program, but finds the program
to unaffordable at this time given shortages in funding for
equipment for the International Space Station.
8. The Committee notes that NASA's 15 Commercial Space
Centers are all under the management of the Office of
Biological and Physical Research and directs NASA to support
Centers at a funding level of $18,500,000, an increase of
$3,700,000 to the budget request.
Earth Sciences
Within the Earth Sciences portion of this account, the
Committee recommends $1,675,000,000, a net increase of
$46,600,000 to the budget request.
The Committee commends the work of the New Jersey NASA
Specialized Center of Research and Training 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 focusing on life support issues in closed
environments in New Jersey.
The fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill and accompanying
reports gave NASA Congressional direction to establish an
implementation plan for Earth science applications
partnerships. NASA completed the report on its implementation
plan in June of 2002 and forwarded the report to the Committee
for its review. The Committee has reviewed the report and finds
that it offers a good basis on which to build a credible
program utilizing remote sensing data from the Earth Observing
System. Accordingly, the Committee recommendations do not
include any funding for new remote sensing applications
centers, but urges NASA to follow through with its
implementation plan which calls for a widely competed program.
The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the
budget request:
1. An increase of $650,000 for the NASA Center for Marine
Remote Sensing at the University of New England.
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 $500,000 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 $2,500,000 for NASA's Regional
Application Center for the Northeast.
5. An increase of $15,000,000 for the Institute of Software
Research for development and construction of research
facilities.
6. An increase of $1,750,000 for on-going activities at the
Goddard Institute for Systems, Software, and Technology
Research, including UAV and remote sensing technology research.
7. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Clustering and
Advanced Visual Environments initiative.
8. An increase of $6,000,000 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.
9. An increase of $10,000,000 to be transferred to the Air
Force Research Laboratory (PE 602204F Aerospace Sensors) to
develop dual-use lightweight space radar technology.
10. 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.
11. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Little River Canyon
field school.
Aero-Space Technology
Within the Aero-Space Technology portion of this account,
the Committee recommends $2,883,850,000 a net increase of
$68,050,000 to the budget request.
The Committee has grown increasingly concerned that today's
airspace modernization efforts fall short of addressing
existing and emerging needs. Growing numbers of flight delays
and cancellations over the past few years can be attributed to
fundamental limitations in aviation system capacity.
Congestion, delays and inefficient routing have serious
economic and environmental consequences. The events of
September 11, 2001 not only highlighted the importance of
aviation to our entire economy, but also demonstrated the need
to enhance aviation system security to reduce the risk that
future threats result in the shutdown of our national airspace
system.
The Committee strongly urges the NASA Administrator, in
consultation with the FAA Administrator to participate in a
national initiative with the objective of defining and
developing an air traffic management system designed to meet
national long-term aviation security, safety, capacity and
efficiency needs. Such an initiative would result in a multi-
agency blueprint for acquisition and implementation of an air
traffic management system that would build upon current air
traffic management and infrastructure initiatives. The
initiative should take a system of systems approach toward
integrating the requirements, resources, and capabilities of
all key agencies or department and utilize stakeholder based
system performance requirements to determine an optimal
operational concept and system architecture. New modeling,
simulation, and analysis tools should be used to validate
system performance and benefits. The national initiative should
also develop a transition plan for successful implementation
into the National Airspace System (NAS).
The Committee recognizes that any significant improvement
in the National Airspace System will depend upon a robust
technology development program. Given the thirty-year
involvement of Glenn Research Center in developing innovative
communications research and technology for NASA, the Center
should play a significant role in achieving the development of
this technology.
The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the
budget request:
1. An increase of $19,000,000 for Intelligent Propulsion
for Next Generation Aircraft to build on and leverage the Ultra
Efficient Engine Technology and Quiet Aircraft Technology
programs.
2. An increase of $2,500,000 for the NASA-Illinois
Technology Commercialization Center at DuPage County Research
Park.
3. An increase of $300,000 for the Rural Technology
Transfer and Commercialization Center of Durant, Oklahoma.
4. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Tulane Institute for
Macromolecular Engineering and Science for polymer research.
5. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Glennan Microsystem
Initiative.
6. An increase of $500,000 to be used for continued
development of an electric/diesel hybrid engine at Bowling
Green State University in conjunction with the University of
Toledo.
7. An increase of $6,000,000 for the HITS multilateration
sensor and surveillance server for Airport Surface Detection
and Management System.
8. An increase of $5,000,000 to develop in partnership with
the Air Force Research Laboratory-Information Directorate, the
JVIEW modeling and simulation system for satellite coverage
analysis, ground radars and air traffic over the United States.
9. An increase of $5,000,000 for Project SOCRATES.
10. An increase of $7,000,000 for continuation of the Space
Alliance Technology Outreach Program, including $3,000,000 for
business incubators, in Florida and New York.
11. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Advanced Interactive
Discovery Environment engineering research program at Syracuse
University.
12. An increase of $5,000,000 for the National Center of
Excellence in Infotonics in Rochester, New York.
13. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Virtual Collaboration
Center at the North Carolina GigaPop.
14. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Garrett Morgan
Commercialization Initiative in Ohio.
15. An increase of $1,000,000 for on-going activities in
support of NASA Dryden Flight Research Center's Intelligent
Flight Control System (IFCS) research project.
16. An increase of $1,250,000 for ongoing research at
Marshall Space Flight Center in the area of advanced and
breakthrough solutions for propulsion.
17. An increase of $9,000,000 for hydrogen research being
conducted by the Florida State University System.
18. An increase of $5,000,000 to develop in partnership
with the Air Force Research Laboratory-Information Directorate,
the JVIEW modeling and simulation system for satellite coverage
analysis, ground radars and air traffic over the United States.
19. An increase of $500,000 for aerospace projects being
accomplished by the Montana Aerospace Development Authority.
20. An increase of $800,000 for Middle Tennessee State
University for the SATS Aerospace Flight Education Research
Initiative.
21. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Advanced Power
Systems project.
22. An increase of $5,000,000 for the DP-2 vectored thrust
program.
23. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Energy Momentum Wheel
project at Goddard Space Flight Center.
24. An increase of $1,000,000 for COM simulation
architecture program.
25. An increase of $4,000,000 for NASA's Independent
Verification and Validation Facility
26. An increase of $2,000,000 for equipment for the
Computer Forensics Technology Center at Utica College of
Syracuse University.
27. An increases of $7,000,000 for the Small Aircraft
Transportation System. The Committee is concerned that NASA has
not requested sufficient funding to enable the Small Aircraft
Transportation System (SATS) program to demonstrate the
practical application of the SATS Program concept, which offers
the promise of extending reliable point-to-point air service to
smaller communities and has provided this increase. The
additional funding is to be invested through the governance
process of the National Consortium for Aviation Mobility
(NCAM), exclusively for acceleration of regional service
demonstrations that apply those SATS and related technologies
ready for implementation, and for automotive technology
transfer. The Committee expects NCAM to use these additional
funds to accelerate the planning and conduct of SATS regional
service demonstrations in states with strong state, community,
and transportation service provider participation in the NCAM
partnership. This funding for NCAM is in addition to the
$11,750,000 proposed by NASA for fiscal year 2003. Further, the
Committee expects the SATS service demonstrations to provide
the participating communities and their representative
organizations with an opportunity to participate in SATS
transportation service demonstrations, an analysis of economic
impacts and related implications of improved air access to
smaller communities, and an explanation of the technologies
behind the concept.
The Committee expects the SATS program to engage NCAM
partners in efforts to enhance the affordability of SATS to
end-users through an inter-modal transportation technology
transfer effort in coordination with relevant industrial
automotive technology development efforts.
The Committee expects the SATS service demonstrations to be
done in collaboration with the FAA and, as appropriate, in
cooperation with the FAA's Safe Flight 21 Program. The SATS
project will address issues raised by the FAA regarding
operational procedures and safety criteria for the SATS
technologies and their deployment. A primary objective of the
FAA-NASA collaboration in the SATS program is for the output of
the 2005 demonstration activities to be sufficient to define
the implementation actions required for deployment of SATS
transportation services.
NASA is directed to provide a report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and the Senate on the status of
program progress and results on March 31 of each year. Finally,
the Committee directs that future budget requests for SATS
shall identify sufficient funding to enable NCAM to fully carry
out the service demonstrations and the automotive technology
transfer, including adequate funding to support full
collaboration between SATS and the FAA.
28. A decrease of $31,000,000, without prejudice, from the
Space Launch Initiative program. The Committee recommendation
includes the full request for of $62,700,000 for Alternative
Access to Station. Because NASA's Research Maximization and
Prioritization Task Force has called for additional ``upmass''
to improve ISS research productivity, the Committee directs
that these funds be used to demonstrate a near-term commercial
ISS re-supply service.
29. An increase of $500,000 for the Advanced Space
Propulsion Materials Research and Technology Center at Alabama
A&M University.
30. An increase of $1,000,000 for high temperature
nanotechnology research to be conducted at Glenn Research
Center.
31. An increase of $1,000,000 for the computing,
information, and communications technology program only for the
development, demonstration and assessment of a mobile,
wireless, broadband internet capability.
The Committee supports the mission of Wallops Flight
Facility and that facility's fully capable test range for low-
cost, aerospace-based, science and technology research through
small to medium-sized missions. However, the Committee does not
support the alteration of existing roles and responsibilities
of NASA's flight centers.
Academic Programs
Within the Academic Programs portion of this account, the
Committee recommends $178,950,000 an increase of $35,250,000 to
the budget request.
The Committee has provided $82,100,000 for NASA's minority
university research and education activities, the same as the
budget request. The Committee directs that the Minority
University Research and Education Program be retained as a
discrete budget line in future budgets and that the Minority
University Research and Education Division be continued within
the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs.
The Committee has serious concerns that too few students
are pursuing advanced degree in aerospace science and
engineering, with a result that the Nation's future in the
utilization and exploration of space will be compromised. The
Committee recognizes that for advanced education to be
effective, it must be pursued in universities with active
research programs. NASA, with its longstanding support of
university-based research, is in a unique position to ensure
that the university research base, and the educational
opportunities that accompany it, are sufficient to the Nation's
needs. Accordingly, NASA is directed, in cooperation with the
Nation's leading research universities, to develop a
comprehensive plan and implementation strategy that will result
in an increase in the number of students pursuing advanced
degrees in the presence of vibrant university research efforts.
The plan should include means to increase the number of
university research and educational groups, to increase the
number of new, young faculty; to build cooperative
relationships between universities and NASA centers; and means
for attracting and supporting students. The plan should be
submitted to the Committee by March 15, 2003 and will serve as
the basis for consideration of the fiscal year 2004 NASA
budget.
The Committee encourages NASA to develop closer working
relationships with universities in regions adjacent to national
laboratories. National laboratories have assets and
capabilities that are important to graduate student support and
collaborations with regional universities.
The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the
budget request:
1. An increase of $250,000 for Niagara University for
science, engineering and math programs.
2. An increase of $1,200,000 for the NASA Educator Resource
Center at South East Missouri State University.
3. An increase of $1,050,000 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 to the U.S. Space and Rocket
Center for an Educational Training Center.
7. An increase of $1,000,000 for academic and
infrastructure needs at St. Thomas University in Miami,
Florida.
8. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Ohio View Consortium.
9. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Alabama Math, Science,
and Technology initiative.
10. An increase of $2,500,000 to the Educational
Advancement Alliance to support the Alliance's math, science,
and technology enrichment program.
11. An increase of $5,000,000 for the National Space Grant
College and Fellowship program. The funding level recommended
by the Committee is $24,100,000, the same as the fiscal year
2002 appropriation. By this action, the Committee has funded
the core programs of the 52 consortia, including some modest
upgrades. NASA is encouraged to use these consortia to continue
workforce development initiative to attract and retain
educated, skilled diverse employees for ANSA and aerospace
industries. It is imperative that NASA encourage additional
young people to pursue careers in science and engineering and
these consortia are on the front lines for this effort.
12. An increase of $500,000 for Science, Engineering, Math
and Aerospace Academy programs at Central Arizona College.
13. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Center for Science
and Math at the University of Redlands.
14. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Chabot Space and
Science Center for math and science education.
15. An increase of $2,000,000 for the City College of New
York to establish a community-based science and technology
education facility.
16. An increase of $500,000 for Science, Engineering, Math
and Aerospace Academy programs at Livingstone College.
17. An increase of $550,000 for the Patriots Technology
Training Center in Seat Pleasant, Maryland.
18. An increase of $5,400,000 for the EPSCoR program for a
total funding level of $10,000,000, the same as fiscal year
2002.
19. An increase of $800,000 for Science, Engineering, Math,
and Aeronautics Academy in Miami, Florida.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $24,600,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 23,700,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 24,600,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 $24,600,000 for the Office of the
Inspector General in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $900,000
to the amount provided in fiscal year 2002 and the same as the
budget request for fiscal year 2002.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Limitation on administrative
direct loans expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation. ($1,500,000,000) ($309,000)
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation.. (1,500,000,000) (309,000)
Fiscal year 2003 budget request. (1,500,000,000) (0)
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 (0) (0)
appropriation..................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 (0) (0)
request........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
2002 and the same as the budget request. The Committee expects
to be kept apprised of CLF lending activity.
The Committee recommends the budget request of not more
than $309,000 for administrative expenses.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $1,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 1,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 1,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. 0
The Community Development Revolving Loan Fund Program
(CDRLF) was established in 1979 to assist officially designated
``low-income'' credit unions in providing basic financial
services to low-income communities. Low-interest loans and
deposits are made available to assist these credit unions.
Loans or deposits are normally repaid in five years, although
shorter repayment periods may be considered. Technical
assistance grants are also available to low-income credit
unions. Until fiscal year 2001, only earnings generated from
the CDRLF were available to fund technical assistance grants.
Grants are available for improving operations as well as
addressing safety and soundness issues.
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 be provided to the
Community Development Revolving Loan Fund for loans to
community development credit unions, the same level as
requested in the budget request. Within this amount, $700,000
is available until expended for loans to community development
credit unions and $300,000 is available for fiscal year 2003
for additional technical assistance grants to low-income and
community development credit unions.
National Science Foundation
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $5,422,942,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 4,808,540,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 5,028,210,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +614,402,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. +394,732,000
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 $5,422,942,000 for
fiscal year 2003. This recommendation is an increase of
$614,402,000, or 13 percent, above last year's appropriation
and an increase of $394,732,000 above the President's budget
request.
The Committee is strongly supportive of the National
Science Foundation and committed to its mission of providing
national leadership and federal financial support of research
as the basis for scientific and social advancement for the
nation and for the entire world. This commitment is reflected
in the substantial 13 percent increase provided in this bill
for the NSF for FY 2003.
As Congress, the executive branch and the American people
begin to consider a multi-year build-up of financial support
for the NSF, however, the Committee also believes that a review
of the agency's organizational, programmatic and personnel
structures is appropriate and can provide assurance to the
public that the agency is positioned to maximize the
opportunities which increased funding can create. The Committee
has allocated $1,000,000 within the agency ``Salaries and
Expenses'' appropriation for a contract with the National
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to conduct such a
study. The Committee expects this contract to be awarded no
later than December 31, 2002.
Without prejudicing the outcome of this NAPA review, the
Committee is concerned about the following issues:
Organizational and program structure. Over the last decade
the NSF has evolved into a very complex and multi-layered
system of directorates, sub-directorates and programs each with
its own leadership and budget. This organizational structure is
then managed and evaluated against a system of goals which were
established under the Government Performance and Results Act as
well as a set of six cross-cutting priority areas which change
from year to year. All programs are required to justify
themselves according to how they serve both the goals and the
priorities. Assets flow and personnel are evaluated based on
such evaluations even though not every program clearly is
designed to serve every goal and every priority. There is
concern that this system, each aspect of which may have been
created with the best of intentions, may have become overly
bureaucratic. Some observers have characterized this current
structure as both Byzantine and balkanized. This reflects a
concern that the system is broken up into large numbers of
parts which may channel significant portions of research
funding into narrow areas making it difficult for researchers
to follow broader interdisciplinary projects or innovative
research areas not yet reflected in NSF's view of scientific
opportunity. Because recent NSF budget requests have heavily
favored the agency's own priority areas at the expense of
research in core disciplines, investigators often feel
compelled to apply for support in certain areas because of a
sense that proposals which do not fit into NSF's priorities are
significantly disadvantaged. The Committee believes that a
thoughtful review should ask whether the current NSF
organization and management structure and its goal and priority
systems should be simplified or changed.
The balance between field driven and NSF driven science
priority setting. Second, but clearly related, the Committee
believes that this review should consider whether the NSF's
approach to its stewardship mission creates the proper balance
between necessary and appropriate levels of agency leadership
of NSF sponsored science and the need to ensure that this
research remains principally investigator initiated work. A
corollary question is whether the structure of NSF and
management control of its priority setting methodologies have
negatively influenced the balance between NSF initiatives and
appropriate resource allocations for core science investments.
The underlying principal around which NSF was founded and
which the Committee believes is still the pedestal upon which
the success of America's taxpayer supported research rests is
that both the choice of research priorities and the choice of
individual projects should flow principally from practicing
scientists in the field as expressed through organized systems
of advice and through external peer review. The Committee
believes that it is appropriate to review whether the balance
of power in setting research priorities is the appropriate one
or whether NSF has become too directive in managing its
research portfolios.
Role of the National Science Board. The NSF is unique in
entrusting both advisory and executive authority for the agency
in an ``independent'' board appointed by the president. Recent
Congressional action has highlighted, however, the concerns
about the relationship between the Board and the agency and its
Director and in particular the issue as to how independent the
Board is able to operate given its dependence on the Agency for
financial support and personnel. The Committee has not adopted
the proposals made by its Senate counterpart to provide for a
separate budget for the Board but instead would request that
the organizational review of NSF here directed include an
analysis of the extent to which the Board has fulfilled its
original purpose and a review of the role and the structure of
the Board in the future.
Personnel policies. The NSF has chosen over the years to
rely significantly on contractual and on temporary personnel
assigned to the agency under the IPA system to manage its
science programs including its grant selection processes.
Almost one-tenth of the approximately 1500 staff of the agency
are university based researchers detailed to NSF under the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act (so-called IPA's) and over 200
are contractors. The assignment of non-permanent personnel to
management positions now includes the heads of its science
directorates. The advantage of this system is a continuous flow
of individuals from the field who are current in their science.
The disadvantage, however, is a cadre of agency personnel,
including some of its most senior staff, who have less
experience and could have split loyalties between their federal
roles and their past or future employment base. The Committee
believes a thoughtful review of the agency's structure should
include an evaluation of the use of temporary staff and term
appointments, especially to the extent this involves the heads
of the science directorates.
In laying out these particular concerns, the Committee does
not mean this to be an exclusive list. The review by NAPA
should be carried out by very senior and thoughtful persons who
should feel free to analyze any other factors which the group
believes are central to the question of determining what
organizational, programmatic and personnel systems will
facilitate the most effective partnership between the National
Science Foundation and the scientific community for the benefit
of the nation.
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 2003 recommendation...................... $4,150,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation....................... 3,598,340,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request...................... 3,783,200,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation....... +551,660,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request............. +366,800,000
The appropriation for Research and Related Activities
covers all programs in the Foundation except Education and
Human Resources, Salaries and Expenses, Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction, 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 $4,150,000,000 for
Research and Related Activities in fiscal year 2003, an
increase of $551,660,000 above last year's funding level and an
increase of $366,800,000 above the budget request. This
represents a 15.3 percent increase over the fiscal year 2002
appropriated level for this entire account, and provides an
increase of at least 15 percent over the fiscal 2002 funding
level for seven of the nine Research and Related Activities'
directorates. The Committee's recommendation includes the
following program levels: (1) Biological Sciences,
$584,670,000; (2) Computer and Information Science and
Engineering, $592,110,000; (3) Engineering, $543,160,000; (4)
Geosciences, $700,890,000; (5) Mathematical and Physical
Sciences, $1,058,510,000; (6) Social Behavioral and Economic
Sciences, $195,610,000; (7) U.S. Polar Research Programs,
$254,000,000; (8) U.S. Antarctic Logistical Support Activities,
$70,440,000; and (9) Integrative Activities, $150,610,000.
Except as specifically noted herein, in allocating the
increases provided by the Committee, the Foundation should give
the highest priority to increasing research opportunities for
investigator initiated research in the core scientific
disciplines. 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.
Of the amounts made available for Biological Sciences, the
Committee has recommended $75,000,000, the budget request, to
continue research on the genomics of plants of major economic
importance. In addition, the Committee's recommendation
provides $26,000,000 for Biocomplexity in the Environment
research, an increase of 53% over the fiscal year 2002 funding
level of $16,900,000.
It is the Committee's intent that not to exceed $12,500,000
of the additional funds made available for Computer and
Information Science and Engineering, may be used by NSF for
ongoing operational support of the two funded terascale
computing systems. The remaining additional resources over the
budget request should, to the greatest extent practicable, be
focused on information technology research and cyber-security
research.
From within the Engineering Directorate, the Committee is
concerned that researchers are reaching the physical limits of
current complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) process
technology and that this will have significant implications for
continued productivity growth in the information economy. The
Committee encourages NSF to examine the challenges and
timelines outlined in the most recent International Technology
Roadmap for Semiconductors and, where feasible, increase
research support in this area accordingly.
Under the Geosciences Directorate, the Committee has not
recommended approval of the budget request to transfer to the
NSF the Environmental Education program, currently operated by
the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Sea Grant
Program, operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, or the Hydrology of Toxic Substances program,
operated by the United States Geological Survey. Each of these
programs works well within its current framework and the
Committee has not been convinced that such transfer as proposed
in the budget submission will either enhance the individual
programs or benefit the ongoing programs of the Foundation.
Within the additional funds made available for the
Mathematical and Physical Sciences directorate, the Committee
expects the Foundation to allocate funds on a basis which
provides a high priority for astronomy, including individual
investigator grants, and sufficient resources to begin
development of important new projects recommended in a recent
National Academy of Sciences 10-year plan for astronomical
science activities. In addition, the Committee's recommendation
for the Astronomical Sciences activity includes $5,000,000
above the budget request for the National Radio Astronomy
Observatory (NRAO) program, $4,300,000 above the budget request
for the National Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO),
$2,000,000 above the budget request for the National Astronomy
and Ionosphere Center (NAIC), and no less than the budget
request of $4,000,000 for the Telescope Systems Instrumentation
Program (TSIP). The Foundation is expected to aggressively
continue its program, begun in fiscal 2001, of upgrading on a
priority basis its astronomical facilities and equipment.
Also within Mathematical and Physical Sciences, the
Committee's recommendation includes the budget request of
$181,870,000 for Mathematical Sciences and not less than
$225,000,000, a 15% increase over the fiscal year 2002 funding
level, for Physics programs.
With regard to the Social, Behavioral, and Economic
Sciences Directorate (SBE), the Committee recognizes that
investment in basic, multidisciplinary research on learning is
crucial to both successful educational reform and effective
workforce development. In this regard, the Committee's
recommendation includes support for the NSF Science of Learning
Centers. This program is intended to build collaborative
research communities of scientists, educators, community
groups, and industry capable of addressing fundamental
questions in learning and then integrating these results into
ongoing federal education reform initiatives.
Also within the SBE directorate, the Committee has included
$6,000,000 for the Children's Research Initiative (CRI). This
level of funding, an increase of $1,000,000 above that provided
for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, will allow NSF to emphasize
ongoing research related to enhancing literacy and improving
math and science skills.
For the Office of Polar Programs (OPP), an increase of
$18,260,000 above the budget request has been provided to
enhance the ongoing research effort as well as to provide
additional necessary resources for operations, research support
and logistics, and science and research grant support. In
addition, the Committee is aware of the pressing need to
provide both upgraded living facilities and adequate, indoor
storage facilities at NSF's McMurdo Station in Antarctica. In
this regard, the Committee requests that the OPP prepare and
deliver to the Committee at the earliest date possible a report
outlining the work that needs to be performed to upgrade these
facilities as well as the estimated short- and long-term costs
involved with such upgrades. The report should detail whether
such facilities would be new construction or retrofits or
upgrades to existing facilities. Upon completion and delivery
of such report, OPP may utilize available resources provided
herein to begin planning, design, pre-construction and/or
construction activities related to such necessary upgrades.
Finally, from within these additional funds, OPP may begin
to execute contractual arrangements and make necessary advance
expenditures in preparation of its plans to provide mechanical
traverse capability between McMurdo Station and Amundsen-Scott
South Pole Station. Because all supplies and materials going to
the South Pole must currently be configured so as to fit in a
C-130 aircraft, delivery of such is entirely dependent on the
availability of aircraft and subject to severe weather
fluctuations. Once fully implemented, this traverse capability
thus offers the opportunity to safely and in a timely manner
provide both increased supply volumes and construction supplies
and equipment requiring less retrofit at a greatly reduced
cost.
Within the Integrative Activities Directorate, an
additional $40,000,000 over the budget request has been
included for Major Research Instrumentation.
MAJOR RESEARCH FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $159,510,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 138,800,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 126,280,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +20,710,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. +33,230,000
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 $159,510,000 for the
major research construction and equipment account for fiscal
year 2003, an increase of $33,230,000 over the budget request
and $20,710,000 over the fiscal 2002 funding level.
The Committee's recommendation includes the budget requests
of $9,720,000 for the Large Hadron Collider, $13,560,000 for
the George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation, $30,000,000 for construction funding of the Atacama
Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) aperture-synthesis radio
telescope, and $6,000,000 for additional construction
requirements necessary to meet enhanced capacity needs at the
new South Pole Station.
In addition the Committee is recommending $25,530,000 as
the final installment necessary to complete development of the
High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for
Environmental Research (HIAPER), and $24,700,000 for continued
research and development of the IceCube Neutrino Detector
Observatory in Antarctica. 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 2003
will support continued development, acquisition, pre-
construction, testing and logistics support necessary to
facilitate IceCube's large-scale construction and deployment.
Finally, the Committee has provided $40,000,000 for first
year funding for the new EarthScope project instead of
$35,000,000 as requested in the budget submission, and
$10,000,000 for support of the Terascale Computing System and
the Distributed Terascale Facility (also known as
``Teragrid''), instead of $20,000,000 as proposed in the budget
request.
With regard to EarthScope, the five-year budget projections
of this important project initially called for lesser funding
requirements in the first, fourth, and fifth years of the
project and dramatically increased funding in years two and
three. In an attempt to provide a relatively level funding
profile for the life of the project, the project's sponsors
have developed an alternative request which provides
$40,000,000 in year one, $42,000,000 in year two, $40,000,000
in year three, $39,000,000 in year four, and $37,000,000 in
year five. In addition to the obvious benefits such level
funding will bring to the annual appropriations process, the
sponsors have suggested this new approach brings the added
benefits of achieving significant cost savings over the long-
term operation and maintenance of the facility, and providing
higher quality data through the acquisition of instrumentation
with uniform technical characteristics.
With regard to support of the two new terascale facilities,
it is the Committee's understanding that the original fiscal
2002 request of $55,000,000 for this project was intended to be
spent over a three-year period, with $35,000,000 being
necessary in year one and $10,000,000 necessary in each of
years two and three. The Congress last year provided the first
year's $35,000,000 requirement, and the Committee intends to
continue this pattern by providing $10,000,000 in fiscal 2003
and $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2004.
The Committee's recommendation does not include funding for
the new National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) project
as requested in the budget submission. This decision, made
without prejudice to the NEON project, allows the Committee to
use its limited MREFC resources to fully fund ongoing projects
as well as begin funding for one new research effort, the
EarthScope project.
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $910,580,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 875,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 908,080,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +35,580,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. +2,500,000
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 2003, the Committee recommends
$910,580,000, an increase of $35,580,000 above last year's
appropriated level and $2,500,000 above the budget request. The
Committee's recommendation includes the following program
levels: Math and Science Partnership, $160,000,000; Educational
System Reform, $40,250,000; EPSCoR, $86,000,000; Elementary,
Secondary and Informal Education, $177,440,000; Undergraduate
Education, $155,600,000; Graduate Education, $128,380,000;
Human Resource Development, $95,710,000; and Research,
Evaluation and Communication, $67,200,000.
In addition to the $86,000,000 recommended for the EPSCoR
program under the Education and Human Resources account, the
Committee has concurred in the budget request of $5,000,000 for
EPSCoR from within the Integrated Activities directorate in the
Research and Related Activities account, bringing the total
EPSCoR program level for fiscal 2003 to $91,000,000.
Within the Committee's recommendation for the Elementary,
Secondary and Informal Education activity is an additional
$6,000,000 for Informal Science, bringing the total program
level to $61,000,000.
Within the Undergraduate Education activity, increases
above the budget request have been provided for the Advanced
Technological Education (ATE) program (+$4,000,000), the STEM
Talent Expansion Program (STEP) (+$13,000,000), and the Robert
Noyce Scholarship Program (+$3,000,000). The total funding
level for each of these three programs is $42,160,000,
$15,000,000, and $7,000,000, respectively.
Finally, within the Human Resource Development Activity, an
additional $2,000,000 above the budget request has been added
to the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation
(LSAMP) program for a total funding level of $28,530,000, and
$3,500,000 above the budget request has been added to
Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate
Program (HBCU-UP) for a total 2003 program level of
$17,470,000.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $193,852,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 170,040,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 202,950,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +23,812,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. -9,098,000
The Salaries and Expenses activity provides for the
operation, support and management, and direction of all
Foundation programs and activities and includes necessary funds
that develop, manage, and coordinate Foundation programs.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $193,852,000
for salaries and expenses, a decrease of $9,098,000 below the
President's budget request and an increase of $23,812,000 above
last year's appropriated level.
The Committee shares the belief that the increased
activities, responsibilities, and financial resources of the
Foundation make it necessary to provide increased personnel
resources as well. The Committee's recommendation therefore
includes $128,662,000 for Personnel Compensation and Benefits,
an increase of $8,812,000 above the fiscal year 2002 funding
level. This funding level is sufficient to provide
comparability and locality pay increases for existing staff,
within-grade increases, career promotions and appropriate
bonuses, and will allow the employment of up to 25 additional
FTEs, bringing the total workforce to 1175 for fiscal year
2003.
In addition, the Committee's recommendation includes an
additional $15,000,000 above the fiscal 2002 funding level for
General Operating Expenses, including increases for space
rental, travel and transportation, training, supplies and other
necessary operating expenses, as well as for the Foundation's
ongoing Information Infrastructure program.
As the Committee has not approved the transfer of programs
from the EPA, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey as proposed
in the budget submission, the Committee's recommendation for
Salaries and Expenses does not include the 17 FTEs that would
have transferred with these programs.
The Foundation is expected to use up to $1,000,000 from
within the Salaries and Expenses account to contract with the
National Academy of Public Administration for an extensive
organizational study as outlined earlier in this Report.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $9,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 6,760,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 7,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +2,240,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............. +1,300,000
This account provides National Science Foundation audit and
investigation functions to identify and correct management and
administrative deficiencies which could lead to fraud, waste,
or abuse.
For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has recommended
$9,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is
$2,240,000 above last year's funding level and is $1,300,000
above the budget request.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $105,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 105,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 105,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request....... 0
The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, established by
title VI of Public Law 95-557 in October 1978, is committed to
promoting reinvestment in older neighborhoods by local
financial institutions working cooperatively with community
people and local government. This is primarily accomplished by
assisting community-based partnerships (NeighborWorks
organizations) in a range of local revitalization efforts.
Increase in homeownership among lower-income families is a key
revitalization tool. Neighborhood Housing Services of America
(NHSA) supports lending activities of the NeighborWorks
organizations through a national secondary market that
leverages its capital with private sector investment.
The Committee recommends a funding level of $105,000,000
for fiscal year 2002, the same amount as the budget request and
the fiscal year 2002 appropriation.
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.
Selective Service System
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation....................... $26,480,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................ 25,003,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request....................... 26,480,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........ +1,477,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 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 2003, the bill includes the budget request
of $26,480,000 for the Selective Service System, $1,477,000
above the fiscal year 2002 funding level.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommends inclusion of twenty-two general
provisions, fifteen of which were carried in the fiscal year
2002 Appropriations Act (Public Law 107-73). The Committee has
included new provisions which (1) prohibits the expenditure of
funds to any department or agency created after enactment of
this Act, (2) changes the formula for hazard mitigation grant
funding, (3) modifies the Consumer Product Safety Act to
clarify that CPSC has jurisdictional authority regarding the
regulation of low-speed electric personal assistive mobility
devices, (4) provides new authorities to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration as described in the NASA
section of this report, and (5) provides for a reduction in the
State cost share for construction of emergency operations
centers from 50 percent to 25 percent.
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 $17,138,000 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 ($168,207,000), the
education loan fund program account ($70,000), the vocational
rehabilitation loans program account ($289,000) and the Native
American veteran housing loan program account ($558,000). 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 has included language under the Department of
Veterans Affairs which would transfer $5,000,000 from medical
and prosthetic research to medical care.
The Committee recommends providing authority under
administrative provisions for the Department of Veterans
Affairs for any funds appropriated in 2003 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 2002
and all collections made during fiscal year 2003 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 ($548,202,400); GNMA guarantees
of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account
($10,343,000); community development loan guarantees program
account ($1,000,000); Indian housing loan guarantee fund
program account ($200,000); native Hawaiian housing loan
guarantee fund ($35,000); and Native American housing block
grants account ($150,000).
The Committee has included language under the Department of
Housing and Urban Development transferring $13,000,000 from the
manufactured housing fees trust fund to the manufactured
housing standards program.
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
($3,000,000); public housing capital fund ($18,600,000);
community development fund ($3,400,000); home investment
partnership program account ($1,100,000); homeless assistance
grants account ($1,500,000); housing for special populations
account ($500,000); FHA mutual mortgage insurance program
account ($21,360,000); FHA general and special risk insurance
program account ($14,240,000); Office of Inspector General
($300,000); and native American housing block grants account
($600,000).
The Committee has included language under the Department of
Housing and Urban Development transferring $23,343,000 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 $30,000,000 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 ($12,742,000) to the Office of
Inspector General. In addition, $86,168,000 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 $30,848,000
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 and $21,577,000 to the Office of
Inspector General.
The Committee has included language under the Federal
Emergency Management Agency transferring up to $20,000,000 from
the National Flood Insurance Fund to the National Flood
Mitigation Fund.
The Committee has included language which provides for the
transfer of up to five percent of firefighter assistance grants
funding to salaries and expenses.
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.
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.................................... -1,300,000,000
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Rental
Housing Assistance.................................. -100,000,000
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.]
[(d) The provisions of subsection (a) expire on September
30, 2002.]
* * * * * * *
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) * * *
* * * * * * *
(8) Section 8165(a) of this title.
(9) Section 113 of the Veterans Millennium Health
Care and Benefits Act (Public Law 106-117; 38 U.S.C.
8111 note).
[(8)] (10) 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] years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, 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 in located in New
Jersey.
* * * * * * *
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
[$17,000,000] $20,000,000 in [each] fiscal year
2003.
(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,
[2002] 2003.
(6) Other fees.--During the period beginning on
October 25, 1988, and ending on September 30, [2002]
2003, the Administrator shall * * *
* * * * * * *
(k) * * *
(3) Expedited processing of similar applications.--
(A) The Administrator shall use for each of
the fiscal years 1997 through [2002] 2003, not
more than \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,
[2002] 2004, 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 December 31, [2002] 2004.
* * * * * * *
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 December 31, [2002] 2004, 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, [2002] 2004, for studies
under this title.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 404 OF THE ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY
ASSISTANCE ACT
SEC. 404. HAZARD MITIGATION.
(a) In General.--The President may contribute up to 75
percent of the cost of hazard mitigation measures which the
President has determined are cost-effective and which
substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss,
or suffering in any area affected by a major disaster. Such
measures shall be identified following the evaluation of
natural hazards under section 322 and shall be subject to
approval by the President. Subject to section 322, the total of
contributions under this section for a major disaster shall not
exceed [15] 7.5 percent of the estimated aggregate amount of
grants to be made (less any associated administrative costs)
under this Act with respect to the major disaster.
* * * * * * *
----------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT
short title; table of contents
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Product
Safety Act''.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 38. Low-speed electric personal assistive mobility devices.
* * * * * * *
LOW-SPEED ELECTRIC PERSONAL ASSISTIVE MOBILITY DEVICES
Sec. 38. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law,
low-speed electric personal assistive mobility devices, other
than those excluded by 15 USC 2052(a)(1)(A), are consumer
products within the meaning of section 3(a)(1) of this Act.
(b) For the purpose of this section, the term ``low-speed
electric personal assistive mobility device'' means a self-
balancing two non tandem wheeled device with an electric
propulsion system whose maximum speed on a paved level surface,
when powered solely by such a propulsion system while ridden by
an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph;
provided, however, that this term shall exclude devices that
are subject to jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration
pursuant to Section 321 (h) of the Title 21, United States
Code.
(c) To further protect the safety of consumers who ride low-
speed electric personal assistive mobility devices, the
Commission may promulgate new or amended requirements
applicable to such devices as necessary and appropriate.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
* * * * * * *
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
Sec. 314. There is hereby established in the United States
Treasury a National Aeronautics and Space Administration
working capital fund. Amounts in the fund are available for
financing activities, services, equipment, information, and
facilities as authorized by law to be provided within the
Administration; to other agencies or instrumentalities of the
United States; to any State, Territory, or possession or
political subdivision thereof; to other public or private
agencies; or to any person, firm, association, corporation, or
educational institution on a reimbursable basis. The fund shall
also be available for the purpose of funding capital repairs,
renovations, rehabilitation, sustainment, demolition, or
replacement of NASA real property, on a reimbursable basis
within the Administration. Amounts in the fund are available
without regard to fiscal year limitation. The capital of the
fund consists of amounts appropriated to the fund; the
reasonable value of stocks of supplies, equipment, and other
assets and inventories on order that the Administrator
transfers to the fund, less the related liabilities and unpaid
obligations; amounts received from the sale or exchange of
property; and payments received for loss or damage to property
of the fund. The fund shall be reimbursed, in advance, for
supplies and services at rates that will approximate the
expenses of operation, such as the accrual of annual leave,
depreciation of plant, property and equipment, and overhead.
ENHANCED-USE LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY
Sec. 315. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Administration may enter into a lease
under this section with any person or entity (including another
department or agency of the Federal Government or an entity of
a State or local government) with regard to any real property
under the jurisdiction of the Administration.
(b) Consideration.--
(1) A person or entity entering into a lease under
this section shall provide consideration for the lease
at fair market value as determined by the
Administrator, except that in the case of a lease to
another department or agency of the Federal Government,
that department or agency shall provide consideration
for the lease equal to the full costs of the
Administration in connection with the lease.
(2) Consideration under this subsection may take one
or a combination of the following forms:
(A) the payment of cash;
(B) the maintenance, construction,
modification or improvement of facilities on
real property under the jurisdiction of the
Administration;
(C) the provision of services to the
Administration, including launch services and
payload processing services; or
(D) use by the Administration of facilities
on the property.
(3)(A) The Administrator may utilize amounts of cash
consideration received under this subsection for a
lease entered into under this section to cover the full
costs of the Administration in connection with the
lease. These funds shall remain available to the
Administration until expended.
(B) Any amounts of cash consideration received under
this subsection that are not utilized in accordance
with subparagraph (A) shall be deposited in a capital
asset account to be established by the Administrator,
shall be available for maintenance, capital
revitalization, and improvements of the real property
assets of the Administration, and shall remain
available to the Administration until expended.
(c) Lease Term.--The term of any lease entered into under
this section shall not exceed 75 years.
(d) Scoring.--For the sole purpose of scoring leaseback
agreements for purposes of the Federal budget, if the non-
Federal entity shall exercise management control of the
business of the public-private entity and holds a majority
interest in ownership in the public-private venture, then the
project shall not be considered to be constructed on
Government-owned land for the purposes of the application of
scoring rules.
(e) Authority for Disposition of Leased Property.--If, during
the term of a lease entered into under this section, or within
90 days after the end of the term of the lease, the
Administrator determines that the leased property is no longer
needed by the Administration, the Administrator may initiate
action for the transfer to the lessee of all right, title, and
interest of the United States in the property by:
(1) requesting the Administrator of General Services
Administration to dispose of the property for such
consideration as the NASA Administrator and the
Administrator of General Services jointly determine is
in the best interests of the United States and upon
such other terms and conditions as the Administrators
consider appropriate; or
(2) taking such other disposal action authorized by
statute for the transfer of property under the
jurisdiction of the Administration.
(f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may
require such terms and conditions in connection with a lease
under this section as the Administrator considers appropriate
to protect the interests of the United States.
(g) Relationship to Other Lease Authority.--The authority
under this section to lease property of the Administration is
in addition to any other authority to lease property of the
Administration under law.
CONVEYANCE OF UTILITY SYSTEMS
Sec. 316. (a) Conveyance Authority.--The Administrator may
convey a utility system or part of a utility system under the
jurisdiction of the Administrator to a municipal, private,
regional, district, or cooperative utility company or other
qualified entity. The conveyance may consist of all right,
title, and interest of the United States in the utility system
or such lesser estate as the Administrator considers
appropriate to serve the interests of the United States.
(b) Selection of Conveyee.--The Administrator shall carry out
the conveyance through the use of competitive procedures if
more than one of the entities and utilities referred to in
subsection (a)--
(1) are eligible to operate and maintain the conveyed
utility system under applicable law regulating
utilities; and
(2) notify the Administrator of an interest in the
conveyance under subsection (a).
(c) Consideration.--The Administrator shall require as
consideration for a conveyance under subsection (a) an amount
equal to the fair market value (as determined by the
Administrator) of the right, title, or interest of the United
States conveyed. The consideration may take the form of--
(1) a lump-sum payment; or
(2) a reduction in charges for utility services
provided by the utility or entity concerned to the
facility at which the utility system is located for a
period of time that is sufficient to amortize the value
of the utility system (including any real property or
interest in real property) conveyed.
(d) Treatment of Payments.--Subject to appropriations, a
lump-sum payment received under subsection (c) shall be merged
with and made available for the same purposes as amounts
available for construction of facilities in the ``Human space
flight'' and the ``Science, aeronautics, and technology''
accounts.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection with
a conveyance under subsection (a) as the Administrator
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
(f) Utility System Defined.--In this section, the term
``utility system'' means any of the following:
(1) a system for the generation or distribution of
electric power;
(2) a system for the treatment or supply of water;
(3) a system for the collection or treatment of
wastewater;
(4) a system for the generation or supply of steam,
hot water, or chilled water;
(5) a system for the supply of natural gas;
(6) a system for the transmission of
telecommunications; or
(7) any other utility system that the Administrator
considers to be appropriate.
* * * * * * *
----------
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
(Public Law 104-204)
Sec. 432. To Promote and Support Management
Reorganization of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.--(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(j) Effective Date.--
(1) * * *
(2) No voluntary separation incentive under this
section may be paid based on the separation of an
employee after September 30, [2002] 2005.
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 415 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.
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.
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, funding administrative expenses associated
with VA life insurance programs from excess program revenues,
extending authority to operate the Franchise Fund, allowing
reimbursement from enhanced-use leases, and allowing for
reimbursement for certain services. Eleven provisions have been
carried in previous Appropriations Acts. Six new provisions
have been added.
Language is included under the Department of Veterans
Affairs, administrative provisions limiting medical services
for non-service connected veterans to those who have provided
insurance and income information.
Language is included under the Department of Veterans
Affairs, administrative provisions delaying the implementation
of geographic means test for one year.
Language is included under the Department of Veterans
Affairs, administrative provisions requiring new funds to be
appropriated for adjudication of disability claims arising from
any new concurrent receipt legislation.
Language is included under the Department of Veterans
Affairs, administrative provisions merging the Health Services
Improvement Fund with the Medical Care Collections Fund and
extending the Department's authority to collect receipts.
Language is included under the Department of Veterans
Affairs, administrative provisions providing $19,900,000 for
information technology initiatives at the Department.
Language is included under the Department of Veterans
Affairs, administrative provisions prohibiting funds in this
Act from being used to implement provisions of H.R. 3253 as
passed by the House on September 18, 2002.
Language is included under the Department of Veterans
Affairs, administrative provisions limiting funds in Medical
Care and the Medical Care Collections Fund for security
training and equipment to $11,000,000.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, which designates funds for various programs,
activities, and purposes, and specifies the uses of such funds.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, housing certificate fund, which specifies the
allocation of certain funds; establishes a reserve fund for
certain purposes; sets forth certain reporting requirements;
places a limitation on certain fees and fee balances; and
requires certain data to be submitted.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, public housing capital fund, which 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;
prohibits funds from being used for certain activities; and
requires final regulations to be issued by a date certain.
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; and specifies the
allocation of certain funds.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, home investment partnerships program, which
specifies the allocation of certain funds.
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 allows
funds to be used to renew certain contracts; and specifies the
allocation of certain funds.
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, management and administration, which specifies the
allocation of funds; designates the use of certain funds; sets
forth certain authorities of, and requirements on, the Office
of the Chief Financial Officer; requires the transfer of
certain personnel; places limitations on personnel; and
requires submission of a staffing plan.
Language is included under the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, working capital fund, which places
restrictions on the use of funds.
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; waives certain section 8 rental payment
limits for a demonstration program; relates to the expenditures
for certain corporations and agencies; relates to allocations
of funds in excess of budget estimates; and requires submission
of a spending plan.
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 requires
the certification of grant amendments.
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, prohibits
the use of funds for implementation of a specific new pesticide
tolerance fee, and which authorizes for one year a pesticide
maintenance fee.
Language is included under Environmental Protection Agency,
state and tribal assistance grants, making technical changes in
grants provided in previous appropriations acts.
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 Citizen 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 this
authorization level authorization bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Construction, Major:
Seismic Corrections for Palo ................. .................. .................. $14,013,000
Alto, CA, Building 2........
Seismic Corrections for Palo ................. .................. .................. 21,750,000
Alto, CA, Building 4........
Seismic Corrections for San ................. .................. .................. 31,000,000
Francisco, CA, Building 203.
Seismic Corrections for West ................. .................. .................. 27,200,000
Los Angeles, CA, Building
500.........................
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Housing Certificate Fund:
Section 8 contract renewals 1994 $8,446,173 $5,458,106 16,071,162
and administrative expenses.
Section 441 contracts........ 1994 109,410 150,000 16,808
Section 23 leased housing 1994 13,303 .................. 500
conversions.................
Section 8 preservation, 1994 759,259 541,000 259,517
protection, and family
unification.................
Incremental Vouchers......... 1994 2,060,725 .................. 40,000
Contract Administrators...... ................. .................. .................. 196,000
Revitalization of Severely 2002 Such sums 573,735 574,000
Distressed Public Housing (HOPE
VI).............................
Native American Housing Block 2001 Such sums 636,000 649,000
Grant...........................
Housing Opportunities for Persons 1994 156,300 156,000 292,000
with AIDS.......................
Rural Housing and Economics ................. .................. .................. 25,000
Development.....................
Empowerment Zones/Enterprise ................. .................. .................. 30,000
Communities.....................
Community Development Fund:
Community Development Block 1994 4,168,000 4,380,000 4,577,000
Grants......................
Housing Assistance Council... ................. .................. .................. 3,300
Native American Indian ................. .................. .................. 2,200
Housing Council.............
National Housing Development ................. .................. .................. 5,000
Corporation.................
National Council on La Raza ................. .................. .................. 5,000
HOPE Fund...................
Self-Help Housing Opportunity 2000 Such sums 20,000 28,500
Program.....................
Capacity Building............ 1994 25,000 20,000 29,500
Economic Development ................. .................. .................. 144,600
Initiatives.................
Neighborhood Initiatives..... ................. .................. .................. 23,400
YouthBuild................... 1994 41,680 28,000 65,000
HOME Investment Partnerships..... 1994 2,173,612 1,275,000 2,221,040
Homeless Assistance Grants... 1994 465,774 599,000 1,250,000
FHA General and Special Risk
Program Account:
Limitation on guaranteed 1995 Such sums (20,885,072) (23,000,000)
loans.......................
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 93,780
GNMA Mortgage-Backed Securities
Loan Guarantee Program Account:
Limitation on guaranteed 1996 (110,000,000) (110,000,000) (200,000,000)
loans.......................
Administrative Expenses...... 1996 Such sums 9,101 10,343
Policy Development and 1994 36,470 35,000 47,000
Research....................
Fair Housing Activities, Fair 1994 26,000 20,481 20,250
Housing Initiatives Program.
Lead Hazards Reduction 1994 276,000 185,000 126,000
Program.....................
Salaries and Expenses........ 1994 1,029,496 916,963 1,090,299
Community Development Financial 1998 111,000 80,000 80,000
Institutions Fund...............
Neighborhood Reinvestment 1994 30,714 32,000 105,000
Corporation.....................
Consumer Product Safety 1992 45,000 40,200 54,000
Commission......................
Federal Citizen Information
Center Fund:
Federal Information Center... 1980 7,000 4,492 3,447
Consumer Information Center 1970 Not applicable 0 3,829
Fund........................
National Credit Union 1979 0 0 1,000
Administration, loan fund.......
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 FY 1988 70,000 71,391
(RCRA)......................
Toxic Substances Control Act. FY 1983 1,500 5,100
Pollution Prevention Act..... FY 1993 8,000 6,800
Indian Environmental General FY 1998 Such sums 38,585
Assistance Program Act......
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. 205(H).............. Limit subject to No exp. date.
Wrks. formula.
Altern. and Innovative Technologies-Fed. 205(I).............. Limit subject to 9/30/90.
Share. 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. 311(K).............. $35m................ No exp. date.
Progs.
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 4(A)/5(E)........... $25m, FY87-90....... No date spec.
Repayments.
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...................... 04(I) Title VII..... $7m, FY85-87........ 1/11/87.
Safe Drinking Water Act
Health Risk Red. & Cost Analysis in 1412(b)(3)(C)(iv)... $35m, FY96-03....... 9/30/03.
Regulation 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 1420(f)(6).......... $2m, FY97-99........ 9/30/99.
Grants.
$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(d)............. $8,050k, FY91....... 9/30/91.
(1442(a)(2)(B)).
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 1465(c)............. $30m, FY91.......... 9/30/91.
Drinking 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 401(d).............. $25m, FY97-03 9/30/03.
Prot. 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. 305(F).............. $3m, FY89-91........ 9/30/91.
Asst.
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................................... 90,993 97,580 91,020 96,978
Mandatory....................................... 28,850 29,093 28,850 29,093
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The Committee will reallocate to eliminate the breach in the budget authority allocation prior to the
bill's consideration by the House.
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..............................
Outlays:
2003.............................................. 71,703
2004.............................................. 19,478
2005.............................................. 8,804
2006.............................................. 4,834
2007.............................................. 4,765
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 in bill.............................. 33,080
Fiscal year outlays resulting therefrom............... 7,579
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
During fiscal year 2003 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 2003 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 2003 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 2003 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.
MINORITY VIEWS OF HON. ALAN MOLLOHAN AND HON. DAVID OBEY
The appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies
reported by the Committee corrects many of the worst flaws in
the President's budget. In particular, it adds critically
needed funds for veterans medical care and services, restores
many of the cuts in housing programs, provides important
increases for several environmental programs, and significantly
increases funds for basic science at the National Science
Foundation. The bill does much good within it's budget
allocation and the Chairman has worked cooperatively with
Committee Members on both sides of the aisle to balance
priorities based on need, program performance, and the
interests of Members of the House.
Unfortunately, however, the Subcommittee's budget
allocation does not permit it to adequately address the many
needs and opportunities within the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee. The bill remains below the levels necessary to
fully meet the needs of veterans and low-income individuals and
underfunds critical infrastructure needs of this nation.
Specific examples of these shortfalls abound: thousands of
veterans languish on long waiting lists for needed medical
care; waiting times for public housing are measured in years
rather than months; and the EPA has released a new report
showing a shortfall in funding to provide for clean and safe
water in the hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition to
failing to address critical needs, the low allocation has
forced the Majority to rely on highly questionable budget
assumptions and practices to stay within the Subcommittee's
budget ceiling. These include a ``temporary'' recommendation to
eliminate funding for the Corporation for National and
Community Service; very conservative projections of the cost of
maintaining the section 8 public housing voucher program; and,
most troubling, the decision to provide only $800 million of
the $3.5 billion which the President requested for ``first
responder'' activities on the assumption that the Commerce-
Justice-State bill will fund the remainder of the President's
first responder program. This latter assumption is highly
suspect since the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee's budget
allocation is already approximately $2 billion below the level
likely necessary to pass that bill in the House, making it
impossible for them to absorb another $2.7 billion to meet the
President's request for the ``first responders'' program.
These funding problems are not primarily the result of
programmatic disagreements between the Majority and the
Minority on the Committee. Rather, they are the artifacts of
the President and House Majority Leadership's insistence on an
overall budget ceiling which is arbitrary and entirely
inadequate. The Minority believes that within the existing
budget limitations, this bill's attributes outweigh its
shortfalls, but we believe strongly that additional amounts
will need to be made available to the Subcommittee before the
bill is sent to the President.
Veterans
Veterans programs are an example of an area where
constrained resources have meant that the Chairman was unable
to address critical needs. He is to be praised for his
recommendation to add $1.1 billion to the President's request
for veterans' medical care and for rejecting the
Administration's proposal to establish a deductible of $1,500
for many veterans. The Chairman has also allocated a much
needed increase of $31 million for medical and prosthetic
research. Unfortunately these increased levels are still
inadequate. At the levels recommended by the Committee, waiting
times for medical appointments will continue to increase.
Currently 280,000 veterans wait for an appointment for VA
health care.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Committee bill restores many of the reductions in the
President's request for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. For instance, the $417 million cut by the
Administration to the Public Housing Capital Fund was fully
restored. The Chairman has also provided substantial increases
for the HOME program and for homeless assistance grants,
including $10 million for a demonstration program to develop
new and innovative solutions to solving the problem of homeless
Americans.
By far, the most critical aspect of the Committee bill
related to public housing is the change in the treatment of
section 8 renewals. While the bill continues a basic budget
policy of funding the renewal of all section 8 vouchers, this
year the Committee's recommended funding level is based on the
actual number of units leased, as reported by the public
housingauthorities. This approach is intended to avoid
replicating the situation that has occurred in recent years where
amounts appropriated are in excess of actual units leased and the
excess funds are then ``recaptured'' in the following year. These funds
are then reallocated to other programs, sometimes for housing, but
often for other purposes. The Committee has chosen to use these funds
up front for other fiscal year 2003 housing needs. It is not the intent
of the Committee to reduce the number of families and individuals
served by these vouchers. Nor does the Committee intend to limit the
ability of public housing authorities to reach full utilization of
authorized vouchers. The intent is to prevent unused funds in this
account from being spent on programs that do not provide or improve
housing. These changes to the Housing Certificate Fund, specifically to
the renewal of tenant-based section 8 vouchers, are of concern to many
people. The Minority will continue to work with the Majority to address
these concerns as this bill moves forward.
Environmental Protection Agency
This bill provides a substantial increase of $560 million
above the President's request for the Environmental Protection
Agency. The $8,204 million recommended by the Committee
supports core activities to protect this nation's water and
air, to clean-up hazardous wastes and to enforce various laws
to protect the environment. It also provides resources for
three important initiatives: approval of the President's
proposal to double funding for the Brownfields program to
clean-up abandoned industrial sites from $100 million to $200
million; a $150 million increase over the President's budget
for the Superfund program to escalate clean-up of toxic waste
sites; and a new $21 million program to support the clean-up of
critical watersheds.
Notwithstanding these increases, there are a number of
areas where funding remains inadequate. Principal among these
is funding for repair of this nation's clean water and
wastewater infrastructure. On September 30th the Administrator
of EPA released results of the most recent survey of the gap
between the need for infrastructure improvements and available
funds. This study, conducted by EPA, shows a twenty-year
shortfall totaling $388 billion for clean water facilities and
$274 billion for safe drinking water facilities. Given this
need, the Minority does not understand why the Majority has
proposed a reduction of $50 million to $1,300 million for the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
Science
Despite constrained resources for the bill, the Chairman
has made scientific research a priority and has provided a
generous allocation for the science agencies, especially the
$5,423 million in the bill for the National Science Foundation.
The President's budget requested a meager 3 percent real
increase for the NSF. The Committee has wisely added $395
million to the President's request bringing the 2003 increase
to slightly over 13 percent, an amount which will allow the
agency to significantly expand research in basic physics,
chemistry, mathematics and engineering as well as take
advantage of new opportunities which would have not been
possible under the Bush budget. In approving this increase as a
first step to a potentially substantial multi-year increase for
NSF, the Committee has also directed a major review of the
Foundation's organizational, programmatic and personnel
policies to assure the Congress and the public that the NSF is
optimally organized to take advantage of the new opportunities
that increased resources can provide.
Although the increases recommended by the Chairman and
approved by the Committee for NASA is appreciated, they are not
sufficient to provide for a robust space program. The bill as
reported does include $15.3 billion for NASA, an increase of
$300 million above the President's request but a mere three
percent over last year.
The space station program was, and is, a concern of the
Minority. The International Space Station has encountered
serious cost overruns throughout its history. This Committee
and Congress continue to await a revised cost estimate in the
wake of revelations last year of another $5 billion in cost
growth. Although details of the new cost estimates were
expected last month, new detailed figures are not now expected
before the end of October. NASA has not yet provided details of
how it plans to complete construction of the station while
ensuring that it will be the ``world class'' research facility
NASA promised, meet U.S. commitments to its international
partners, and stay within proposed budget guidelines. We are
concerned by the reports of the Research Maximization and
Prioritization (ReMaP) task force and the National Research
Council that outline the reduction in scientific research
capability that would result should only the ``core complete''
configuration be built. The potential of the space station to
serve as a premier research laboratory must not be jeopardized.
In addition, the NASA Management and Cost Estimating task force
last year criticized the agency's focus on meeting annual
budgets without dealing with the larger challenge of total
program costs. The Minority feels that NASA must demonstrate
not only that it has improved its management and cost
estimating processes, but also that it will cease taking a
year-by-year approach to budgeting without considering the
impact on total program costs.
There are four general provisions affecting NASA in this
bill. Two of these provisions are of concern to the Minority: a
proviso allowing for the ``enhanced-use lease'' of real
property and a provision concerning the privatization of
utilities. As we move through the legislative process, these
issues need to be reviewed and vetted by all parties impacted
by these provisions.
Corporation for National and Community Service
Members should note that the Committee has again declined
to include funding for the Corporation for National and
Community Service. The Minority remains committed to working
with the Majority to ensure that adequate funding is made
available for this important purpose.
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 veterans medical care, ongoing
housing programs, environmental initiatives, and the National
Science Foundation. However, shortfalls in other areas
represent ongoing concerns, which we will work to address
during House and Conference consideration prior to sending the
bill to the President.
Alan B. Mollohan.
Dave Obey.