Appropriations for FY1999: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies

Congressional research reportNov 9, 1998

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

98-204 EPW

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Appropriations for FY1999: VA, HUD,

and Independent Agencies

Updated November 9, 1998

Dennis W. Snook, Coordinator

Specialist in Social Legislation

Education and Public Welfare

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget

resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and

budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is

bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment

Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current

program authorizations.

This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers

each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate

Subcommittees on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations. It summarizes the

current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related

legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and

related CRS products.

This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially

following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.

NOTE: A Web version of this document with

active links is available to congressional staff at

[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html].

Appropriations for FY1999: VA, HUD, and Independent

Agencies

Summary

The President signed P.L. 105-276 on October 21, 1998, completing action on

FY1999 appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing

and Urban Development (HUD), and several independent entities including the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Emergency

Management Agency, and the Corporation for National and Community Service

(CNCS). Congress provided $93.4 billion for FY1999, up from $88.4 billion for

these agencies in FY1998. The House had approved $94.4 billion for these agencies

for FY1999 in its bill (H.R. 4194); the Senate bill (S. 2168) contained $93.3 billion;

the Administration requested $93.7 billion, according to the consistent evaluations

included with the conference report (H.Rept. 105-769).

Before passage of H. R. 4194, the House had attached the language of H.R. 2,

the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act, an authorization bill for housing

programs that had passed both Chambers, but which had not reached conference.

Conferees on the VA-HUD bill included a compromise version of the housing

legislation in their deliberations, resulting in a sweeping reform of federal public

housing programs. The final bill provides $24.3 billion in funding for HUD

programs, up $2.9 billion over FY1998.

Overall spending for veterans programs will also increase in FY1999. P.L. 105276 provides $42.6 billion to VA, up $1.6 billion over FY1998, and $438 million

more than the Administration requested. Most of this increase is for mandatory

spending of $1.3 billion for cost-of-living adjustments to benefit programs, and for

increases in the expected caseload. VA discretionary appropriations are up $336

million. Most of the increases would be for medical care and research.

Funding for NASA rises for the first time in several years — conferees provide

the space agency with $200 million more than requested, and more than either

Chamber’s bill included. Conferees approved additional funds for science programs,

and for mission support. The Senate had criticized inter-account transfers to help pay

for space station cost overruns, and specified more clearly where the money can be

spent. Conferees retained the current account structure, but directed NASA to put

the controversial International Space Station into a separate account for FY2000.

Conferees also increased amounts for EPA, beyond levels contained in the bills

passing each Chamber. Most of the added funds were for capital projects to assist

states and tribal governments in their efforts to clean up drinking water. FEMA will

receive amounts similar to FY1998, and conferees did not adopt the Senate’s

proposed approach to advance planning for disaster mitigation. Among other

independent agencies funded by the bill, NSF received a $242 million increase over

FY1998, and funding for CNCS, which administers AmeriCorps, was continued at

the FY1998 level — the House bill had not contained any funding for the

Corporation.

Key Policy Staff

Name

Area of Expertise

CRS Division

Tel.

Keith Bea

Emergency Management

GOV

7-8672

Eugene Boyd

Community Development

GOV

7-8689

Michael Davey

Science and Space

STM

7-7074

Bruce Foote

Housing

7-7300

Martin Lee

Environmental Policy

ENR

7-7260

Ann Lordeman

National Community Service

EPW

7-2323

Christine Matthews

National Science Foundation

STM

7-7055

Bruce Mulock

Consumer Affairs

7-7775

Pauline Smale

Banking, Special Need Housing

7-7300

Dick Rowberg

National Aero. Space Admin.

STM

7-7040

Dennis Snook

Veterans Affairs

EPW

7-7314

Susan Vanhorenbeck

Housing

7-7300

Division abbreviations: A = American Law; E = Economics; ENR = Environment and Natural Resources; EPW =

Education and Public Welfare; F = Foreign Affairs; GOV = Government; STM = Science, Technology, and Medicine.

Contents

Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Total Appropriations for FY1999 for VA,

HUD, and Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

VA Cash Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Medical Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

VA Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Program Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Housing Certificate Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Public Housing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Native American Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Rural Housing and Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Community Planning and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Homeless Assistance Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Housing for the Elderly and Disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

The HOME Investment Partnership Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Youthbuild . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) . . . . . . . . 11

Lead-based Paint Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Growth in Homeownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Fair Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Quality Housing Opportunity and Work Responsibility Act . . . . . . . 14

Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Federal Emergency Management Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Other Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

American Battle Monuments Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Community Development Financial Institution Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Consumer Information Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Consumer Product Safety Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) . . . . . . . . 23

Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Environmental Quality . 24

Court of Veterans Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

National Credit Union Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Office of Science and Technology Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Selective Service System (SSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

List of Tables

Table 1. Status of VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations,

FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Table 2. Summary Table: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 2

Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998 . . 3

Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY1999 . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,

FY1994 to FY1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 6. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development, FY1999 . . . . . . . 12

Table 7. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998 15

Table 8. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency, FY1999 . . . . . . . 16

Table 9. Appropriations: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY1999 . 17

Table 10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Appropriations,

FY1994 to FY1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 11. Appropriations: National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 12. National Science Foundation Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998 . . 20

Table 13. Appropriations: National Science Foundation, FY1999 . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 14. Appropriations: Other Independent Agencies, FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appropriations for FY1999: VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies

Most Recent Developments

Final Action on P. L. 105-276. The President signed the FY1999 VA-HUD bill

on October 21, 1998. Much of the conference on the bill was spent hammering out

an agreement on Title V, the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998,

a reform of public housing and tenant-based housing assistance that the House had

added to H.R. 4194.

Senate Action. On July 17, 1998, the Senate adopted S. 2168 (S.Rept. 105216), The Senate acted favorably on the recommendations of its Appropriations

Committee, and passed the bill without shifting recommended amounts among the

various components of the bill.

House Action. On July 29, 1998, the House approved H.R. 4194 (H.Rept. 105610), adopting several floor amendments, including one containing the language of

H.R. 2, The Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act.

Line Item Veto. On June 25, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Line

Item Veto Act of 1996 is unconstitutional, which could restore $14 million in vetoed

FY1998 VA-HUD appropriations. Official data does not yet reflect these restored

funds, and they are not included in these tables.

Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for FY1998. Enactment of P.L.

105-174 (May 1, 1998), provided $2.6 billion in supplemental appropriations,

including $1.6 billion in FEMA disaster aid, mostly offset by rescissions of $2.3

billion in unspent HUD funds. Except where noted, the changes are reflected in the

totals for FY1998 spending. (CRS Report 98-123, Supplemental Appropriations and

Rescissions for FY1998, by Larry Nowels, Coordinator).

Status

Table 1. Status of VA, HUD and Independent Agencies

Appropriations, FY1999

Subcommittee

Markup

House Passed Senate Passed Conference

House Senate Report House Report Senate

Report

6-18

6-9

7-8

7-29

6-12

7-17

10-5

Conference Report

Approval

House

Senate

Public

Law

10-6

10-8

10-21

CRS-2

Total Appropriations for FY1999 for VA,

HUD, and Independent Agencies

Introduction. The allocations for VA, HUD, and NASA comprised 86% of the

total appropriations for VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies in the FY1998

appropriations bill. The FY1999 appropriations act, P. L. 105-276, continues this

distribution: VA received approximately 46% of the total appropriation, HUD

received 26%, and NASA received 15%.

Table 2. Summary Table: VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies Appropriations

(budget authority in billions of $)

FY1999

Department or Agency

FY1998

Enacted

Admin.

Request

Housepassed

(H.R. 4194)

Senatepassed

(S. 2168)

P.L.

105-276

Veterans Affairs

40.977

42.150

42.653

42.522

42.588

Housing and Urban

Development

21.445

24.815

26.145

24.094

24.342

Environmental

Protection Agency

7.363

7.790

7.423

7.413

7.560

Federal Emergency

Management Agency

0.830

0.844

0.817

1.362

0.827

National Aeronautics;

Space Administration

13.648

13.465

13.328

13.615

13.665

National Science

Foundation

3.429

3.773

3.697

3.644

3.671

Other Independent

Agencies

0.700

0.852

0.313

0.682

0.738

Total Appropriations

88.392

93.689

94.376

93.332

93.391

(rounded, may not add)

Source: H.Rept. 105-769.

CRS-3

Key Policy Issues

Department of Veterans Affairs

Congress approved $42.588 billion in appropriations for VA for FY1999, up

from $40.977 billion for FY1998 (after incorporating supplemental appropriations,

and various reestimates of mandatory spending for that year). The Administration

had requested $42.150 billion for FY1999; the Senate approved $42.522 billion; the

House, $42.653 billion. The Administration recommended a slight decrease in

medical care funding — the House and Senate called for increases, and conferees

settled on $278 million more than provided in FY1998. Both Houses approved

almost identical amounts for new construction projects, an amount about $80 million

more than requested — conferees accepted the levels in the bills passing the two

Chambers. The final bill also added to the Administration’s request for grants to

states to help fund veterans’ facility projects at the state level.

P.L. 105-65 provided $40.43 billion for veterans programs in FY1998. The

Administration reestimated VA mandatory spending to require $550 million more for

FY1998, and included a request for that amount in its recommendation for

supplemental appropriations. P.L. 105-174, signed on May 1, 1998 provided these

supplemental funds, needed mostly to fund cost of living adjustments (COLA) and

additional benefits because of increased caseloads. Final estimates of VA funding

for FY1998 (included with H.Rept. 105-769) totaled $40.977 billion.

For additional information on VA programs, see CRS Report 97-266, Veterans

Issues in the 105th Congress, by Dennis Snook.

Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations,

FY1994 to FY1998

(budget authority in billions of current $)

FY1994

FY1995

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

$36.83

$37.48

$38.37

$40.09

$40.98

$42.59

Source: CRS Report 97-204; H.Rept. 105-769.

VA Cash Benefits. FY1998 appropriations included $22.1 billion for VA cash

entitlement benefits, mostly service-connected compensation, pensions, and

Montgomery GI-Bill education payments. Spending for the VA cash benefit

programs is mandatory, and the amounts requested by the budget are based on

projected caseloads. Definitions of eligibility and benefit levels are in law. For

FY1999, the Administration estimates that VA entitlement programs will require

$23.3 billion in mandatory appropriations. P. L. 105-276 provides the estimated

amounts.

Medical Care. Congress appropriated $17.057 billion in funds for VA medical

care for FY1998, an amount fairly close to the amount provided by direct

appropriations for FY1997, after considering various differences in accounting

CRS-4

between the 2 fiscal years. Congress also enacted language in the Balanced Budget

Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) so that net medical cost reimbursement receipts from the

Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) remain available to VA for medical services

to veterans rather than be transferred to the Treasury as under previous law; that

change added an estimated $558 million ($543 million of which was guaranteed

under P.L. 105-65) to medical care spending authority for FY1998. The Committees

estimated that the MCCF collections will be $558 million in FY1999.

For FY1999, the Administration again proposed a near freeze to medical care

appropriations, requesting $17.028 billion (various unobligated balances and

carryover budget authority make estimates of frozen appropriation levels somewhat

imprecise). The House approved $17.361 billion; the Senate approved $17.250

billion. The Conference Report encourages VA to seek further efficiencies in

medical care services to expand the number of veterans who can be served with these

appropriated resources. In general, the additional funds would expand outpatient care

resources, fund telemedicine projects for veterans in remote areas, and provide

increased access to medical care for veterans in rural areas.

The Senate added $10 million to the Administration’s request of $300 million

for medical and prosthetic research, mostly to fund research in alcoholism and its

treatment, and for research on the disease neurofibromatosis; the House approved

$320 million. Conferees provided $316 million in the final bill.

For additional information on VA medical care, see CRS Report 97-786,

Veterans Medical Care: Major Changes Underway, by Dennis Snook.

VA Construction. For FY1999, Congress provided $317 million in new

construction project funding. For FY1998, Congress appropriated $353 million for

new construction and redirected to outpatient access projects, $32.1 million that had

been previously authorized and appropriated for a new hospital in California.

The Administration’s FY1999 budget requested $238 million in new

construction spending, including $73 million for correcting earthquake damage in

San Juan, Puerto Rico and Long Beach, California, and $69 million for increasing

outpatient access in various locations. Congress added $80 million more for

construction projects than the budget requested. The additional funds would allow

upgrades for facilities to occur sooner than otherwise would be possible.

The Conference Report calls for expanded outpatient access in the Wade Park

facility in Cleveland, Ohio ($21 million); renovations for nursing home care at

Lebanon, Pennsylvania ($9.5 million); and improved outpatient access in Tucson,

Arizona ($25 million). P. L. 105-276 provides $53 million more in grants for state

extended care facilities than requested, so that a $150 million backlog of scheduled

projects under the federal/state program can be accomplished more quickly.

Program Administration. The appropriations bill provides $856 million for

the General Operating Expenses (GOE) account for administering VA benefit

programs, and $63 million for medical care administration, for FY1999. Congress

appropriated $786 million for GOE for FY1998, and $60 million for medical

administration. Average employment requested for VA benefit programs for FY1999

CRS-5

is 11,221, a decrease of 125 from FY1998. Medical staff, most of whom are engaged

in patient care, is expected to decline during FY1999, to 180,411 from 183,000 in

FY1998.

Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY1999

(budget authority in billions of $)

FY1999

FY1998

Enacted

Admin.

Request

Housepassed

(H.R.

4194)

Comp., pension, burial

20.483

21.857

Insurance/indemnities

0.051

0.046

Housing programs

0.166

0.264

Readjustment benefits

1.366

1.175

Subtotal: Mandatory

22.067

23.342

Medical care

17.057

17.028

17.361

17.250

17.306

— Cost collection

guaranteea

0.015

—

Medical/prosthetic

research

0.272

0.300

0.320

0.310

0.316

Construction, major

0.178

0.097

0.143

0.142

Construction, minor

0.175

0.141

0.175

Grants for state facilities

0.080

0.037

0.101

0.090

State veteran cemeteries

0.010

Nat’l cemetery system

0.084

0.092

General operating exp.

0.786

0.850

0.856

0.855

0.856

Admin. exp. (housing

program)

0.162

0.160

Inspector General

0.031

0.033

0.036

Medical Administration

0.060

0.063

Subtotal: Discretionary

18.910

18.808

19.311

19.180

19.246

Subtotal: (Veterans

Affairs)

40.977

42.150

42.653

42.522

42.588

Program

Senatepassed

(S. 2168)

P.L.

105-276

Source: H.Rept. 105-769

Receipts of the Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) are available for spending in the Medical

Care account, and $558 million in additional funds from this source are estimated for both FY1998

and FY1999. P.L. 105-65 guaranteed that $543 million would be obtained for FY1998; the guarantee

is assumed to require $15 million in appropriations.

CRS-6

Department of Housing and Urban Development

According to H.Rept. 105-769, P. L. 105-276 provides $24.34 billion for

programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for

FY1999; after taking into consideration the rescissions of P.L. 105-174, the

appropriated amount is a $2.9 billion increase over FY1998 levels. In addition, Title

V of the VA-HUD bill is a sweeping reform of the Department’s public housing and

tenant-based housing assistance programs; the authorizing language of Title V

occupies three/quarters of the bill’s total length.

For further information on this significant change in federal housing policy, see

CRS Report 98-860, Housing the Poor: Federal Housing Programs for LowIncome Families, by Morton J. Schussheim; and CRS Report 98-868, Public Housing

and Section 8 Reforms: The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998,

by Richard Bourdon.

According to the Conference Report, President Clinton requested $24.8 billion

in HUD appropriations for this fiscal year. High points of the President’s request for

HUD include: increases in affordable housing; 103,000 new housing vouchers;

increases in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Community

Empowerment funds; extensions of the HOME program and the creation of a HOME

“bank”; increases in housing assistance for the homeless and persons with AIDS; and

changes in the FHA mortgage credit program.

The Senate approved a $24.1 billion budget for HUD in FY1999, the House

approved $26.1 billion for HUD. The House and Senate differed in amounts

appropriated for components of the Housing Certificate Fund, and in their treatment

of Federal Housing Authority (FHA) administrative expenses, as well as in various

earmarks and program subcategories. Conferees approved more than either House’s

bill for the Housing Certificate Fund, in part because of concerns expressed by the

Administration that the reforms in federal housing programs contained in Title V

would have an adverse effect on very low-income families on waiting lists for public

housing. The Conference Report endorses 50,000 additional vouchers to address

these concerns.

For further information on the President’s FY1999 budget request for HUD, see

CRS Report 98-345, Budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) for FY1999, by Susan Vanhorenbeck, Bruce E. Foote, and Pauline Smale.

Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998

(budget authority in billions of current $; net after rescissions)

FY1994

FY1995

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

$24.87

$20.09

$19.13

$16.30

$21.44

$24.34

CRS-7

Source: CRS Report 97-204; H.Rept. 105-769.

Housing Certificate Fund. According to the Conference Report, the President

requested a total of $8.98 billion for various vouchers and other forms of Section 81

housing assistance, financed through the Housing Certificate Fund. Among the

specific uses requested for these funds are the following: Section 8 contract

renewals, Section 8 contract amendments, protection of housing tenants affected by

non-renewals (i.e., Section 8 relocation assistance), and regional opportunity

counseling. The Senate approved funding of $10.01 billion for the Housing

Certificate Fund in FY1999, offset in part by $1.4 billion in rescissions. The House

approved $10.2 billion. Conferees provided $10.3 billion, offset by $1.65 billion in

rescissions. Details on the uses of these funds follow.

For information on Section 8 issues, see CRS Report 96-667, Section 8: Past,

Present, and Future, by Susan Vanhorenbeck.

Expiring Rental Contracts. HUD proposed $7.2 billion for renewing all

Section 8 contracts due to expire in FY1999, assuming the cooperation of the project

owners. HUD had identified approximately $3.7 billion in recaptured Section 8

reserve funds which also could be used to renew contracts in FY1999, bringing the

total available for renewals to $10.9 billion. HUD estimated that this amount was

sufficient to renew expiring contracts for 2,046,231 units.2 However, the

Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act of FY1998 rescinded $2.3 billion

of the Section 8 reserve fund. (During deliberations on the supplemental bill,

Congress said that it would appropriate the amount of the rescinded funds to HUD

for the FY1999 Section 8 contract renewals.) The Senate approved $9.54 billion for

Section 8 contract renewals in FY1999; the House approved $9.60 billion; the

Conference approved the House amount.

HUD would continue to renew these contracts through the “mark-to-market”

restructuring program established in the VA-HUD FY1998 Appropriations Act, and

estimates that $562 million will be saved from funds that would otherwise be

expended on contracts inflated beyond market rates.

For more information on these issues, see CRS Report 97-264, The Problem of

Section 8 Expiring Contracts, by Susan M. Vanhorenbeck.

Section 8 Amendments. The President requested $1.3 billion in budget

authority for contract amendments in FY1999. Another $463 million of Section 8

reserves recaptured from local housing programs would also be available, bringing

the total for contract amendments to $1.8 billion in FY1999. HUD has stated that it

will pursue a number of savings proposals for the Section 8 program in FY1999, and

continue savings provisions of the FY1998 appropriations act. The Senate did not

agree with the President’s request and provided no appropriation for Section 8

Section 8, of the Housing Act of 1937 (as amended), provides subsidies for rental housing

for low-income families.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Congressional Justifications for

1999 Estimates. p. R-2.

CRS-8

amendments in FY1999. In fact, the Senate bill rescinds $1.4 billion in Section 8

project-based reserves. The House approved $97 million for Section 8 amendments.

The Conference bill concurred with the Senate, providing no funds for Section 8

amendments, and raised the rescinded amount to $1.650 billion.

Relocation Assistance. The Administration anticipates that not all owners of

Section 8 assisted housing may be willing to renew their contracts. The Housing

Certificate Fund will provide funding for those families that are affected if a contract

renewal does not take place. The President requested $374 million for the housing

tenants’ protection in FY1999, which would be used to subsidize tenants who are

displaced or whose rents increase as a result of the restructuring of the Section 8

program. The Administration estimates that this amount would aid approximately

32,000 families in this situation. In addition, $60 million would be used to fund

10,655 additional vouchers to help low income families move into subsidized

housing. The Senate approved the $434 million for this program for FY1999; the

House concurred, and the Conference bill includes these levels.

Regional Opportunity Council. The President requested $20 million in new

funding for the Regional Opportunity Counseling program (ROC). HUD also asked

that a portion of Section 8 funds be set-aside within the Housing Certificate Fund to

reward public housing authorities that successfully reduce the poverty concentration

of families using tenant-based assistance.3 The Senate bill does not contain this

proposal; the House provides $10 million; P. L. 105-276 accepts the House level.

Public Housing Programs. HUD began a serious transformation of the public

housing system in FY1993, and the FY1999 budget request continues this endeavor.

The President proposed $283 million to assist families in which the primary worker

is making the transition from welfare to work. The FY1999 budget request also

proposed $2.55 billion for the public housing capital fund, $2.818 billion for the

public housing operating fund, $310 million for drug elimination grants, and $550

million for the revitalization of severely distressed public housing (HOPE VI).

The Senate bill provides $2.818 billion for public housing operating funds;

$2.55 billion for public housing capital fund; $310 million for drug elimination

grants, and $600 million for the HOPE VI severely distressed public housing

program. The House agreed with the Senate on operating funds, approved $3 billion

for the capital fund, $290 million for drug elimination, and $600 million for HOPE

VI. $100 million in welfare-to-work was approved by the House, with the funds

allocated through the Housing Certificate Fund. The Conference bill approved the

requested $283 million for welfare-to-work assistance, $625 million for HOPE, and

accepted the House level of $3 billion for the capital fund.

Native American Block Grants. Under the Native American Block Grant,

eligible Indian tribes or their Tribally Designated Housing Entities receive funds

which can be used for a variety of activities that would increase their supply of

affordable housing. The President requested $600 million for the Native American

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary:

Closing the Opportunity Gap. p. 25.

CRS-9

Housing Block Grant for FY1999, the same as funded for FY1998. Also requested

are $11 million in new funds for loan guarantees patterned after the Community

Development Block Grant Section 108 program. The Senate approved $600 million;

the House approved $620 million; the Conference approved the House level.

Rural Housing and Economic Development. The Senate approved creation

of a new Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development, to channel federal

funds for revitalizing housing projects in rural areas, and for ideas for economic

development in such areas. Money would be distributed through nonprofit agencies

at the community level. The Senate approved $35 million for the Office; conferees

included $25 million for the Office in the final bill.

For more information on public housing issues, see CRS Report 97-169,

Housing Issues in the 105th Congress, by Richard Bourdon.

Community Planning and Development. P. L. 105-276 includes a number of

programs under the general category of Community Planning and Development.

Community Development Block Grant. The Community Development Block

Grant (CDBG) program is the largest source of federal assistance to state and local

government for housing rehabilitation, economic development, and neighborhood

revitalization. P.L. 105-276, appropriates $4.750 billion in CDBG assistance for

FY1998. The Administration requested $4.725 billion for CDBG. Responding to

criticism of the increased use of earmarked program funds within CDBG (set asides)

in the program’s FY1998 appropriation, the Administration’s FY1999 budget

requested $292 million for set aside activities, $187 million less than the $479

million appropriated for FY1998. For FY1999, P. L. 105-276, increases the amount

of funds targeted for such set asides by $47.8 million to $526.8 million

In passing P.L. 105-276, Congress, as recommended by the Administration,

continued funding a number of programs as CDBG set asides including Habitat for

Humanity, and the Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services (ROSS). Congress

did not provide funding for a new CDBG set aside program proposed by the

Administration — the Regional Connection Initiative (RCI). The initiative was

intended to assist communities and states develop regional strategies to address

issues facing metropolitan areas. Congress also rejected the President’s budget

proposals that recommended eliminating other CDBG set asides, including the

Neighborhood Initiative Program, the Housing Assistance Counseling, the

Rural/Tribal Initiative, the Community Outreach Partnership, and the Capacity

Building program. All of these programs are included as CDBG set aside activities.

Several programs and activities funded as set asides in FY1998 were proposed

as free standing programs for FY1999. The Administration’s FY1999 budget

recommended converting Youthbuild, Lead Base Paint Reduction, and Economic

Development Initiative (EDI) — to be renamed the Community Empowerment Fund

(CEF) — into free standing programs. The new CEF program would have continue

to be used in conjunction with Section 108 loan guarantees and is intended to support

job opportunities for persons moving from welfare-to-work. P.L. 105-267, continues

Youthbuild and EDI as CDBG set asides. The Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction

program receives $80 million under a separate appropriation account.

CRS-10

The Act, P.L. 105-276, includes several provisions amending the CDBG

authorizing statue including identifying brownfield redevelopment as an eligible

CDBG activity and prohibiting the use of CDBG funds to facilitate the relocation of

jobs from one location to another.

For additional information on these programs, see CRS Issue Brief 98026,

Community Development Block Grants: Funding and Other Issues in the 105th

Congress, by Eugene Boyd.

Homeless Assistance Grants. The President’s budget request for homeless

assistance includes funding for both grants and Section 8 vouchers. The President

proposed $1.15 billion for Homeless Assistance Grants in FY1999, an increase of

40% over the FY1998 appropriation of $823 million. The request included $958

million to be distributed through HUD’s participation in comprehensive strategies

for addressing homelessness, and $192 million for 34,000 new Section 8 vouchers

targeted to homeless families or individuals ready to make the transition from

temporary to permanent housing after counseling. One percent of the voucher

funding would be available for technical assistance (the House approved this

proposal, and the conferees concurred).

The Senate approved $1 billion for homeless assistance grants. The Senate

report recommended that 30% of homeless assistance grant funding be used for

permanent housing for the homeless; conferees concurred. The House approved

$975 million for homeless grants; the Conference approved the levels in the House

bill.

Housing for the Elderly and Disabled. The President’s budget proposal for

FY1999 would operate housing for the elderly and disabled (Section 202 and Section

811 programs) as a component of the HOME Investments Partnership Programs.

The Senate adopted separate funding for both: $676 million for the Section 202

program and $194 million for the Section 811 program. The Report language also

recommended that 25% of the appropriated funding for housing for the disabled be

permitted to provide housing vouchers for the disabled. The House bill does not

separate the funding, recommended at $839 million.

P. L. 105-276 appropriates separate funding for both programs, $660 million for

the Section 202 program and $194 million for the Section 811 programs. Up to 25%

of appropriated Section 811 may be used for vouchers for the disabled.

The HOME Investment Partnership Program. The HOME program makes

funds available to participating jurisdictions to increase the supply of housing and

homeownership for low-income families. States and localities have the option of

using HOME funds for a variety of housing activities.4 The President’s budget

requests $1.88 billion for the HOME program in FY1999, including $1.5 billion for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Congressional Justifications for

1999 Estimates. p. G-1.

CRS-11

HOME grants, $25 million for housing counseling, and $333 million for housing the

elderly and disabled.

The Senate approved a FY1999 appropriation of $1.55 billion, $333 million

less than requested by the Administration, and rejected an Administration proposal

to consolidate the Section 202 Elderly and Handicap Housing Program into the

HOME program. The House approved an increase of $100 million above the

FY1998 appropriation of $1.5 billion, $50 million more than approved by the Senate.

Conferees approved $1.6 billion for the Investment Partnerships, earmarking $17.5

million for housing counseling activities.

For further information, see CRS Report 97-352, The Home Program in the

105th Congress, by Eugene Boyd

Youthbuild. The Youthbuild program, which provides supervised education

and job training to teenaged residents in public housing, was funded as a $35 million

set aside of the CDBG program in FY1998. The President requested that, for

FY1999, Youthbuild be funded as an independent program with $45 million. The

Senate approved $40 million as a set-aside under CDBG. The House also did not

include a separate appropriation for the Youthbuild program, but agreed that

Youthbuild activities could be funded as a set-aside under the CDBG program. P.

L. 105-276, continues the Youthbuild program as a $42.5 million CDBG set aside

program. This includes $2.5 million for capacity building activities.

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). This program

provides grants to states, localities and nonprofit organizations to meet the housing

needs of individuals with HIV/AIDS and their families. The President has requested

an FY1999 appropriation of $225 million for the HOPWA program. This would be

an increase of 10% above the FY1998 appropriation of $204 million. The Senate bill

contains $225 million for HOPWA in FY1999. The House Committee’s similar

recommendation was reduced by $21 million as a result of an amendment on the

House floor (which would have funded the program at FY1998 levels). The

reduction in HOPWA funds was intended as an offset for increased funds given by

the amendment to VA for use as grants to states for veterans extended care facilities.

Conferees approved $215 million for HOPWA.

Lead-based Paint Reduction. The President requested $85 million for the

Lead-based Paint Reduction program for FY1999. In the FY1998 budget the

program was funded as a set aside in the CDBG program. The Senate approved $60

million as a set aside under CDBG; the Administration had proposed that lead-based

paint reduction be funded as an independent program. The House bill provides $80

million in direct appropriations. P. L. 105-276, established the program as a free

standing activity and not as a CDBG set aside. The Act appropriates $80 million for

lead based paint hazard reduction activities.

Growth in Homeownership. In 1995, President Clinton pledged to reach a

homeownership rate of 67.5% by the year 2000, up from its then current rate of

64.7%. The Administration believes that “nothing manifests the American dream

CRS-12

more than owning a home.”5 The budget proposed to raise the home mortgage loan

insurance limits of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to the Freddie

Mac/Fannie Mae limit.

P. L. 105-276 amends the National Housing Act to provide that FHA-insured

loans on one-family homes will be limited to 95% of the median price for an area,

subject to the restriction that the limits may not be less than 48% of the Freddie Mac

limit nor greater than 87% of the Freddie Mac limit. Given the present Freddie Mac

limit of $227,150, the legislation provides that limits for FHA-insured loans on onefamily homes may range between $109,032 and $197,620.

For more information on programs on FHA mortgage limits, see CRS Report

98-421, Raising the FHA Mortgage Limit: Issues and Options, by Bruce E. Foote.

Table 6. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development, FY1999

(budget authority in billions of $)

FY1999

HouseAdmin.

passed

Request (H.R. 4194)

Senatepassed

(S. 2168)

P.L.

105-276

Program

FY1998

Enacted

Housing certificate fund

Expiring Section 8 contracts

Section 8 amendments

Section 8 relocation assistance

Regional opportunity counseling

Welfare-to-work hsng. vouchers

Self-sufficiency incrementals

Sect. 8 rescissions (P.L. 105-174)a

Sect. 8 project-based rescissions

Welfare-to-work hsng. vouchers

9.373

(8.180)

(0.850)

(0.343)

-2.347

8.981

(7.191)

(1.337)

(0.434)

(0.020)

—

0.283

10.241

(9.60)

(.097)

(.434)

(.010)

(.100)

—

10.014

(9.540)

(0.434)

(0.040)

—

-1.400

10.327

(9.600)

(.434)

(.010)

(.283)

—

-1.650

Public housing capital fund

2.500

2.550

3.000

2.550

3.000

Pub. housing modernization fund

2.900

2.818

Current year rescissions

-0.550

Drug elimination grants

0.310

0.290

0.310

Distressed pub. hous. (HOPE)

0.550

0.600

0.625

Native American hsng. blk. grants

0.600

0.620

0.600

0.620

Indian hsng. loan guar.

0.005

0.006

Title VI Indian loan guar.

0.005

Capital preservation loans

0.010

Rural Hsng.; Econ. Development

0.035

0.025

Housing for persons with AIDS

0.204

0.225

0.204

0.225

0.215

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary:

Closing the Opportunity Gap. p. 14.

CRS-13

FY1999

FY1998

Enacted

Program

HouseAdmin.

passed

Request (H.R. 4194)

Senatepassed

(S. 2168)

P.L.

105-276

Economic development initiative

0.400

Community Devel. Block Grants

4.805

4.725

4.750

Homeless Assistance Grants

0.823

1.150

0.975

1.000

0.975

HOME Investment Partnerships

1.500

1.883

1.600

1.550

1.600

Brownfields Initiative

0.025

0.050

—

0.025

0.045

Section 108 loan guarantee

0.030

Empowerment zones, partnrshps.

0.005

Supportive hsng. (rescission)

-0.010

—

Subtotal: Pub., Indian Hsng. (net) (20.733)

(24.611)

(25.109)

(23.113)

(23.676)

—

Youthbuild

Rental hsng. assist. (rescission)

-0.125

Office of lead hazard control

0.085

0.080

0.839

0.870

0.854

0.201

0.271

-0.033

Research and technology

0.037

0.050

0.048

0.037

0.048

GNMA Funds

0.009

Fair housing activities

0.030

0.052

0.040

0.035

0.040

Inspector General

0.041

0.035

0.050

0.035

0.050

Salaries and expenses

0.446

0.472

0.457

0.464

0.457

Offsetting receipts

-0.204

-0.370

Admin. provisions (net)

-0.562

-0.400

-0.083

-0.065

-0.468

Subtotal (HUD) (net)

(rounded, may not add)

21.445

24.815

26.145

24.094

24.342

Housing, elderly and disabled

Federal Housing Administration

Source: H.Rept. 105-769

Rescissions to unspent appropriations from previous years; offset against appropriations of the

current year.

Would be funded as a $85 million set-aside in the Community Development Block Grant.

Would be funded as a $40 million set-aside in the Community Development Block Grant.

Would be funded as a $60 million set-aside in the Community Development Block Grant.

Net FHA expenditures, after certain administrative costs are reconciled with other administrative

accounts, administrative receipts, and reduced loan account cross subsidies.

Fair Housing. In an effort to end housing discrimination, the President

requested increases for the Fair Housing Initiatives and the Fair Housing Assistance

Program. The Initiatives program funds private, nonprofit organization’s efforts to

enhance compliance with Fair Housing requirements; the Assistance program

reimburses state and local governments for certain aspects of their Fair Housing

compliance programs. Fair Housing Initiatives would receive $29 million, $14

million more than in FY1998, and Fair Housing Assistance, $23 million, an $8

million increase over last year’s level, under the President’s FY1999 request for

CRS-14

HUD. The Senate approved $20 million for the Fair Housing Assistance program in

FY1999 and $15 million for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program. The House

approved $40 million for the two programs; conferees accepted the House levels.

For further information on housing programs, and on programs intended to

revitalize communities, and on proposed reform of those programs, see CRS Report

98-345, Budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for

FY1999, by Susan Vanhorenbeck, Bruce E. Foote, and Pauline Smale.

Quality Housing Opportunity and Work Responsibility Act. In 1997, two

versions of a housing authorization bill (H.R. 2 and S. 462) were introduced in

Congress. Both bills would reform the public housing system as well as other

housing programs under the HUD jurisdiction. Both bills passed their respective

houses, but they never went to conference, and differences between them remained

unresolved. During House floor action on the FY1999 VA-HUD appropriations bill

(H.R. 4194), an amendment was adopted that attached the essential language of H.R.

2, the Housing and Opportunity and Responsibility Act. Conferees deliberated issues

in H. R. 2 and S. 462, and with participation of the Administration, completed work

on this major authorization of federal housing programs.

Under the new law, well-run public housing agencies will have more freedom

to operate; poorly run agencies will be held more accountable; more working families

with higher incomes will live in public housing that is now largely occupied by the

poorest of the poor; and some residents will be required to perform 8 hours a month

of community service. In both public housing and Section 8 programs, it will be

easier to evict tenants who commit crimes and cause problems. A home rule flexible

grant demonstration program will allow some local governments (rather than public

housing agencies) to receive federal housing funds to develop creative approaches

for providing affordable housing. A new Section 8 housing voucher program will be

more landlord-friendly and more market-driven. Most provisions in the new law

become effective October 1, 1999.

For further information on this significant change in federal housing policy, see

CRS Report 98-860, Housing the Poor: Federal Housing Programs for LowIncome Families, by Morton J. Schussheim; and CRS Report 98-868, Public Housing

and Section 8 Reforms: The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998,

by Richard Bourdon.

For more information on the previous housing authorization bills, see CRS

Report 98-443, Housing Authorization Bills: Overview of H.R. 2 and S. 462, by

Susan Vanhorenbeck.

Environmental Protection Agency

The President’s FY1999 request for the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) sought $7.8 billion in spending authority — including $650 million in advance

FY1999 appropriations — or 6% more than the $7.4 billion appropriated for FY1998.

Both the Senate and House approved about $7.4 billion, roughly $400 million below

the request and marginally greater than current year funding. Conferees approved

CRS-15

and P.L. 105- 276 included $7.6 billion. The FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act,

P.L. 105-277, added $30 million more for FY1999.

Two major issues have been whether Superfund cleanups should be accelerated

in the absence of statutory reforms and whether the requested state assistance funds

are adequate. In approving $1.5 billion for Superfund, both Chambers rejected the

Administration’s request to expand Superfund by $650 million, although the

conferees have authorized an additional $650 million for FY1999 if reauthorization

occurs by August 1, 1999. The final bill added funds to the requested amounts for

states and localities.

Another issue drawing the Administration’s attention to the VA-HUD bill is its

treatment of EPA’s controversial global change activities. As recommended by both

Appropriations Committees, the conferees denied most of the requested increase of

roughly $80 million for climate change activities, as well as additional research

funds. The House Committee adopted a rider, or bill language, prohibiting EPA from

spending FY1999 funding on certain activities, including education, relative to

implementing the yet-to-be ratified Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases; the

full House later adopted an amendment allowing expenditures on educational and

outreach activities. The Senate Committee included report language prohibiting EPA

from implementing the treaty. The conferees included bill language in P.L. 105-276

prohibiting EPA from spending funds on activities which would implement the

treaty. P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, included $10 million in

additional funds for global climate activities. The Administration supports the

Protocol as an international response to global warming.

Table 7. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations,

FY1994 to FY1998

(budget authority in billions of current $)

FY1994

FY1995

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

$6.7

$6.5

$6.8

$7.4

$7.6

Source: CRS Report 97-204; H.Rept. 105-769

In a compromise with the Administration, the Congress provided $1.5 billion

for the Superfund program for FY1998, and agreed to provide another $650 million

in FY1999, provided that the Superfund program was reauthorized by May 15, 1998,

which did not happen. For FY1999, Congress in P.L. 105-276 provided $1.5 billion

and authorized an additional $650 million if Superfund is reauthorized by August 1,

1999. For more detailed information on the Superfund, see CRS Issue Brief 97025,

Superfund Reauthorization Issues in the 105th Congress, by Mark Reisch.

Addressing the major capital needs of states and localities for wastewater and

drinking water cleanup remains a congressional concern. To assist states and tribal

governments with these capital projects, the budget sought $2.9 billion, 9.6 % less

than current year funding; conferees approved a total of $3.4 billion. Conferees

added clean water state revolving funds ($1.1 billion proposed; $1.4 billion

CRS-16

approved); approved the requested drinking water state revolving funds ($775 million

proposed and approved), reduced Mexican Border projects ($100 million; $50

million approved), added-on to state and tribal grants ($875 million proposed; $880

approved), and expanded special grants ($78 million; $302 million approved). The

Senate Budget Resolution, S.Con.Res. 86, disapproved of the Administration’s

proposed decrease in clean water assistance. Both Houses and the conferees

approved most of the requested $145 million increase for EPA’s portion of the

President’s Clean Water Initiative. The FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L.

105-277, included an additional $20 million for Boston Harbor wastewater treatment

facilities

Table 8. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency, FY1999

(budget authority in billions of $)

FY1999

Program

Science and Technology

(including transfers from

Superfund)

Environmental programs,

compliance (management)

Office of Inspector General

Buildings and facilities

Superfund (net, after

transfers)

Leaking Underground

Storage Tank Trust Fund

Oil spill response

State and tribal assistance

grants

Subtotal (EPA)

(rounded, may not add)

FY1998

Enacted

Admin.

Request

Housepassed

(H.R.

4194)

0.666

0.674

0.697

0.684

0.690

1.801

1.994

1.856

1.841

1.848

0.040

0.109

0.043

0.053

0.043

0.061

0.043

0.053

0.043

0.057

1.453

2.040

1.448

0.065

0.071

0.070

0.075

0.073

0.015

0.017

.0015

0.015

3.213

2.903

3.233

3.255

3.387

7.363

7.795a

7.423

7.413

7.560

Senatepassed

P.L.

(S. 2168) 105-276

Source: H.Rept. 105-769.

For information on wastewater treatment issues, see CRS Report 98-323,

Wastewater Treatment: Overview and Background; for clean air issues, see CRS

Issue Brief 97007, Clean Air Act Issues, by James McCarthy. For additional detail

on clean air issues, see CRS Report 97-8, Air Quality: EPA’s Proposed New Ozone

and Particulate Matter Standards, by John Blodgett and James McCarthy. For more

detailed information on EPA and its budget, see CRS Issue Brief 98031,

Environmental Protection Agency: Analysis of Key Budget Issues, by Martin Lee.

CRS-17

Federal Emergency Management Agency

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) helps states and

localities prepare for and cope with disasters that overwhelm their own capabilities.

FEMA administers policies related to emergency management and planning, disaster

relief, fire prevention, earthquake hazard reduction, emergency broadcasting services,

flood insurance, mitigation programs, and dam safety. For further information, see

CRS Report 97-159, FEMA and Disaster Relief, by Keith Bea.

Table 9. Appropriations: Federal Emergency Management

Agency, FY1999

(budget authority in billions of $)

FY1999

FY1998

Enacted

Admin.

Request

Housepassed

(H.R. 4194)

Senatepassed

(S. 2168)

P.L.

105-276

0.320

0.308

0.846

0.308

Pre-disaster mitigation

0.050

Disaster loan subsidy

0.002

Salaries and expenses

0.172

0.171

0.170

0.171

Inspector General

0.005

Emergency mgmt.,

planning, assistance

0.244

0.207

0.232

0.239

0.241

Emrgncy. food, shelter

0.100

Administrative savings

-0.012

Supplemental approp.,

contingent emergency

funds for disaster relief

(1.600)

(0.626)

—

0.830

0.844

0.817

1.362

0.827

Program

Disaster relief

Subtotal* (FEMA)

(rounded, may not add)

Source: H.Rept. 105-769

Does not include funds requested for disaster relief contingent on presidential and

congressional agreement that emergency need exists.

Disaster relief is authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act). The Act authorizes the President to

declare major disasters or emergencies (the latter provide considerably less federal

assistance than the former), sets out eligibility criteria, and specifies types of

assistance that may be authorized. Funding varies from year-to-year, by the severity

and frequency of declared catastrophes. In recent years, billions have been

appropriated to help communities recover from tornados, hurricanes, floods,

earthquakes, and other incidents.

CRS-18

Members of Congress have voiced general support for the Administration’s

emphasis in recent years on disaster mitigation, but disagree on specifics. Instead of

agreeing to the request for separate funding for the Project Impact Mitigation efforts,

the House and Senate panels set aside roughly half the amount requested in the

existing account that funds state and local emergency preparedness activities

(“emergency management, planning and assistance,” or EMPA). Also, the House

subcommittee with jurisdiction over FEMA appropriations has raised concerns about

the process used by FEMA to identify mitigation priorities. The Senate panel report

noted concern with the administration of existing mitigation authority, and has

requested that the General Accounting Office review federal and non-federal

mitigation activities.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

For FY1999, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) requested

$13.46 billion, $183 million below the FY1998 appropriation. (NASA’s budget

request can be found at [http://ifmp.nasa.gov/codeb/budget]). The Senate approved

$13.62 billion for FY1999, 1.1% above the request but 0.2% below FY1998. The

Senate also deleted the Human Space Flight account and created two others, the

“International space station” and the “Launch vehicle and payload operations”

accounts, in order to increase accountability of the space station activities. It also

deletes the “Science, aeronautics, and technology” account and created two new

others, the “Science and technology” and “Aeronautics, space transportation, and

technology” accounts, in order to protect the latter from future budget reductions.

The House approved$13.328 billion for FY1999, 2.1% below the request and 1.0%

below last year. Although separate appropriation objectives continue to be identified,

the House did not alter the formal account structure. The final bill provides $13.665

billion for FY1999, 1.4% above the request and 0.1% above FY1998. The conferees

retained the current NASA account structure, but directed NASA to put the

International Space Station (ISS) in a separate account in its FY2000 submission.

Table 10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998

(budget authority in billions of current $)

FY1994

FY1995

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

$14.55

$14.00

$13.88

$13.71

$13.65

$13.67

Source: CRS Report 97-204; H.Rept. 105-769

The Senate approved $5.54 billion for the programs making up the Human

Space Flight account including $2.3 billion for the ISS. While maintaining support

for the station, the Senate expressed strong concern about continuing cost escalation.

The House approved $5.31 billion for this account including $2.1 billion for the ISS.

It expressed concern about the lack of management control of the ISS project by

NASA and its contractors. The final bill provides $5.48 billion for Human Space

Flight including $2.27 billion, the requested amount, for the ISS. The conferees

expressed considerable concern about the status of the ISS and the situation with

CRS-19

Russia, the principal partner to the United States on the station project. Floor

amendments to terminate the ISS failed in both the House and Senate.

The Senate approved a $105 million increase over the request for the Science,

Aeronautics, and Technology (SAT) acocunt. In doing so, the Senate directed NASA

to review its planned space science work for the next 15 years, to determine which

of that work could not be done under NASA’s new “faster, cheaper, and better”

philosophy, which, the Senate believes, might be compromising the achievement of

some scientific objectives. The House approved an increase of $84 million over the

request. The final bill provides an increase of $236 million over the request,

including funding for a number of specific projects.

Both the space science and earth science programs within the SAT account

received more funds than requested in the final bill. Specific increases are provided

for the Next Generation Space Telescope and the Earth Orbiting System (EOS) AM1 satellite. Launch of the latter has been delayed to early 1999.

Table 11. Appropriations: National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, FY1999

(budget authority in billions of $)

FY1999

FY1998

Enacted

Admin.

Request

Housepassed

(H.R. 4194)

Senatepassed

(S. 2168)

Human space flight

5.507

5.511

5.309

—

5.480

Science, aeronaut.,

tech.

5.690

5.457

5.542

—

5.654

International Space

Station

—

2.300

—

Launch vehicles;

operations

—

3.241

—

Science and

Technology

—

4.257

—

Aero., space trans.,

tech.

—

1.305

—

Mission support

2.433

2.477

2.459

2.492

2.511

Inspector General

0.018

0.020

0.019

0.020

Subtotal (NASA)

(rounded, may not

add)

13.648

13.465

13.328

13.615

13.665

Program

P.L.

105276

Source: H. Rept. 105-276.

Actions by Congress suggest strong support for the basic research carried out

by NASA as well as continued support for the ISS. However, it is apparent that

CRS-20

Congressional concern is growing about NASA’s ability to fund a balanced space and

aeronautics program including the ISS and to control ISS project costs.

For more information on ISS, see CRS Issue Brief 93017, Space Stations, by

Marcia Smith. For a more detailed discussion of NASA and its FY1999 request, see

CRS Report 97-634, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration: An

Overview With FY1998 and FY1999 Budget Summaries, by David Radzanowski and

Richard Rowberg. For more discussion on the ISS, see CRS Issue Brief 93017,

Space Stations, by Marcia S. Smith. For other issues in federal research and

development, see CRS Issue Brief 98011, Research and Development Funding:

Fiscal Year 1999, by Michael E. Davey, Coordinator.

National Science Foundation

The FY1999 appropriation for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is $3.671

billion, a 7% increase over the FY1998 estimate. The FY1999 funding permits

significant investments in several emerging areas, including knowledge and

distributed intelligence (KDI), integration of research and education, and life and

earth’s environment. The KDI also supports the Next Generation Internet, a multiagency effort. The integration of research and education is a key theme of NSF’s

efforts in the area of Educating for the Future, which includes such programs as

Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry, the Integrative Graduation

Education and Research Training program, Faculty Early Career Development

program, and Research Experiences for Undergraduates.

Table 12. National Science Foundation Appropriations,

FY1994 to FY1998

(budget authority in billions of current $)

FY1994

FY1995

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

$2.99

$3.23

$3.22

$3.27

$3.43

$3.67

Source: H.Rept. 105-769.

The FY1999 appropriation for the Education and Human Resources Directorate

(EHR) is $662 million, a 5% increase ($30 million) above the FY1998 level. The

FY1999 request proposed $683 million for EHR. This program provides funds at

various educational levels. The support at the precollege level is directed primarily

at the K-8 mathematics initiative, the research on education and training technologies

initiative, and the extension of effective applications of computer, networking, and

other technologies. Support at the undergraduate level is focused primarily on reform

of undergraduate education and addressing advanced technical training. Funding at

the graduate level supports the NSF Integrative Graduate Education and Research

Training program. The Conferees provided an additional $13.5 million for minority

undergraduate and graduate programs, and an additional $10 million for informal

science activities.

CRS-21

The Research and Related Activities account (RRA) is funded at $2.77 billion

in FY1999, $224 million (9%) above the FY1998 level. Support is provided to

individuals and small groups conducting disciplinary and cross-disciplinary research.

Included in the RRA is additional support for arctic logistics activities, the radius

data base project, and plant genome research. The conference report included

language directing the NSF to improve the participation of those colleges and

universities that fall outside of the top 100 institutions receiving research support.

Table 13. Appropriations: National Science Foundation, FY1999

(budget authority in billions of $)

FY1999

FY1998

Enacted

Admin.

Request

Housepassed

(H.R.

4194)

Research, related

activities

2.546

2.847

2.815

2.725

2.770

Education, human

resources

0.633

0.683

0.643

0.683

0.662

Major research

equipment

0.109

0.094

0.090

0.094

0.090

Salaries and expenses

0.137

0.144

0.137

0.144

Office of Inspector

General

0.005

Subtotal (NSF)

(rounded, may not

add)

3.429

3.773

3.697

3.644

3.671

Program

Senatepassed

(S.

2168)

P.L.

105276

Source: H.Rept. 105-769.

For FY1999, Congress has provided $90 million for the Major Research

Equipment (MRE) account. Five projects are supported by this account: start up

construction funds for the Large Hadron Collider, development support for the

Millimeter Array, construction of the Polar Cap Observatory, ongoing modernization

of the South Pole Station, and funding for the reconfiguration of the Polar Support

Aircraft.

In December 1997, the National Science Board, the policy-making arm of the

NSF, issued a working paper in which it criticized the manner in which science

policy is coordinated.6 The Board noted that because NSF accounts for $2 billion

of the $17 billion spent on basic research in the United States, it should assume some

responsibility for advising the government on science policy beyond the confines of

NSF.

National Science Board, Government Funding of Scientific Research: A Working Paper

of the National Science Board, NSB97-186, December 1997. 15 p.

CRS-22

On March 19, 1998, the National Science Board commented on a proposal to

establish a National Institute for the Environment (NIE) within the NSF. (Language

was included in the FY1998 appropriations for NSF to review the feasibility of

operating such an institute.) While the Board acknowledged the need for expanded

environmental research, education, and assessment, it did not agree with establishing

a separate entity within the NSF. The Board stated that as proposed, the NIE: “ ...

could isolate environmental research from related science and engineering research,

as well as duplicate the existing policy and management structure and entail

unnecessary cost.”7

For additional information on NSF, see CRS Report 95-897, National Science

Foundation, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences — A Fact

Sheet; and, CRS Report 95-307, U.S. National Science Foundation: An Overview,

both by Christine M. Matthews. For issues in federal research and development, see

CRS Issue Brief 98011, Research and Development Funding: Fiscal Year 1999, by

Michael E. Davey, Coordinator.

Other Independent Agencies

In addition to funding for VA, HUD, EPA, FEMA, NASA and NSF, several

other smaller “sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and

offices” will receive their funding through the bill providing appropriations for VA,

HUD, and Independent Agencies for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1998.

American Battle Monuments Commission. This Commission is responsible

for the construction and maintenance of memorials honoring Armed Forces battle

achievements since 1917. The Administration asked for $23.9 million for FY1999,

a decrease from $26.9 million provided for FY1998. The additional $3 million for

the current fiscal year would be used to reduce a backlog in equipment and

maintenance. The Senate approved $3 million more than the Administration’s

request for FY1999, $2.5 million for renovation of the Liberty Memorial Monument.

The House approved $.5 million less than its counterpart. Conferees approved the

House levels.

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. This Board originated in

the FY1998 bill, with $4 million appropriated to meet start-up operations costs. The

Administration has requested $7 million for FY1999; both Houses approved $6.5

million; conferees accepted that level for the final bill.

Community Development Financial Institution Fund. The Community

Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI) was created by P.L. 103-325. The

CDFI is an Administration initiative to provide credit and investment capital to

distressed urban and rural areas. The program also provides technical and training

assistance to qualifying financial institutions. The program has survived despite

attempts to eliminate it.

The complete text of the statement can be accessed electronically from the National

Science Board, The Proposed National Institute for the Environment, NSB98-65, March

19, 1998 [http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1998/nsb9865/nsb9865.htm].

CRS-23

P.L. 104-19 modified the original Act by giving the Department of the Treasury

the authority to manage the CDFI program, although the CDFI continues to be

funded through the VA/HUD bill. After attempts to end funds for the CDFI were

defeated, Congress appropriated $80 million for FY1998, but included a requirement

that GAO audit the CDFI to “review” its effectiveness.

The Administration’s FY1999 budget has requested $125 million for CDFI, the

same amount requested in the Administration’s budget for FY1998. The Senate bill,

citing continuing concerns about accountability, provided $55 million. The House

approved $80 million, and conferees accepted that level in the final version.

For further information on CDFI, see CRS Report 97-819, Community

Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, by Pauline Smale.

Consumer Information Center. The Center helps federal agencies distribute

consumer information and promotes public awareness of existing federal

publications. The Administration requests $2.419 million for the Center for FY1999;

$300,000 of which is to perform functions of the Office of Consumer Affairs, an

entity previously administered through the Department of Health and Human

Services. That federal entity received no appropriations for FY1998. The Senate bill

agrees with the Administration request; the House approved $2.619 million, and the

conferees approved that level.

Consumer Product Safety Commission. This Commission is an independent

regulatory agency charged with protecting the public from unreasonable product risk

and to research and develop uniform safety standards for consumer products. The

Administration requests $46.5 million for FY1999, up $1.5 million over FY1998

appropriations. The Senate agreed with the requested amount; the House Committee

recommended reducing the request by $.5 million; a floor amendment added $5

million. Conferees approved $46 million. Conferees also added language requiring

the Commission to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study of the

potential toxicologic risks of fire-retardant chemicals that the Commission has

proposed be required in residential upholstered furniture, and in children’s sleepwear.

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). The key issue

concerning the Corporation, whose programs are strongly supported by President

Clinton, has been budgetary survival. The largest of the Corporation’s 9 programs

is AmeriCorps, funded at $277 million for FY1998. Some Members have expressed

concerns about partisan activities, program costs, financial management issues, and

whether government should support a paid “volunteer” program. (Some programs

administered by the Corporation, — e.g., Foster Grandparents Program and Senior

Companion Program — are funded under the Labor/HHS Appropriation bill and have

been non-controversial.)

The Senate provided FY1999 funding for the programs of the Corporation at

FY1998 levels, $428.5 million, including $3 million for the Inspector General. The

House voted to eliminate all funding for the Corporation. The Conference approved

the Senate level.

CRS-24

Authorization for CNCS expired at the end of FY1996. Since then, continued

program authority has occurred through the appropriations process. The President

has transmitted to Congress the National and Community Service Amendments of

1998, a bill to reauthorize and amend the National and Community Service Act of

1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973; the bill was introduced in the

House as H.R. 3561, but no companion bill has been introduced in the Senate. No

action on H.R. 3561 occurred.

Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Environmental Quality.

These two entities are administered by the Executive Office of the President. The

Council is responsible for oversight and coordination of interagency decisions in

matters affecting the environment; the Office provides the professional and

administrative staff for the Council. Congress appropriated $2.5 million for these

functions in FY1998; in addition, Congress provided a special one-time $1 million

appropriation to the Executive Office of the President for “unanticipated needs.” The

President has requested $3.02 million for FY1999; the Senate approved $2.575

million; the House, $2.675 million; conferees adopted the House level.

Court of Veterans Appeals. The Court of Veterans Appeals has exclusive

jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and has the

authority to decide relevant conflicts in the interpretation of relevant law by VA and

the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and its decisions constitute precedent to guide

subsequent decisions by that Board. Congress provided $9.3 million for operations

for the Court in FY1998; the President has requested $10.2 million for FY1999; the

Senate approved $10 million, allowing no increase in staffing. The House concurs

with the requested amount, and conferees concurred with the House level.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC’s Office of the Inspector

General is funded from deposit insurance funds, and has no direct effect on federal

taxpayers. Before FY1998, the amount was approved by the FDIC Board of

Directors; the amount is now directly appropriated to ensure the independence of the

IG office. This year the amount requested is $34.7 million; both Houses concur;

conferees made no changes.

National Credit Union Administration. The purpose of this administrative

office, created under the National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (P.L.

95-630), is to improve the general financial stability of credit unions. Subscribing

credit unions may borrow from the agency to meet short-term requirements. The

Administration requested $176,000 for the agency’s functions; both Houses accepted

the requested amounts; the conferees agreed, and approved the House proposal for

a revolving loan program for credit union risk pooling, with a subsidy of $2 million.

The Senate has proposed a risk pool cost of $1million.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC). The NRC leverages funds

for reinvestment in older neighborhoods through community-based organizations

called NeighborWorks. Among projects supported by the financing activities of the

NRC are lending activities for home ownership of low-income families. Congress

appropriated $60 million for the NRC in FY1998; the President requested $90

million for FY1999, and the House bill provides that amount. The Senate approved

$60 million recommendation. Conferees accepted the $90 million level, and

CRS-25

approved $25 million as an earmark for a pilot homeownership initiative, as proposed

by the House.

Table 14. Appropriations: Other Independent Agencies, FY1999

(budget authority in billions of $)

FY1999

Program

American Battle

Monuments Commission

FY1998

Enacted

HouseSenateAdmin.

passed

passed P.L. 105Request (H.R. 4194) (S. 2168)

276

0.027

0.024

0.026

0.027

0.026

Chem. Safety and Hazard

Investigations Board

0.004

0.007

Cemetery Exp., Army

0.012

Community Development

Financial Institutions

0.080

0.125

0.080

0.055

0.080

0.002

0.003

0.002

0.003

Consumer Product Safety

Commission

0.045

0.047

0.051

0.047

Corporation for National

and Community Servicea

0.429

0.502

0.429

Council on Environmental

Quality

0.004

0.003

Court of Veterans Appeals

0.009

0.010

Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation

(0.034)

(0.035)

(0.034)

(0.0)

Neighborhood

Reinvestment Corporation

0.060

0.090

0.060

0.090

0.001

0.000

0.002

0.001

0.002

Office of Science

&Technology Policy

0.005

Selective Service System

0.023

0.025

0.024

0.025

0.024

Subtotal:

(rounded, may not add)

0.701

0.852

0.313

0.683

0.738

Consumer Information.

Center

National Credit Union

Administration

Source: H.Rept. 105-679

Includes $3 million for CNCS Office of the Inspector General.

Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Office of Science and

Technology Policy coordinates science and technology policy for the White House.

The Office provides scientific and technological information, analysis and advice for

CRS-26

the President and Executive Branch, and reviews and participates in formulation in

national policies affecting those areas. Congress appropriated $4.9 million for the

Office for FY1998; the President has requested $5 million for FY1999; both Houses

approved the Administration’s request; conferees agreed.

Selective Service System (SSS). The SSS was created to supply manpower to

the U.S. Armed Forces during time of national emergency. Although since 1973, the

the Armed Forces has been on voluntary recruitment and incentives, the SSS remains

the primary vehicle for conscription should it become necessary. In 1987, the SSS

was given the task of developing a postmobilization health care system that would

assist with providing the Armed Forces with health care personnel in time of

emergency. Congress appropriated $23.4 million for this office for FY1998; the

President has requested $24.9 for FY1999; the Senate approved the request; the

House approved $24.2 million. Conferees adopted the House level for the final bill.

Selected World Wide Web Sites

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Summary and Justification of Budget.

[http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage]

Corporation for National and Community Service

[http://www.cns.gov/]

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

[http://www.hud.gov]

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

[http://www.fema.gov]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

[http://www.hq.nasa.gov]

National Science Foundation (NSF).

[http://www.nsf.gov]

Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html]

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

[http://www.va.gov]

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.