Appropriations for FY2001: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies (P.L. 106-377)

Congressional research reportNov 17, 2000

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL30504

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Appropriations for FY2001: VA, HUD,

and Independent Agencies (P.L. 106-377)

Updated November 17, 2000

Dennis W. Snook and E. Richard Bourdon

Coordinators

Domestic Social Policy Division

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

governed 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 or 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 FY2001:

VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies

Summary

Congress completes action on FY2001 VA-HUD Bill. Congress has passed,

and the President signed (P.L. 106-377) an FY2001 appropriations bill (H.R. 4635)

for the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing and Urban Development

(HUD), and several independent agencies, including the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National

Science Foundation (NSF), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and

the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNS).

The bill provides a total of $107.3 billion in appropriations for programs covered

by the bill, including $82.6 billion in discretionary spending. Mandatory spending,

mostly for VA cash benefit programs, is projected to require $24.6 billion.

Rescissions of $1.8 billion in unobligated HUD housing assistance funds were

included in the bill. After all scorekeeping factors are considered, the total mandatory

and discretionary funds provided by the bill is $107.1 billion.

The President’s FY2001 Request. According to congressional estimates, the

Administration’s request for VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies FY2001

appropriations totals $109.4 billion. The request assumes $24.6 billion in mandatory

spending for VA entitlements, and $84.8 billion (including $4.2 billion in advance

FY2002 HUD funds) for discretionary programs funded through the VA-HUD bill.

The request assumes major increases in VA medical care spending, adding $1.3 billion

in new funds to FY2000 levels. HUD spending would increase by $6.6 billion over

FY2000, including the Administration’s proposed advance FY2002 appropriations of

$4.2 billion, a move also enacted for FY2001 in the FY2000 appropriations bill.

FY2001 Congressional Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 290). The budget

resolution for FY2001 called for an allocation for VA, HUD, and Independent

Agencies of about $400 million below the total provided for FY2000. VA would

receive a $1.5 billion increase in discretionary spending, most of which would increase

VA health care funding. Discretionary appropriations targets for the VA, HUD, and

Independent Agency appropriations subcommittees, known as “302(b) allocations,”

have been placed at $76.2 billion for the House, and $77.8 billion for the Senate.

P.L. 106-74 (H.R. 2684). The FY2000 bill provided $99.7 billion in FY2000

appropriations (current estimates revise the effect of the bill to $99.1 billion) for

programs covered under the Act, compared to $99.6 billion requested. As requested,

the bill incorporated $4.2 billion in advance FY2001 funding, and $2.9 billion in

rescissions of funds appropriated in previous years. P.L. 106-113 subsequently

required 0.38% in across-the-board reductions, and these reductions lowered

appropriations of P.L. 106-74 by $285 million. Among agencies with funding

increases under P.L. 106-74 were VA medical care, up by $1.7 billion over FY1999

(the Administration requested a freeze), and HUD, up $2 billion above FY1999, or

about $2 billion less than the Administration request.

Key Policy Staff

Name

Area of Expertise

CRS Division

Tel.

Keith Bea

Emergency Management

G&F

7-8672

Richard Bourdon

Housing

DSP

7-7806

Eugene Boyd

Community Development

G&F

7-8689

Bruce Foote

Housing

DSP

7-7805

Martin Lee

Environmental Policy

RSI

7-7260

Ann Lordeman

National and Community Service

DSP

7-2323

Christine Matthews

National Science Foundation

RSI

7-7055

Bruce Mulock

Consumer Affairs

G&F

7-7775

Pauline Smale

Banking

G&F

7-7832

Dick Rowberg

National Aeronautics and Space Admin.

RSI

7-7040

Dennis Snook

Veterans Affairs

DSP

7-7314

Susan Vanhorenbeck

Housing

DSP

7-7808

Division abbreviations: DSP=Domestic Social Policy; G&F=Government and Finance; RSI=Resources, Science and

Industry.

Contents

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

Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Total Appropriations Enacted for FY2000 and Requested for FY2001 for VA,

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

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

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

VA Cash Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Veterans Housing Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Medical Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

VA Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Program Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The major housing policy issue: Affordable rental housing in a

robust economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Housing Certificate Fund: A closer look . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Public Housing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Community Development Fund (Community Development Block

Grants) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Rural Housing and Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Brownfield Redevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Regional Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

The HOME Investment Partnership Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Homeless Assistance Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Housing for the Elderly and Disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Fair Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Lead-Based Paint Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Federal Emergency Management Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Other Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

American Battle Monuments Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Cemeterial Expenses, Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Consumer Information Center (CIC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNS) . . . . . . . . . 43

Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Environmental Quality . 45

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

National Credit Union Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

National Institute of Environmental Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Office of Science and Technology Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Selective Service System (SSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

List of Tables

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

FY2001 (P.L. 106-377) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table 2. Summary of VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2000-FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2000 . . 5

Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2000-FY2001 . . 6

Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,

FY1996 to FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 6. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development, FY2000-FY2001 12

Table 7.

Administration and Congressional Estimates, Congressional

Recommendations, and Appropriations for the Housing Certificate Fund (HCF),

FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 8. Community Development Block Grants, FY2000-FY2001 . . . . . . . . 21

Table 10. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations,

FY1996 to FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 11. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency,

FY2000-FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 12. Appropriations: Federal Emergency Management

Agency, FY2000-FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 13. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Appropriations,

FY1996 - FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 14. Appropriations: National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

FY2000-FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 15. National Science Foundation Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2000 . . 39

Table 16. Appropriations: National Science Foundation, FY2000-FY2001 . . . 40

Table 17. Appropriations: Other Independent Agencies, FY2000-FY2001 . . . 42

Appropriations for FY2001: VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies

Most Recent Developments

Final Actions on FY2001 Appropriations for VA, HUD, and Independent

Agencies. President Clinton signed H.R. 5482 into P.L. 106-377, appropriations for

VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies for FY2001. The bill’s language was

incorporated by reference into the conference report on H.R. 4635 (H.Rept. 106988), completed and filed October 18, and which was approved by both chambers

the following day. The conference bill contained a total of $107.1 billion in

combined mandatory and discretionary appropriations.

Senate Passes Conferees’ Version. On October 12, 2000, the Senate adopted

an amended version of H.R. 4635, based on the anticipation of a conference report

containing identical elements. Thus, the Senate bill contained $107.1 billion in

combined mandatory and discretionary appropriations.

Senate Committee reports bill. On September 13, 2000, the Senate Committee

on Appropriations reported its amended version of H.R. 4635. The bill totaled

$107.3 billion in mandatory and discretionary appropriations.

House Approves FY2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill. On June 21, 2000 ,

the House passed H.R. 4635, which contained $102.9 billion in mandatory and

discretionary appropriations for FY2001, according to H.Rept. 106-988.

Congress Adopts FY2001 Budget Resolution. On April 13, 2000, Congress

finished action on H.Con.Res. 290, the Congressional Budget Resolution for

FY2001, which provided for approximately $400 million less than appropriated for

FY2000.

President Submits Budget Request for FY2001. On February 7, 2000, the

Administration proposed $109.4 billion in FY2001 appropriations for VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies (according to updated estimates in H.Rept. 106-988).

CRS-2

Status

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

FY2001 (P.L. 106-377)

Public

Conference

Conference report approval Law

Senate

House

(P.L.

report

106(H.Rept. Passed (S.Rept. Passed (H.Rept.

House Senate 106-674) House 106-410) Senate 106-988)

House Senate 377)

Subcommittee

markup

5/23

9/13

6/12

6/21

9/13

10/12

10/18

10/19

10/27

Total Appropriations Enacted for FY2000 and

Requested for FY2001 for VA, HUD, and Independent

Agencies

Table 2. Summary of VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2000-FY2001

(budget authority in billions)

Program

FY2000 FY2001

enacted request

FY2001 FY2001 FY2001

House Senatea Confer.

Department of Veterans Affairs

44.255

46.948

46.910

46.966

47.003

Department of Housing and

Urban Development

25.924

32.466

29.980

30.634

30.621

Environmental Protection Agency

7.433

7.164

7.144

7.534

7.828

Federal Emergency Management

Agency

3.838

3.580

.877

3.516

2.237

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

13.602

14.035

13.659

13.844

14.285

National Science Foundation

3.897

4.572

4.046

4.297

4.426

Other Independent Agencies

0.801

1.018

0.486

0.717

0.939

Preservation of Affordable

Housing

-0.014

0.000

Filipino veterans benefitsb

0.000

0.003

Grand Total: Appropriations

99.737 109.783 103.102 107.508 107.341

Score keeping adjustmentsc

-2.630

-0.384

-0.173

-0.203

Adjustment; VA cash paymentsd

1.832

0.000

Emergency funds, elderly

housing

1.832

0.000

Adjustments; misc.

0.281

-0.380

-0.169

-0.199

CRS-3

FY2000 FY2001

enacted request

Program

FY2001 FY2001 FY2001

House Senatea Confer.

Advance approp. FY2002

-4.200

Advance approp. FY2001

0.000

4.200

Adjust. (negative; mandatory)

-2.375

-0.004

Total, after adjustments:

97.107 109.399 102.929 107.305 107.138

Mandatory

21.307

24.582

24.612

24.582

Discretionary

75.800

84.817

78.317

82.723

82.556

Source: H.Rept. 106-674; S.Rept. 106-410; H.Rept. 106-988 (Conference).

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Italics indicates lines are subsumed within entry above.

In floor action on October 12, 2000, the Senate replaced the House-passed version of H.R. 4635 with

the version reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. In later action that same

day, the Senate further amended H.R. 4635 by substituting the language that had emerged

from the informal preliminary conference on the bill. The column shown as “Senate” is the

version reported from the Senate’s committee; otherwise, the column would be identical to the

last column showing the amounts approved by the conferees, and enacted as P.L. 106-377.

Title V of the bill raises VA service-connected disability compensation for certain Filipino veterans

with World War II service under U.S. Armed Forces command, from its current 50% level to

full parity with amounts paid to U.S. Armed Forces veterans with similar compensation

ratings.

Adjustments may include various supplementals, rescissions, advance appropriations, accounting

changes, and reestimates of program experience.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 stopped VA from paying compensation and pension benefits on

Friday when the scheduled payment date occurred over a weekend, as had been the custom.

As the FY2001 Budget proposed, P.L. 106-246 repealed the 1997 change; payments scheduled

for October 1, 2000 (a Sunday) were paid September 29, thus moving those outlays from

FY2001 to FY2000.

Key Policy Issues

Department of Veterans Affairs

Congress appropriated $47 billion for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

programs for FY2001, $55 million more than the President requested. The House

recommended $46.910 billion (H.R. 4635) for VA for FY2001. The Senate, in

amending the House bill, adopted its Appropriation Committee’s recommendation of

$46.966 billion, and then subsequently amended the bill to incorporate the version

agreed to in a preliminary conference between the two Houses. That version was the

final one agreed to by both Houses, and signed by the President as P.L. 106-377.

Mandatory spending for VA entitlement programs is projected to rise by $1.2

billion for FY2001. Most of the proposed increase in discretionary spending for VA

programs is intended for medical care. The President requested, both Houses

approved, and the final enacted bill provides $20.3 billion for VA medical care, nearly

$1.3 billion more than approved for FY2000, which was $1.7 billion above the freeze

level Congress had previously approved for FY2000.

CRS-4

Congress provided $44.3 billion for VA for FY2000, an increase of $1.7 billion

above FY1999, and $1.8 billion above the Administration’s request. Subsequently,

the across-the-board cut of 0.38% mandated by P.L. 106-113 reduced the medical

care appropriation by $79.5 million.

For additional information on VA programs, see CRS Report RL30099,

Veterans Issues in the 106th Congress, by Dennis Snook.

VA Cash Benefits. Spending for VA cash benefit programs is mandatory, and

amounts requested by the budget are based on projected caseloads. Definitions of

eligibility and benefit levels are in law. For FY2001, $24.6 billion is estimated to be

required for these entitlements, mostly service-connected compensation, means-tested

pensions, and Montgomery GI-Bill education payments. The entitlement programs

were estimated to cost $23.4 billion during FY2000.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included language that ended the longstanding VA practice of paying compensation and pension benefits on Friday, when

the 1st day of the month occurred on a weekend. October 1, 2000, the start of

FY2001, fell on a Sunday, and the Administration proposed that the payments be

made the previous Friday. P.L. 106-246 repealed the 1997 language, clearing the way

for the payment due in October 2000 to be paid on September 29. This change

shifted $1.832 billion in mandatory spending from FY2001 to FY2000.

Veterans Housing Benefits. Historically, the opportunity for veterans to have

home loans guaranteed by the federal government was a significant contribution to the

national goal of increasing the number of families who owned their own homes.

Because of the guarantees, lenders are protected against losses up to the amount of

the guarantee, thereby permitting veterans to obtain mortgages with little or no down

payment, and with competitive interest rates. These guarantees, and certain direct

loans to specific categories of veterans are obligations of the federal government that

constitute mandatory spending; administrative expenses are discretionary

appropriations transferred from the home loan programs to the General Operating

Expenses account.

Guaranteed Transitional Housing Loans for Homeless Veterans Program

Account. P.L. 105-368, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 established

a pilot project to expand the supply of transitional housing for homeless veterans.

The program was authorized to guarantee up to 15 loans with a maximum aggregate

value of $100 million, with no more than five loans guaranteed during the first 3

years. These housing plans must enforce sobriety standards, as well as provide

various supportive services, such as substance abuse counseling and job readiness

skills workshops. Residents pay a reasonable fee to reside in the project homes. P.L.

106-74 resulted in an estimated $48.25 million for program costs for the program

during FY2000, based on the loan limitation of $100 million. The program is not

expected to require further funding during FY2001.

CRS-5

Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations,

FY1996 to FY2000

(budget authority in billions)

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

$38.11

$40.33

$42.41

$44.25

Source: Final spending levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, and

any supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been included. Figures for FY1996-99 are from

budget submissions of subsequent years; figures for FY2000 are from the Conference Report on

H.R. 4635 (H.Rept 106-988) and include the effects of the 0.38% reduction imposed by P.L. 106-113.

Medical Care. P.L. 106-377 contains $20.3 billion for VA medical care

programs for FY2001, an increase of nearly $1.3 billion over FY2000, and the same

amount requested by the Administration and approved in both the House and Senate

versions of H.R. 4635. Congress approved $19 billion for FY2000, after adding $1.7

billion to the Administration’s request of $17.3 billion. (P.L. 106-113 reduced that

level by $79.5 million.)

Increasing patient load and expanding access. For several years, VA has been

expanding access to medical services by transferring medical personnel slots from

inpatient settings to more efficient outpatient care venues. As a result, the unique

patient count is projected to increase by 285,000 from FY1999-FY2001. VA

estimates that it will eliminate 1,304 staff slots during the same period. Nevertheless,

VA continues to accept all veterans who apply for enrollment in its health care plans.

Additional sources of medical care funding. In addition to funds directly

appropriated to VA for medical care, the Administration estimates that $639 million

more in medical care funding will be provided in FY2001 from the Medical Care Cost

Collections Fund (MCCF); the amount estimated to be recovered during FY2000 was

$608 million. The MCCF collects payments from insurance companies with joint

coverage of veterans receiving care in VA facilities, and from veterans obligated to

share in the cost of their VA medical care.

The Millennium Health Care Act (P.L. 106-117) authorized VA to increase

prescription drug copayments ($2 monthly per prescription, for veterans ineligible for

free prescriptions), while establishing a maximum annual and monthly copayment for

veterans with multiple prescriptions. The new law also authorized VA to modify the

outpatient copayment for “higher income” veterans. Funds collected through the new

authorizations are to be deposited in the Health Services Improvement Fund (HSIF),

which the Act authorized VA to establish to receive these additional copayments, as

well as reimbursements from the Department of Defense (DoD) for certain military

retirees served by VA, and funds collected under arrangements in which the leasing

of VA facilities and services yields income to VA facilities.

As with the funds of the MCCF, the HSIF proceeds can be used to furnish

additional medical services, thereby expanding the number of veterans served by the

VA medical care system. In addition, P.L. 106-117 authorized the creation of a third

fund, called the Extended Care Revolving Fund (ECRF), for the receipt of per diem

and copayments from certain higher income veterans receiving extended care services

CRS-6

from VA. One of the purposes of the Millennium Health Care Act is to expand the

availability of extended care, and the Act expects to offset some of the additional

costs of such expansion by increasing the charges for extended services for veterans

who are assumed to have a greater ability to pay for their care.

The House did not adopt the President’s budget proposal for FY2001, that the

HSIF and the ECRF be consolidated with the HCCF, which would have a combined

collection estimated by the Administration to be $958 million in FY2001. The

Administration proposed that one-half of a base of $700 million ($350 million) of the

consolidated fund’s proceeds be transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury, and

the remainder be made available for VA medical care services. Thus, under the

Administration’s budget proposal, the $639 million estimated to be made available to

medical care from the MCCF under current law would continue to be made available

if VA collected the amount estimated, but the first $350 million collected would be

transferred to the Treasury.

Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,

FY2000-FY2001

(budget authority in billions)

Program

FY2000

enacted

FY2001

request

FY2001

House

FY2001

Senatea

FY2001

Confer.

Comp., pension, burial

21.568

22.766

Insurance/indemnities

0.029

0.020

Housing programs

0.282

0.166

Readjustment benefits

1.469

1.634

1.664

1.634

Guar. Transitional Hsg.

Loans, Homeless Vets.

0.048

–

Subtotal: Mandatory

(entitlement)

23.397

24.586

24.616

24.586

Medical careb

18.926

20.282

P.L. 106-113 cut

(0.38%)

-0.080

–

Medical and prosthetic

research

0.321

0.351

0.331

0.351

Medical Administration

0.060

0.065

0.062

General operating exp.

0.913

1.062

1.006

1.050

Admin. expense (hsng.)

0.158

0.167

0.162

0.163

Nat’l Cemetery Admin.

0.097

0.110

0.107

0.110

Inspector General

0.043

0.046

Construction, major

0.065

0.062

0.049

0.066

CRS-7

FY2000

enacted

FY2001

request

FY2001

House

FY2001

Senatea

FY2001

Confer.

Construction, minor

0.160

0.162

0.100

0.162

Grants; state facilities

0.090

0.060

0.090

0.100

State veteran cemeteries

0.025

Subtotal: Discretionary

20.859

22.363

22.294

22.380

22.417

Subtotal: (VA)

44.255

46.948

46.910

46.966

47.003

Program

Source: H.Rept. 106-988.

Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.

In floor action on October 12, 2000, the Senate replaced the House-passed version of H.R. 4635 with

the version reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. In later action that same day,

the Senate further amended H.R. 4635 by substituting the language that had emerged from the

informal preliminary conference on the bill. The column shown as “Senate” is the version reported

from the Senate’s committee; otherwise, the column would be identical to the last column showing

the amounts approved by the conferees, and enacted as P.L. 106-377.

Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) receipts are restored to the Medical Care account but not

included in appropriations totals; $608 million are estimated to be returned in FY2000 and $639

million in FY2001.

Response to Hepatitis C (HCV). Evidence suggests that veterans have a

substantially higher infection rate for this dangerous communicable disease. A VA

survey in 1999 found that the veterans it surveyed had a prevalence rate of 6.6%,

compared to an estimated 1.8% in the general population. Leading veterans groups

and some health care professionals have advocated an aggressive response by VA to

combat the threat, and the Administration’s budget estimates that funding for the

diagnosis and treatment of infected veterans will rise to $340 million in FY2001, up

from $195 million in FY2000, and $46 million in FY1999. The two committee

reports accompanying the bills (H.Rept. 106-674; S.Rept. 106-410) emphasize the

need to focus necessary resources on research, diagnosis, and treatment of this

disease; the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4635 (H.Rept. 106-988) affirms

this emphasis, and instructs VA to include the disease in its complex care calculation

for purposes of resource distribution among its 22 regional plans.

Medical research. Conferees approved the House level of $351 million for VA

medical research during FY2001, $30 million more than the Administration’s request

for $321 million; the Senate committee bill recommended $331 million. Congress

appropriated $321 million for medical and prosthetic research in FY2000.

VA Construction. Congress appropriated $65 million for major construction,

and $160 million for minor construction (projects with an estimated cost under $4

million) for FY2000. The Administration requested $62 million for major

construction and $162 million for minor construction for FY2001; the House accepts

the President’s recommendation for major construction, and approved $100 million

for minor construction. The Senate approved $49 million for major construction, and

$162 million for minor construction. Major construction projects are those with an

estimated cost over $4 million. The largest project ($26.6 million) proposed in the

CRS-8

Administration’s budget is for seismic corrections at the VA hospital in Palo Alto,

California; both Houses approve that project at the requested level. Many of the

minor construction projects will continue VA’s overall strategy of expanding

outpatient access.

Program Administration. The House recommends $1.006 billion, after the

Administration proposed $1.062 billion, to fund the General Operating Expenses

(GOE) account for administering VA benefit programs during FY2001. The Senate

bill recommends $1.05 billion for GOE. The Administration recommended $65

million for administering the medical programs, and the House and Senate bills

approved $62 million for that purpose. For FY2000, Congress provided $913 million

for GOE, and $60 million for medical care administration.

VA employment estimates. The Administration projects overall VA employment

will average 203,352 in FY2001, down from an estimated average of 204,115 in

FY2000, and 205,547 in FY1999. Much of the decline will be in medical staff: VA

estimated 179,206 medical care slots for FY2001, down from an estimated 180,510

in FY2000, and 182,661 in FY1999. Medical care staff positions will have declined

by 12% from a high of 204,527 at the end of FY1993, if these estimates are matched

with experience.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Introduction. Most of the appropriations for HUD address the housing

problems faced by households with very-low incomes or other special housing needs.

Programs of rental assistance for the poor, elderly or handicapped, housing assistance

for persons with AIDS, varying types of shelter for those who are homeless – all deal

with the issue of the availability of affordable rental housing. The two large HUD

block grant programs also help communities finance various efforts to address these

housing issues.

While funding for these programs has increased in recent years, evidence

suggests that the problem of the availability of affordable housing is nevertheless

increasing even faster. Adding to the difficulty of addressing this issue are evaluations

of HUD’s management and accounting systems finding that the Department could do

a better job of administering housing programs. Congressional appropriators will

continue to monitor the performance of HUD’s major housing programs.

Summary: Appropriations for HUD programs. P.L. 106-377 provides $30.62

billion for HUD, about $1.85 billion less than the Administration’s request. The bill

requires that almost that amount be recaptured from previously approved Section 8

funds not yet spent – the Act then permits $1.83 billion of those funds to be

reprogrammed. Conferees also approved funding for about 79,000 incremental

vouchers. A number of HUD programs will receive more appropriations than

requested, including the public housing capital fund ($45 million above the original

request); the public housing operating fund ($50 million); Urban Empowerment Zones

($75 million); the Community Development fund ($157.5 million); and the HOME

program ($150 million).

CRS-9

The President requested $32.46 billion for HUD for FY2001, $6.54 billion or

25% more than the $25.92 billion enacted last year, an amount sufficient for funding

increases in all of HUD’s core programs. The House version of H.R. 4635 included

$29.98 billion for HUD programs for FY2001, the Senate version provided $30.63

billion. The Administration proposed $14.13 billion for the Housing Certificate Fund

(HCF), HUD’s main vehicle for delivering rental housing assistance; the House bill

included $13.28 billion for HCF, and the Senate committee bill recommended $13.17

billion. The final bill provides $13.9 billion, and calls for a $1.8 billion rescission in

unobligated funds from previous years.

FY2000 Appropriations (P.L. 106-74). Congress provided a net appropriation

of $25.924 billion for HUD for FY2000, an increase of $1.8 billion above FY1999,

but $2.1 billion less than the $28.0 billion the Administration had requested. The final

bill included $4.2 billion in advance FY2001 funding (that could not be spent until

FY2001) and an offset of $2.2 billion in rescissions from spending appropriated in

previous fiscal years. Subsequent legislation (P.L. 106-113) reduced HUD spending

by $91 million, through the application of an across-the-board cut of 0.38% to the

Housing Certificate Fund ($71 million) and the Community Development Block Grant

($19 million).

Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2000

(budget authority in billions)

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

$19.13

$16.30

$21.44

$24.08

$25.92

Source: Final spending levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, and

any supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been included. Figures for FY1996-99 are from

budget submissions of subsequent years; figures for FY2000 are from the Conference Report on

H.R. 4635 (H.Rept 106-988) and include the effects of the 0.38% reduction imposed by P.L. 106-113.

The major housing policy issue: Affordable rental housing in a robust

economy. A strong economy continues to create jobs and increase incomes, but that

same prosperity is also putting pressures on housing markets. Increased demands

have lowered vacancy rates and pushed rents higher, as more people are entering the

rental market with sufficient incomes to avoid sharing apartments and houses. While

this increased demand encourages more units to be built, rents for these new dwellings

are often out of the range of lower income families. Restrictive zoning, building

codes, and local opposition can make it difficult to construct basic no-frills rental

housing affordable to lower-income families.

The tight rental market has not escaped the attention of landlords participating

in federally-assisted rental programs for lower-income families. With more profitable

alternatives available, some are deciding not to renew their federal contracts. Older

apartment buildings with lower rent units are often either being torn down, or

renovated for an upscale market, as the rental market pressures generate more

profitable alternatives for investors in rental housing. Tenants with housing vouchers

are finding fewer apartment owners in the suburbs of metropolitan areas willing to

CRS-10

rent to subsidized tenants, either because the owners want to avoid program “red

tape” or because the value of the voucher is not sufficient for subsidized tenants to

afford the units.

A HUD study presented to the Congress on March 21, 2000, Rental Housing

Assistance – The Worsening Crisis, reports that a record 5.4 million unassisted verylow-income families pay over half of their income for housing or live in substandard

housing. In June, 2000, The Center for Housing Policy released a report, “Housing

America’s Working Families.” It emphasized that having a job does not guarantee a

family a decent place to live at an affordable cost. Among its findings: “More than

220,000 teachers, police, and public safety offices across the country spend more than

half their income for housing, and the problem is growing worse.”

Congressional appropriators respond to the housing issues. According to the

Administration, the $14.13 billion requested for the Housing Certificate Fund, up

$2.75 billion over the previous year, would be sufficient to renew all Section 8

contracts, establish a housing production program, provide relocation assistance

vouchers, and also add 120,000 new Section 8 rental housing vouchers. The added

voucher proposal was a particularly contentious area of budget discussions this year.

The House version of H.R. 4635 included $13.28 billion for the Housing

Certificate Fund, but did not include funding designated specifically for the 120,000

incremental vouchers the Administration said were vital to deal with the rising housing

costs related to the strong economy. However, the House bill did approve $66

million for about 10,000 additional vouchers that would work in tandem with the

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program and funds for another 10,000 limited

distribution vouchers. The Senate version of the bill provides $13.17 billion to the

HCF. However, citing a study by the Council of Large Public Housing Agencies that

finds one out of every five vouchers are now being returned unused, the Senate

version of the bill also provides no funds for incremental vouchers. The Conferees

dropped the House provision for 10,000 Tax Credit vouchers.

After a long hiatus, Congress had appropriated money for 50,000 additional

housing vouchers in FY1999 and 60,000 in FY2000. However, at House VA-HUD

Appropriation subcommittee hearings in March 2000, HUD was asked why so few

of the 110,000 incremental vouchers approved in the past 2 years had been put in use

(estimated to be only about 10,000 at that time). HUD acknowledged the slowness

and said that the Department was developing proposals to help voucher holders pay

security deposits, counsel housing authorities on how to be more aggressive in

reaching out to landlords, and provide landlords more incentives to participate in the

rental program..

Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports on the FY2001

budget (H.Rept. 106-674 and S.Rept. 106-410) express concern with the increasing

difficulty that low-income families are having in using housing vouchers. Both reports

contend that it would be inappropriate to put more vouchers into the pipeline until

HUD resolves the delays in getting vouchers to qualified families, and until qualified

families exhaust the current supply.

CRS-11

Referring to the limited value of vouchers in many tight rental markets, the

Senate Appropriations Committee expressed its concerns that “families with vouchers

often have little choice in their rental decisions, leaving them often in low-income and

very low-income neighborhoods and living in substandard housing.” To increase the

chances of families being able to use their vouchers, the Senate bill allows public

housing authorities to increase their payment standard for assisted rents under Section

8 up to 150% of the existing fair market rent or payment standard.

The tight housing market situation has prompted discussions about how best to

add to the production of rental housing (along with a renewed determination to

preserve the existing stock of affordable rental housing). While a small number of

new apartments have been built for the elderly in recent years, HUD has largely been

out of the business of subsidizing new construction since the 1970s. The Senate

Committee report (S.Rept. 106-410) concluded that a balanced approach to rental

housing assistance is needed – not just vouchers – and recommended the use of $1

billion of excess Section 8 funds for a production program for FY2001.

However, the Conferees dropped this provision from the final version of the bill.

The Conferees do revise the 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act to

allow a larger number of “project-based” vouchers than currently permitted, and add

more flexibility in their use. These project-based vouchers will have a “continued

assistance option” that will allow families to move from the assisted building after one

year of residence, and retain federal assistance. This promotes more project-based

assistance, which should improve voucher utilization, while at the same time, reducing

one of the negative features of project-based assistance, the lack of tenant mobility.

P.L. 106-377 funds several HUD programs above the Administration request.

In part, these additional funds are offset by the recapture of excess Section 8 reserves,

a feature common to HUD appropriations in recent years. These recaptured funds are

primarily obtained from unobligated spending authority in the moderate rehabilitation

program, and from undistributed housing vouchers. The House bill and the Senate

committee version of H.R. 4635 both assumed $275 million in recaptures (and their

reuse elsewhere); the Conferees increased this by about $1.5 billion to a total of $1.83

billion.

P.L. 106-377 added $770 million for the Housing Certificate Fund compared to

the Senate committee bill, and $680 million more than in the House-passed version.

Also included were funds for about 79,000 incremental housing vouchers at a cost of

$453 million.

CRS-12

Table 6. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,

FY2000-FY2001

(budget authority in billions)

Program

FY2000

Enacted

FY2001 FY2001

Request House

FY2001 FY2001

Senatea Confer.

Housing certificate fund

Appropriation

Advance approp. FY2001/02

Rescission, unobligated balance

Section 8 recapture

Section 8 carryover

Public housing capital fund

11.377

(7.177)

(4.200)

-2.243

(-1.300)

(-0.943)

2.900

14.128

(9.928)

(4.200)

2.955

13.275

(9.075)

(4.200)

-0.275

(-0.275)

2.800

13.171 13.941

(8.971) (9.741)

(4.200) (4.200)

-0.275

-1.833

(-0.275) (-1.833)

2.955

3.000

Pub. housing operating fund

3.138

3.192

3.139

3.192

3.242

Drug elimination grants

0.310

0.345

0.300

0.310

Distressed pub. hous. (HOPE)

0.575

0.625

0.565

0.575

Indian hsng. block grants

0.620

0.650

0.620

0.650

Indian hsng. loan guar.

0.006

Housing, persons with AIDS

0.232

0.260

0.250

0.232

0.258

Rural Hsng.; Econ. Develop.

0.025

0.027

0.020

0.027

0.025

America priv. invest.; subsidy

0.020

0.037

Urban Empowerment Zones

0.055

0.075

Rural Empowerment Zones

0.015

Community Devel. Blk. Grant

4.800

4.900

4.505

4.800

5.058

Across-the-board cut (0.38%)

-0.019

Supplement (P.L. 106-246)

0.028

–

Sec.108 loan guar.; subsidy

0.030

0.029

0.030

Brownfields Initiative

0.025

0.050

0.020

0.025

HOME Invest. Partnerships

1.600

1.650

1.585

1.600

1.800

Supplement (P.L. 106-246)

0.036

–

Homeless Assistance Grants

1.020

1.200

1.020

1.025

0.105

0.100

Communities in schools

0.005

Housing for special populations

Housing for the elderly

Housing for the disabled

Federal Housing Admin. (net)a

0.911

(0.710)

(0.201)

0.635

0.989

(0.779)

(0.210)

0.865

0.911

(0.710)

(0.201)

0.858

0.996

(0.783)

(0.213)

0.834

0.996

(0.779)

(0.217)

0.865

GNMA (net)a

-0.413

-0.298

-0.338

Research and technology

0.045

0.062

0.040

0.045

0.054

Fair housing activities

0.044

0.050

0.044

0.046

Shelter Plus Care

CRS-13

FY2000

Enacted

Program

FY2001 FY2001

Request House

FY2001 FY2001

Senatea Confer.

Office of lead hazard control

0.080

0.120

0.080

0.100

Salaries and expenses

0.477

0.565

0.475

0.474

0.543

Inspector General

0.051

0.052

0.051

0.056

0.053

-0.072

Admin. provisions (net)

-0.388

Subtotal (HUD) net

25.924

32.466

29.980

30.634

30.621

Across-the-board cut (0.38%)

Source: H.Rept. 106- 674; S. Rept. 106-410; H.Rept 106-988 (Conference).

Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.

In floor action on October 12, 2000, the Senate replaced the House-passed version of H.R. 4635 with

the version reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. In later action that same

day, the Senate further amended H.R. 4635 by substituting the language that had emerged

from the informal preliminary conference on the bill. The column shown as “Senate” is the

version reported from the Senate’s committee; otherwise, the column would be identical to the

last column showing the amounts approved by the conferees, and enacted as P.L. 106-377.

Net, interagency transfers and offsetting receipts against appropriations of the current year.

Modernizing HUD management information systems. A recurring theme

before House and Senate Appropriations Committee hearings, and in their reports

accompanying recommended HUD budgets, has been the inadequacy of HUD’s

management information systems. These systems provide data that help Congress

oversee the Department, and improve the ability to make informed judgments on

funding levels, but are necessary to HUD’s own program management.

HUD’s accounting practices for identifying excess Section 8 contract reserves

as well as excess project-based Section 8 assistance have been criticized in the past

few years. An estimated $15 billion of Section 8 rental program reserves has been

recovered from various local housing assistance accounts since 1995. These amounts

have alerted the Appropriations Committees to the need to upgrade information

systems and improve financial management and budgeting. HUD claims that the

problem of excess reserve balances has been resolved, but appropriators continue to

examine the Section 8 program for additional recaptures.

P.L. 106-377 transfers appropriations from a number of HUD programs to a

“Working Capital Fund” for the development and maintenance of information

technology systems. For example, $43 million of FY2001 appropriations is

transferred from the Public Housing Capital fund, $17 million from the HOME

program, and “up to 1.5% of the funds appropriated from Homeless Assistance

Grants.”

S.Rept. 106-410 also expressed concern that HUD has not collected adequate

data from PHAs on public housing operating costs to determine an appropriate level

of funding, and to assess the financial and physical conditions of the public housing

stock. From an even wider perspective, the on-going question is whether HUD,

Public Housing Authorities, and perhaps State Housing Finance Agencies (which are

CRS-14

responsible for managing various HUD monies at the local level) are adequately

adopting readily available new technologies to improve management, reduce costs,

provide better service to constituencies, and make available adequate data for

oversight.

For additional information on housing issues, see CRS Report RS20045,

Housing Issues in the 106th Congress, by Richard Bourdon. See also CRS Report

RL30486, Housing the Poor: Federal Programs for Low-Income Families.

Housing Certificate Fund: A closer look. The Housing Certificate Fund

(HCF) is the major disbursing mechanism through which HUD provides funding to

local entities with the responsibility for administering project-based housing programs

and direct low-income housing subsidies. The Administration requested $14.12

billion (including $4.2 billion deferred until after the beginning of FY2001) for an

increase of $2.8 billion over the FY2000 funding level of $11.4 billion.

The House version of H.R. 4635 provided $13.275 billion for the HCF, $852

million less than the Administration’s request, but $1.9 billion more than enacted for

FY2000. At that level, all expiring Section 8 contracts could be renewed, but no

funds were designated for 120,000 incremental vouchers the Administration

requested. The House bill included a requested $4.2 billion in “advance

appropriation” (funds that cannot be spent until FY2002), offsetting a similar $4.2

billion in advance appropriations included in the FY2000 appropriation for HUD (P.L.

106-74), designated for spending in FY2001.

The Senate Appropriation Committee’s reported version of H.R. 4635 included

$13.17 billion for the HCF for FY2001, including the $4.2 billion in advance FY2002

appropriations. The Senate amount was $957 million less than the Administration’s

request, but $1.8 billion more than the FY2000 appropriation.

P.L. 106-377 appropriates $13.94 billion for the HCF for FY2001, including the

$4.2 billion in advanced FY2002 appropriations. This amount includes funding for

expiring Section 8 contracts, incremental vouchers, tenant protection, contract

administration and vouchers for the disabled.

The following table shows HUD and congressional estimates of the

Administration’s request for FY2001 funding for the Housing Certificate Fund, and

the House-passed version of H.R. 4635, Senate Appropriations Committee

recommendations for FY2001, and the final appropriation contained in P.L. 106-377.

CRS-15

Table 7. Administration and Congressional Estimates, Congressional

Recommendations, and Appropriations for the Housing Certificate

Fund (HCF), FY2001

($ in billions)

HCF Programs

Appropriations, HCF

Expiring Sec. 8

Contracts

Incremental Vouchers

Tenant Protection

Contract Administration

Housing Production

Program

Voucher Success Fund

Vouchers for Disabled

Jobs Plus demonstration

Working capital fund

Rescission (Section 8

recapture)

Total: HCF (net)

President’s

request

(HUD

estimates)

President’s

request

(congressional

estimates)

H.R.

4635

(Housepassed)

H.R.

4635

(Senatecomm)

P.L.

106-377

$14.128

$13.275

$13.171

$13.941

13.010

0.585

0.266

0.209

13.221

0.527

0.079

0.209

13.275

(0.192)

13.131

12.972

0.453

0.266

0.192

0.008a

0.050b

0.066a

0.025

0.040

0.007

0.011

-0.275

-1.833

$14.128

$13.000

$12.896

$12.108

Source: HUD: Congressional Justifications for FY2001; H.Rept. 106-674; S.Rept. 106-410; H.Rept

106-966. Italics indicates lines subsumed under major heading for HCF in Table 6 and Table 7.

HUD includes $58 million for housing production vouchers under incremental vouchers and lists

$8 million premium payments to developers as a separate item. The House Committee on

Appropriations lists the entire $66 million under the heading “Housing production program.”

HUD lists a $50 million request for a voucher success program as a separate item; the House

Committee on Appropriations lists this funding request under the heading “Expiring section 8

contract renewals.”

HUD includes $25 million for “vouchers for the disabled” within its request for funds for tenant

protection and relocation; the House Committee on Appropriations lists this request separately.

Section 8 Housing Assistance. The HCF finances provisions of Section 8 of the

Housing Act of 1937 (as amended). Broadly referred to as Section 8 programs, these

HUD programs subsidize rental housing for low-income families, using several

avenues for administering such assistance. The largest portion of the Administration’s

request for new funding was for subsidized rental contract renewals, including $13.2

billion in new budget authority for funds to renew expiring Section 8 rental contracts

in FY2001. The House version of the bill included within the rental contract renewal

account, program funding that the Administration includes within its request for other

entries, such as tenant protection and incremental vouchers. As passed by the House,

H.R. 4635 provided $13.275 billion for the renewal of Section 8 contracts.

CRS-16

The Senate Appropriation Committee’s reported version of H.R. 4635 included

$13.131 for expiring Section 8 contracts for FY2001. The report accompanying the

Senate bill (S.Rept. 106-410) noted that an additional $1.3 billion in recaptured

Section 8 funds appropriated for FY2000 was also expected to be available for

Section 8 expiring contract renewals in FY2001.

H.Rept. 106-674 estimates the Administration’s request to be $527 million for

Section 8 incremental housing vouchers – $344 million in new “fair share” vouchers

and $183 million for welfare-to-work vouchers. The Administration also requested

$58 million for 10,000 new vouchers to help increase the supply of affordable housing

in low-income neighborhoods. The House report shows this proposed Housing

Production Program as a new line item with a requested appropriation of $66 million,

comprised of $58 million for the housing vouchers and $8 million for one-time

incentive payments to developers to build units for underserved groups such as large

families.

P.L. 106-377 provides $12.972 billion for the renewal of expiring Section 8

contracts in FY2001. This amount, combined with $1.3 billion of Section 8 funds

recaptured from FY2000 funding, is expected to fund the renewals of all Section 8

contracts.

Besides incremental or new vouchers, the Administration requested $25 million

for 5,000 vouchers to assist non-elderly disabled tenants living in public housing

being converted to “elderly only” projects. The Administration also proposed $50

million for a Voucher Success Fund, a flexible funding source intended to help public

housing authorities (PHAs) assist families with counseling and security deposits, and

provide technical assistance to landlords. H.Rept. 106-674 includes it within the HCF

in the Committee’s estimate of the Administration’s requested amounts for expiring

rental contract renewals.

As passed by the House, H.R. 4635 provided all funding for the HCF fund under

the $13.275 billion allotted for contract renewals, although this funding also included

new Section 8 incremental assistance and relocation assistance. Of the $13.275

billion, $60 million was provided for incremental vouchers, but these vouchers were

very limited in distribution. They were only to be distributed for 4 months on a

fair-share basis to PHAs that have a 97% utilization rate. H.Rept. 106-674 notes that

some PHAs have been slow to award Section 8 assistance, and as a result,

appropriated funds have been recaptured in previous years.

The House bill also provided $25 million to be made available for vouchers for

non-elderly, disabled families, and $66 million for vouchers that work in tandem with

the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. It provided no funding for

welfare-to-work vouchers or the moving-to-work program, which were funded in

FY2000. The version of H.R. 4635 reported from the Senate Committee on

Appropriations provided $40 million for vouchers for the non-elderly disabled and

their families who would otherwise live in public or assisted housing, to give them a

broader choice in housing.

The Senate bill specified that funding for expiring contract renewals may also be

used to fund “sticky” or “enhanced” vouchers for families who choose to remain in

CRS-17

multifamily housing in which a mortgage is refinanced or in housing previously

financed under the Preservation Program. In some circumstances, the provision can

be used for tenants in Section 8 developments in which the owner had elected to no

longer participate in the program.

S.Rept. 106-410 stated that additional funding for incremental Section 8

assistance was not included in the bill because of reports that many vouchers are

going unused, especially in tight and low-vacancy housing markets. Instead, the

Senate committee version required HUD to fund a new housing production block

grant program with $1 billion of “excess” Section 8 funds. The program was to be

operational only in FY2001.

P.L. 106-377 provides $453 million for approximately 79,000 incremental

Section 8 vouchers in FY2001, and $40 million for vouchers for the disabled who are

affected by public and assisted housing projects being designated as “elderly only”

projects.

In its budget request, the Administration assumed that not all owners of Section

8 assisted housing would be willing to renew expiring contracts, and the HCF includes

funding for tenant protection and assistance for affected families when a contract

renewal does not take place. According to the Administration, HUD requested $266

million for tenant protection and assistance for FY2001, including $199 million to

cover the added costs to residents when opt-outs and portfolio re-engineering occurs,

and $67 million for vouchers for tenants displaced under the HOPE VI Revitalization

Program.

The House and Senate Appropriations Committee versions of H.R. 4635

included funds for Section 8 tenant protection assistance within the appropriation for

contract renewals, but no amount is specified for that purpose in either version of the

bill. In the enacted version, conferees specified that $266 million would be available

for tenant protection, and authority was given for these funds also to be used for

relocating tenants of HOPE VI projects.

In recent years, the number of HUD personnel has been declining, and the

Administration would like to preserve remaining HUD staff for duties which it

believes should only be performed by federal employees. The Administration

requested $209 million to contract out duties currently performed by HUD staff,

including annual physical inspections of properties, review of management, financial

statements, and occupancy, and release of replacement reserves. H.R. 4635, as

passed by the House, provides $192 million for Section 8 contract administrators, $17

million less than the Administration’s request. The Senate committee version of the

bill does not include funding for Section 8 contractors. Conferees appropriated $192

million for contract administrators in FY2001.

Both House and Senate versions of H.R. 4635 would have rescinded funds from

the Section 8 Fund, $275 million in FY2001. As with previous rescissions of Section

8 funds, reports suggest that by rescinding these unutilized funds, PHAs will become

more aggressive about using funds available to them, rather than risk losing them.

The final version of H.R. 4635 rescinds $1.833 in excess Section 8 recaptures, and

this rescission is an offset of amounts appropriated to HCF.

CRS-18

The conferees also transferred $18 million from the Housing Certificate Fund for

FY2001: $11 million is transferred to the Working Capital Fund of HUD to develop

and maintain an information technology system at HUD; and $7 million is transferred

to the Jobs Plus Program. The Jobs Plus Program is a demonstration work training

and self-sufficiency initiative program for residents of public housing.

Public Housing Programs. There are more than 3,000 Public Housing

Authorities (PHAs), encompassing more than 1.2 million housing units. The Quality

Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 consolidated all public housing capital

programs (except HOPE VI) into one Public Housing Capital Fund. The Act also

directed HUD to develop a new formula to allocate resources of the Public Housing

Operating Fund. To comply with this statute, in March 1999, HUD convened a

rulemaking committee which reflected on a broad range of interests of organizations

concerned with the provision of public housing.

In the report (S.Rept. 106-410) to accompany its version of H.R. 4635, the

Senate Committee on Appropriations expressed concern that HUD has not collected

adequate data from PHAs on operating costs to ensure that the new formula will

provide an appropriate level of funding for PHAs. They cite both the GAO and the

National Academy of Public Administration that recently found problems with HUD’s

new system for assessing the financial and physical conditions of the nation’s public

housing stock.

Public Housing Operating Fund. The Administration requested $3.192 billion

for the Public Housing Operating Fund, for FY2001. The Administration believes

that amount will be sufficient to cover all of the operating expenses of the PHAs not

covered by received rents. The request is a $54 million increase over the enacted

FY2000 level. The House recommends $3.139 billion, $1 million more than last year,

but $53 million less than the Administration’s request for FY2001. The Senate

approved $3.192 billion, the same amount as requested by the Administration. The

conferees agreed to $3.242 billion, $50 million above the Administration’s request and

above both the House and Senate’s recommended amount.

Public Housing Capital Fund. The Administration requested $2.955 billion

for the Public Housing Capital Fund in FY2001, a $55 million increase over the

enacted FY2000 level. Funds would be used to modernize, rehabilitate, and replace

public housing units in need of significant repair and replacement. $100 million of this

funding would be available for technical assistance, contract expertise and physical

inspections of units and management improvements. The House approved $2.8 billion

for FY2001, $100 million less than last year’s funding, and $155 million less than the

Administration’s request for the coming fiscal year. The Senate Appropriations

Committee’s reported bill endorsed the Administration’s request. P.L. 106-377

provides $3.0 billion, $45 million above HUD’s request.

HOPE VI Revitalization of Distressed Public Housing. Through the use of

HOPE VI grants, HUD is pursuing a transformation of public housing. This is being

done by rehabilitating or demolishing severely distressed public housing units and

replacing them with low-density, garden-style apartments or townhouses to be

occupied by mixed-income families. The Administration requested $625 million for

HOPE VI grants in FY2001, a $50 million increase over FY2000. (Besides the

CRS-19

funding for grants, the Administration is also seeking $67 million, through its request

for HCF, for Section 8 vouchers for families displaced while their units are being

replaced or revitalized.) With $67 million for tenant relocation vouchers (under HCF)

and $625 million for HOPE VI grants, the Administration estimated that

approximately 15,5000 units of public housing could be replaced or rehabilitated.

The House approved $565 million for the HOPE VI program for FY2001, $10

million less than last year’s funding and $60 million less than the Administration’s

$625 million request for the coming fiscal year. The Senate committee bill

recommended $575 million, the same amount enacted last year. Conferees agreed to

$575 million, $50 million less than the Administration’s request.

S.Rept. 106-410 expressed the view that the HOPE VI program was one of the

better managed and administered programs in the Agency although they would like

more information on what form this program should take after 2003.

For more information on HOPE VI, see CRS Report RL30589, HOPE VI: The

Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing, by Susan M. Vanhorenbeck.

Drug Elimination Grants. The Administration requested $345 million for Drug

Elimination Grants in FY2001, a $35 million increase over FY2000. These grants

support efforts to reduce drug activity and other crimes in and around public housing

developments. Under this program, funds are distributed by a formula allocation to

housing entities with the worst crime and which have demonstrated strategies for

reducing violent crimes. Grants can be used for crime prevention, security guards,

law enforcement, drug treatment, youth prevention programs, physical security

improvements, and other related activities.

The FY2001 budget asked for three specific set-asides in the Drug Elimination

Funding: $30 million for the Community Gun Safety and Violence Reduction

Initiative (purchasing guns from owners to lessen the number of guns in a

community); $20 million for Operation Safe Home (combats violent crime and gangrelated activity in a community), and $20 million for the New Approach Anti-Drug

Program (supports housing entities in prosecuting drug-related criminal activity and

security-related capital improvements).

The House approved $300 million for drug elimination grants for FY2001, $10

million less than approved for last year and $45 million below the Administration’s

request for $345 million. The Senate committee’s bill recommended $310 million for

FY2001. S. Rept. 106-410 expressed concern about HUD “interfering” with local

decision making on the use of drug elimination grants, and directed HUD to identify

in the FY2002 budget justification the goals of the program and the actual

performance of the grantees in meeting the goals.

Conferees on H.R. 4635 agreed to $310 million, $35 million less than the

Administration had requested.

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

CRS-20

housing. The President requested $650 million for the program, an increase of $30

million over the level enacted for FY2000. The Administration also requested $6

million in credit subsidies to support $72 million in loan guarantees on an estimated

719 homes. The budget also proposed setting aside $5 million of the block grant to

create a national financial intermediary with special expertise in Indian Country. The

intermediary would help members negotiate the issues surrounding lending for

homeownership on trust land.

The House bill approved $620 million for the Native American block grant

program for FY2001, the same level as last year, $30 million below the President’s

request. The bill included $6 million in credit subsidies, the same as the President

requested, and the same as enacted in FY2000. The House also approved nearly $72

million in guaranteed loans for Indian housing for FY2001, an amount equal to the

Administration’s request, and the same amount enacted for FY2000. The Senate

committee version of the bill included $650 million for FY2001, the amount requested

by the Administration. Conferees agreed to $650 million, the same as the

Administration’s request.

Community Development Fund (Community Development Block Grants).

P.L. 106-377 includes language establishing the Community Development Fund

(CDF) to serve federal financial administrative responsibilities formerly managed

entirely through the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program.

Conferees on H.R. 4635 provided $5.058 billion for the CDF, instead of the $4.505

billion for the CDBG proposed by the House, and $4.8 billion proposed by the

Senate. The Clinton Administration’s FY2001 budget proposed $4.9 billion for

CDBG, including $414 million for program set-asides. Conferees approved $4.409

for CDBG, with the remainder of the CDF earmarked for various other purposes.

The CDBG (and now the CDF) is the largest source of federal financial

assistance in support of housing, neighborhood revitalization, and community and

economic development efforts of state and local governments. After funds are

allocated for the various set asides under CDBG, 70% of the remaining appropriated

funds are allocated by formula to entitlement communities. These include

metropolitan cities with populations of 50,000 or more, central cities, and urban

counties. The remaining 30% of appropriated funds were allocated by formula to

states for distribution to nonentitlement communities. The Administration’s CDBG

budget request for FY2001 proposed $250 million more to entitlement communities

and states under the formula component of the program than the $4.236 million

allocated to entitlement communities and states for FY2000. This proposed increase

would be achieved by increasing overall CDBG spending by $119 million and

reducing total CDBG set asides by $131 million.

CRS-21

Table 8. Community Development Block Grants, FY2000-FY2001

(funding in millions)

FY2000

enacted

FY2001

request

FY2001

House

FY2001

Senate

FY2001

Confer.

546

414

291

389

649

formula-based (entitlement

communities

2,965

3,140

2,950

3,088

3,086h

formula-based state allocation

1,271

1,346

1,264

1,323

1,323h

Indian Tribes

Housing Assistance Council

National American Indian

Housing Council

Section 107

Self-Help Housing Opportunity

National Housing Development

Corp.

–

Mississippi Delta Initiative

—

Capacity Building for Comm.

Dev. and Affordable Housing

24a

23c

25a

28ae

Supportive Services

—

Neighborhood Initiative

Salt Lake City Olympic Games

Temporary Housing

Working Capital Fund for the

development of info. tech. systems

Youthbuild

—

44g

–

45d

-60

60f

Economic Develop. Initiative:

Special Purpose Grants

Comm. Empowerment Fund

Faith and community-based nonprofit; capacity building and

technical assistance b

256

(232)

(24)

100

(100)

130

(123)

292

–

$4,781

$4,900

$4,505

$4,800

$5,058h

Programs and set-asides

Subtotals:

set-asides (see below for details)

Set-asides:

Other

Total: CDF, CDBG

Source: H.Rept. 106-988.

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Italics indicates entries subsumed under CDBG line in

Table 6; parenthesis indicates entry subsumed in this table under line immediately above.

Includes funding for LISC and Enterprise Foundation activities authorized under Section 4 of the

Housing Demonstration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-120), which supports capacity building and technical

assistance to qualified entities at the local level.

Grants to be administered by the Center for Community and Interfaith Partnerships at HUD.

CRS-22

Includes $20 million for LISC and Enterprise Foundation for capacity building assistance to

community development corporations and community housing development organizations with at

least $4 million for rural areas, and $ 3.450 million for capacity building activities administered by

Habitat for Humanity International.

Includes $3.750 million for capacity building activities of Youthbuild USA.

Includes $3.450 million for Habitat for Humanity International, and $5 million for capacity building

in rural areas.

Includes $4 million for capacity building activities and $10 million for underserved rural areas.

All funds earmarked for 22 projects identified in the conference report.

Entries equivalent to CDBG in fiscal years before FY2001. Total shows amounts appropriated to

the Community Development Fund, which now administers funds for CDBG and non-formula based

grants.

The Administration proposed several new initiatives under the CDBG program,

the two most notable being $22 million for a community and economic development

initiative in the Mississippi Delta, and $20 million for a technical assistance and

capacity building program for faith-based organizations involved in community and

economic development efforts.

The Administration’s budget also included increased funding for the Youthbuild

program and for capacity building grants intended to provide technical assistance to

community development corporations and nonprofit housing organizations. The

Administration requested $24 million for capacity building, an increase of $4 million

above the program’s FY2000 level; and $75 million for Youthbuild activities, a $32.5

million increase. The Youthbuild program, which funds training and apprenticeship

programs in construction trades for young adults involved in low income housing

construction and rehabilitation projects, is the second largest set-aside under the

CDBG program.

These and other CDBG-based initiatives were to be offset by ending or reducing

funding for a number of current CDBG set asides, including Supportive Services

Grants that finance the creation of employment opportunities for public housing

residents (funded in FY2000 at $55 million); the neighborhood initiative program ($30

million in FY2000); and by a $156 million reduction in funding for the Economic

Development Initiative, a favorite vehicle used by Members of Congress to fund

specific projects.

The largest set-asides in CDBG are Economic Development Initiative grants,

that, in conjunction with Section 108 loan guarantees, fund economic development

projects. Increasingly, Congress earmarks substantial portions of these grants for

specific projects. The Administration and entitlement communities and states have

objected to these earmarks on the grounds that they are non-competitive, and reduce

the amount of funds available under the core CDBG program for distribution to

entitlement communities and states. For FY2000, approximately $232 million of the

$256 million in EDI assistance was earmarked for specific projects identified in the

conference report accompanying the FY2000 appropriations bill (H.R. 2684).

The conference bill includes $5.058 billion for CDF program for FY2001,

including $4.409 billion for the formula grants under the CDBG. The conference bill

includes a $173 million increase in the formula-based portion of the program – that

portion of program funds awarded to entitlement communities and states – with states

CRS-23

receiving $1.323 billion and entitlement communities receiving $3.086 billion. The

House bill would have funded entitlement communities and states at the FY2000

levels (entitlement communities, $2.950 billion; states, $1.264 billion). The Senate

bill would have provided slightly higher funding for formula-based grants–$4.411

billion–than $4.409 billion approved by the Congress in the conference version of

H.R. 4635.

The conference version of H.R. 4635 increased funding for set asides to $649

million. This is $103 million above the FY2000 level of $546 million, $260 million

more than recommended by the Senate, $358 million more than recommended by the

House, and $235 million more than requested by the Administration. P.L. 106-377

does not include funding for the Administration’s Mississippi Delta Initiative,

Community Empowerment Fund, or faith-based community development efforts. It

does include funding for two new initiatives: National Housing Development

Corporation ($10 million) and a working capital fund for the development information

technology systems ($15 million). The conference bill also includes increased funding

for a number of set-aside programs including: Capacity Building for Community

Economic Development and Affordable Housing, an increase from $20 million in

FY2000 to $28 million for FY2001; Neighborhood Initiative, an increase from $30

million to $44 million; Youthbuild, an increase from $43 million to $60 million; and

Economic Development Initiative (EDI) assistance, an increase from $256 million in

FY2000 to $292 million in FY2001.

The most significant increase in funding included in P.L. 106-377 is for the EDI

program. The conference bill includes $292 million for the EDI, a common source

of funding for projects of special interest to specific congressional districts.1 Last year

Congress earmarked $232 million for specific projects identified in the conference

report. The Administration had sought a reduction in the EDI earmarks. Critics of

set-asides argue that they:

! siphon funds from the core program – CDBG’s formula-based block grants;

! are narrowly focused categorical programs hidden within a block grant; and

! are selected noncompetitively, particularly earmarks for specific projects and

may be used to fund so-called “pork barrel” projects.

Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). The President requested $260

million for HOPWA in FY2001, up $28 million from the $232 million enacted last

year. HOPWA provides grants to states, localities and nonprofit organizations to

meet the housing need of individuals with HIV/AIDS and their families. The

Administration claimed that with recent medical advances, individuals with AIDS are

living longer, which puts additional economic stress on families and supportive

institutions. The requested additional funds for FY2001 were estimated to provide

5,100 more units with short-term rental assistance, bringing the total to about 50,000

The American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (H.R. 1776), would

prohibit set-asides, except for Indian tribes and special purpose grants, as defined by 42

U.S.C. 5307. However, the bill includes language specifying conditions under which Section

108 financed projects, including EDI projects, can qualify for set-asides in appropriations

legislation. H.R. 1776 passed the House, but the Senate has not acted.

CRS-24

units nationally. The Administration cited Center for Disease Control estimates that

there are between 650,000 and 900,000 Americans living with the HIV infection.

The House approved $250 million for HOPWA in FY2001, $18 million more

than the $232 million appropriated in FY2000, but $10 million below the

Administration’s request. The Senate committee version of the bill recommended

$232 million for FY2001. Conferees agreed to $258 million, $2 million less than the

Administration’s request.

For more information on HOPWA, see CRS Report RS20704, Housing

Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA), by Ann M. Wolfe

Rural Housing and Economic Development.

The FY1999 HUD

Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-276) established within HUD an Office of Rural

Housing and Economic Development to support housing and economic development

in rural areas. For FY2001, the Administration requested $27 million for HUD’s rural

housing and economic development program, an increase of $2 million over the

FY2000 level. The House approved $20 million for FY2001, $7 million below the

Administration’s request and $5 million less than the $25 million enacted for FY2000.

The Senate committee’s bill endorsed the Administration request of $27 million. The

final version of the bill provides $25 million.

America’s Private Investment Companies (APICs). The program would be

administered by the HUD and SBA. Modeled after SBA’s Small Business Investment

Companies (SBIC) program, the program is intended to encourage equity investment

in large scale development projects in economically distressed urban and rural

communities. For FY2000, the Congress appropriated $20 million in credit subsidies

to support $556 million in loan guarantees. The program is expected to leverage

$278 million in private equity investments.

The Administration’s FY2001 budget request included $37 million in credit

subsidies, enabling $1 billion in private investment leverage. In contrast, neither

version of the FY2001 appropriations bill includes funds for credit subsidies. P.L.

106-377 does not include funding for APICs, but does include a pledge to provide

$37 million in credit subsidies if Congress passes authorizing legislation. The most

likely vehicle for enactment of authorizing legislation is the New Markets and

Community Renewal legislation supported by the Administration and the Speaker of

the House.

Brownfield Redevelopment. The Administration requested $50 million in

funding for brownfield redevelopment projects. This is $25 million more than

appropriated in FY2000. Brownfield redevelopment funds are used to reclaim

abandoned and contaminated commercial and industrial sites. Funds are used to

finance job creation activities that benefit low and moderate income persons.

Administration estimates place the number of eligible brownfield sites at 450,000

nationwide. Funds are used in conjunction with Section 108 loan guarantees and are

expected to leverage $200 million in Section 108 commitments, which could support

the creation of 20,000 to 25,000 jobs, according to Administration estimates.

CRS-25

The House agreed to $20 million for brownfields redevelopment for FY2001, $5

million less than last year’s funding, but only 40% of the $50 million requested by the

Administration; the Senate version recommended $25 million. The conference

approved $25 million for brownfield redevelopment. The language of the conference

report states that grants are to be awarded competitively.

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. The conference bill

includes language not included in the earlier House and Senate versions of H.R. 4635.

P.L. 106-377 appropriates $90 million for Round II empowerment zones and

enterprise communities, comprised of $75 million for urban empowerment zones and

$15 million for rural zones. In addition, the conference report includes language

pledging an additional $110 million for empowerment zones and enterprise

communities upon passage of New Markets legislation.

Regional Connections. The Administration’s FY2001 budget proposed

authorization of a regional initiative, funded by $25 million. The initiative would

support smart growth initiatives intended to mitigate suburban sprawl and promote

regional strategies for land use development. The grant program, which is a part of

the Administration’s “livability agenda”, would be administered by states or regional

organizations such as Council of Governments (COGs) or Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (MPOs). According to the Administration, promoting and coordinating

regional solutions to infrastructure development, transportation planning, and

workforce development would be integral parts of the program. The Administration’s

FY2000 budget proposal included $50 million for a Regional Connections Program.

The Administration’s FY2000 proposal failed to win congressional support, and the

final version of the appropriations bill does not list this unauthorized program

separately.

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. The President requested $1.65 billion for

the program for FY2001, an increase of $50 million over the FY2000 level. The

House approved $1.585 billion for the HOME block grant program for FY2001, $65

million less than the President’s request for $1.65 billion and $15 million below the

$1.6 billion enacted for FY2000. The Senate committee bill included $1.6 billion for

FY2001, specifying that $20 million will be used for housing counseling. P.L. 106377 provides $1.8 billion, $150 million more than HUD’s request.

Homeless Assistance Grants. The President’s FY2001 budget requested $1.2

billion for homeless assistance programs, an 18% increase over last year’s

appropriations. The $1.2 billion included $1.095 billion for Homeless Assistance

Grants, approximately 90% of which would be awarded competitively to states, local

governments, nonprofit organizations, and public housing authorities. This is an

increase of $75 million over the FY2000 appropriation and would provide a projected

additional 14,500 transitional beds and 11,000 permanent beds, all linked to

supportive services.

The other major component of the $1.2 billion request was $105 million for an

estimated 18,000 incremental Section 8 vouchers for permanent housing for families

and individuals, a program area that was not funded for FY2000. These vouchers are

CRS-26

intended to assist graduates of the “continuum of care” approach – comprehensive

homeless programs and services linked together – in finding permanent affordable

housing. After FY2001, HUD proposes to renew these homeless vouchers as part of

the baseline Section 8 program to free up these funds for other homeless grant

activities.

Last year, $1.02 billion was appropriated for homeless assistance grants, virtually

the same as the Administration’s request. Congress endorsed the continuum of care

concept, and the view that it encourages permanent and stable housing for the

homeless. Appropriation Committee reports from both Houses have given special

notice of the assistance the concept gives to persons with mental disabilities, by

helping them avoid the “revolving door syndrome” that many homeless exhibit by

moving in and out of temporary facilities. The FY2000 bill required that at least 30%

of the appropriations be used for permanent housing. In addition, grantees were

required by the bill to match 25% of the funded amount, to maintain a balance

between homeless services and the development of transitional and permanent

housing.

However, S. Rept. 106-410 expresses displeasure with the formula that HUD

now uses to allocate funding to local continuum of care (recipients of funds). The

Committee expressed concern that funds distributed using a modified allocation

formula based on the Community Development Block Grant program “have no real

nexus to homeless needs.” The report also concludes that the use of the CDBG

formula means that local recipients are assured of receiving a minimum amount of

funds whenever a grant application meets certain minimum requirements, regardless

of the actual assistance for the homeless needed by the jurisdiction. The Committee

supports efforts of the Senate and House Banking Committees to develop a separate

block grant program to address homeless needs.

Both the House and Senate approved $1.02 billion for FY2001 for homeless

assistance grants, the same amount enacted for FY2000, but $180 million less than

the Administration’s $1.2 billion request for FY2001. Conferees agreed to $1.025,

$5 million more than last year’s appropriation. However, P.L. 106-377 includes an

appropriation of $100 million for the Shelter Plus Care Renewals. This compares

with the $105 million described above for vouchers for permanent housing for the

homeless that the Administration included in its $1.2 billion request for homeless

assistance grants. The $100 million Shelter Plus Care Renewals provision provides

for the annual renewal of contracts expiring during FY2001 and FY2002 under the

Shelter Plus care program, if the project is determined to be needed under the

applicable continuum of care, and if it meets appropriate program requirements.

For more information on federal programs for the homeless, see CRS Report

RL30442, Homelessness: Recent Statistics and Targeted Federal Programs.

Housing for the Elderly and Disabled. This program provides capital grants

to eligible entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing. The

President proposed $779 million for housing assistance for the elderly in FY2001, a

$69 million increase over FY2000. The Administration also proposed combining new

and existing HUD programs to help subsidize a full range of housing options for the

elderly. Of the $779 million requested for FY2001, $629 million was to be used for

CRS-27

the Section 202 Supportive Housing program; $50 million to provide capital grants

to convert projects to assisted living facilities; $50 million to fund 5-year operating

subsidies in newly constructed assisted living facilities developed through the FHA

Section 232 mortgage insurance program; and $50 million to pay service coordinators

in existing projects for elderly or disabled persons.

The Administration also requested $210 million for housing for the disabled

(Section 811) for FY2001, an increase of $9 million over FY2000. To assure

flexibility and choice in housing for the disabled, no less than 25% (but no more than

50%) of the funding may to be used to provide the disabled with tenant-based

vouchers, in order to provide them with greater flexibility and more housing choice.

The Administration also requested $25 million for Section 8 vouchers (funded under

the HCF) to provide housing for disabled tenants who must move from developments

that are now being converted to “elderly only” projects.

The House approved $710 million for the elderly program for FY2001, the level

provided in FY2000, but $69 million below the requested amount. The Senate

committee version of the bill agreed to $783 million for capital advances, slightly

more than the Administration’s request. Up to $200 million of the amount called for

in the Senate bill is for the conversion of Section 202 housing to assisted living

facilities; up to $50 million is for grants for the new construction or substantial

rehabilitation of assisted living facilities; and up to $50 million is for service

coordinators. Conferees agreed to $779 million for FY2001, the same as the

Administration’s request.

The House approved $201 million for the disabled program for FY2001, the

same level as enacted for FY2000, but $9 million less than the $210 million that the

President requested. The Senate committee bill recommended $213 million for

FY2001, a bit more than the Administration’s request. P.L. 106-377 provides $217

million, $7 million more than HUD’s request.

For more information on housing for the elderly, see CRS Report RL30247,

Housing for the Elderly: Legislation in the 106th Congress.

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA). P.L. 106-377 provides an

FY2001 insurance limitation of $160 billion for the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance

(MMI) fund, as requested by the Administration and as approved by th House and

Senate. This is a $20 billion increase over the FY2000 level. A higher level of FHA

loan activity is expected because of the increase in the FHA loan limit enacted in the

FY1999 HUD Appropriations Act. The increased limit on loan commitments is

intended to avoid the need for supplemental appropriations if the demand for FHA

insurance exceeds the projected level. The Administration reported that it would

propose legislation to give FHA the same loan limits as the Federal Home Loan

Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). The Administration also proposed a hybrid

Adjustable Rate Mortgage whereby the interest rate would be fixed between years 3

and 10.

Conferees authorized up to $250 million in direct loan obligations to nonprofit

and governmental entities in connection with sales of HUD-owned single family

properties formerly insured under the MMI fund. P.L. 106-377 appropriated $160

CRS-28

million for administrative contract expenses of the MMI fund, and transferred $95.5

million of this to the Working Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of

information technology systems, as the House bill proposed.

Title VI of P.L. 105-276 amended the National Housing Act to provide HUD

with additional flexibility in paying insurance claims and disposing of properties

acquired under the FHA single family programs. Conferees approved Senate report

language which noted that HUD has not aggressively implemented the legislative

mandate included in the Act. Specifically, it noted that HUD has not implemented the

Act in a manner which allows local governments and nonprofit agencies to purchase

HUD-owned properties in distressed neighborhoods and reinvigorate the

neighborhoods. HUD is directed, by May 15, 2001, to report to Congress on its

implementation of the property disposition program.

Conferees expressed disappointment that HUD has used only a small part of the

lending authority available for direct loans to nonprofit organizations and local

governments to purchase HUD-owned single-family property, and called upon HUD

to make fuller use of the lending authority in FY2001. Conferees also noted their

concern with the proliferation of predatory lending and commended HUD for acting

to combat the practice.

P.L. 106-377 appropriates $101 million to the General and Special Risk Program

Account to subsidize insurance costs in these housing programs. These subsidies

would permit up to $21 billion in loans. An appropriation of up to $50 million would

be provided for direct loans involving the sale of HUD-owned multifamily properties

which were formerly insured under the General Insurance or Special Risk Insurance

funds. An appropriation of $144 million is provided for the administrative contract

expenses of the General and Special Risk Insurance funds, with $33.5 million

transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of

information technology systems.

The Senate had requested $50 million in credit subsidy for insuring multifamily

projects where a portion of the units were targeted to extremely low-income families.

Conferees deleted that language, but directed HUD to report to the Appropriations

Committees on the feasibility of creating an insurance program that targets extremely

low-income families. The study would include the cost of subsidies that would be

necessary for the program to be successful.

An administrative provision in the Senate bill would have amended the National

Housing Act to provide reduced downpayment requirements for school teachers or

administrators and for police officers who are purchasing homes with FHA-insured

loans. Eligible teachers and administrators would include full-time elementary

(including pre-Kindergarten) and secondary school teachers and administrators.

Secondary education would not include any education beyond grade 12. This

language was deleted from the final bill, but HUD’s Office of Policy Development and

Research was directed to contract with an outside entity to determine the feasibility

of decreasing downpayment requirements for such persons and to assess its impact

on the communities.

CRS-29

Conferees also included an administrative provision proposed by the Senate

which makes law enforcement officers eligible for housing assistance under the Indian

housing block grant program.

For more information on the FHA mortgage program, see CRS Report

RS20530, FHA Loan Insurance Program: An Overview, CRS Report RS20661, The

Streamlined FHA Downpayment Program, and CRS Report RS20670, Temporary

Suspension of New Mortgages under the FHA General and Special Risk Insurance

Funds.

Fair Housing. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to discriminate in the sale,

rental, or financing of housing based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin,

disability, or family status. Two programs comprise HUD’s fair housing efforts: the

Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP), and the Fair Housing Assistance Program

(FHAP). The Administration requested $50 million for the two programs, up $6

million (or 12%) over FY2000. FHIP provides funds for private, nonprofit fair

housing groups that monitor the activities of developers and real estate companies for

compliance with the law and carry out enforcement (including private litigation).

FHIP would be increased from $24 million in FY2000 to $29 million in FY2001,

where the focus in FY2001 will be on requirements for accessibility for people with

disabilities.

The Administration stated an intent to emphasize education and outreach

programs to housing providers. In testimony before the House VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies Subcommittee on March 8, 2000, Secretary Cuomo said that

homebuilders want certainty in the code so they won’t get sued, a certainty that they

do not now have. “We’re working on a ‘model code’ with the Department of Justice

that will mean that if you follow this code, you won’t get sued.”

FHAP provides funds to support a network of state and local civil rights agencies

(currently 90), that enforce laws that are equivalent to the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Under the request, FHAP would increase by $1 million to $21 million in FY2001.

Both the House and Senate versions of H.R. 4635 would provide level funding

for FY2001, $44 million, as was appropriated for FY2000. This is $6 million less

than the $50 million requested by the Administration for the coming fiscal year.

Conferees approved $46 million.

For background information, see CRS Report 95-710, The Fair Housing Act:

A Legal Overview.

Lead-Based Paint Reduction. The Administration requested $120 million for

the Lead-based Paint Reduction program for FY2001, an increase of $40 million over

the $80 million appropriated in FY2000. Over the past decade, HUD has worked

with local governments and agencies to increase the capacity to run lead hazard

control programs, and has been successful in reducing lead levels in children. But

millions of housing units remain with lead-based paint. A multi-agency task force

(including HUD, the Centers for Disease Control, EPA, and the Department of

Justice) has developed a plan to make homes lead-safe over the next 10 years,

CRS-30

focusing on the 2.3 million units built before 1960, and most likely to be occupied by

low-income households.

The House approved $80 million for FY2001, the same amount as enacted for

FY2000, but $40 million less than the $120 million requested by the Administration.

The Senate version of the bill recommends $100 million. Conferees agreed to $100

million.

For background information, see CRS Report 97-22, Lead-Based Paint

Prevention: Federal Mandates for Local Government.

Environmental Protection Agency

The President’s FY2001 request for the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) was $7.164 billion in spending authority or 4% less than the $7.433 billion

appropriated for FY2000. In reporting H.R. 4635 (H.Rept. 106-674), the House

Appropriations Committee approved $7.149 billion, roughly the same as requested.2

The House approved $7.144 million, adopting amendments that decreased funding

from the Committee-approved level by $5 million, clarified bill language relating to

prohibitions on the floor on spending in regard to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse

gases, and restricted funds for designating ozone nonattainment areas.

Table 10. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations,

FY1996 to FY2000

(budget authority in billions)

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

$6.5

$6.8

$7.4

$7.6

$7.4

Source: Final spending levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, and

any supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been included. Figures for FY1996-99 are from

budget submissions of subsequent years; figures for FY2000 are from the Conference Report on

H.R. 4635 (H.Rept 106-988) and include the effects of the 0.38% reduction imposed by P.L. 106-113.

The Senate Appropriations Committee version of the bill, which would have

funded EPA at $7.5 billion, also restricted spending on Kyoto Protocol initiatives,

unless EPA can show that the activity was authorized in law. The conferenceapproved amount was $7.8 billion, including the Kyoto language. EPA objected to

the bill language restricting those activities. Three prime issues were the adequacy of

funds to capitalize wastewater needs; increased funding and EPA’s authority to

conduct climate change activities; and the Agency’s progress in cleaning up toxic

waste sites under the Superfund program.

In FY2001 appropriations, the conferees provided about $130 million in funding for the

National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences and the Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry, both in the Department of Health and Human Services. For

comparability, CRS has adjusted FY2000 and FY2001 figures to exclude funding for these

two agencies from EPA’s.

CRS-31

The Administration’s proposed FY2001 level of $2.9 billion for the State and

Tribal Assistance Grants Account (STAG) was $539 million, or 16%, less than the

$3.5 billion allocated in FY2000. The major reason for this decrease was the

Administration’s decision not to seek continued funding for roughly $400 million

earmarked for wastewater grants in FY2000. The House approved $3.2 billion for

the STAG account adding-on about $400 million for wastewater revolving funds.

EPA estimates these remaining needs to be in the $100 billion to $200 billion range;

lobbying organizations estimate the need to be roughly $300 billion. The Senate

version of the bill included $3.32 billion for STAG, and restored $550 million to the

Clean Water Revolving Fund, offsetting the Administration’s proposed reduction.

In the final version, the conferees included $3.6 billion earmarking funds for numerous

water projects.

The differences do not extend to the other major activity, drinking water state

revolving funds, as the $825 million requested, and approved by the conferees, was

$5 million greater than current year funding; the Senate had recommended $820

million. The Administration proposed $85 million for a new Clean Air Partnership

program; no version of the bill adopted it. The request anticipated $100 million for

Mexican border projects, and $15 million for State of Alaska projects. The conferees

approved $75 million for border projects, and the requested $35 million for Alaska

projects.

For state and tribal administrative grants, the budget sought $1.1 billion, $184

million or 20% more than current funding; the House approved this amount but

remixed the allocations among the various grant programs. The Senate committee

version of the bill approved $955 million while the enacted version contained $1.0

billion. The Administration proposed $50 million for a new Great Lakes grants

program. No version of the bill included funds for the Great Lakes grant proposal.

EPA’s climate change activities, funded through the Science and Technology,

and the Environmental Compliance accounts, continued to be controversial. These

activities include research, science and a variety of technical assistance and

information programs to help the private sector reduce greenhouse gases. Some

Members assert that EPA does not have legal authority to act to reduce carbon

emissions, a primary cause of such gases. They maintain that EPA’s involvement in

some carbon reduction activities can be viewed as implementing the Kyoto Protocol

to reduce greenhouse gases, an agreement supported by the Administration but not

yet forwarded to the Senate.

The FY2000 bill did not include requested increases, and prohibited EPA from

using funds for the purpose of implementing, or in preparing to implement the Kyoto

Protocol. During appropriations hearings, EPA’s Administrator staunchly defended

the Administration’s position and the requested FY2001 funding levels. Emphasizing

that industry involvement in EPA’s greenhouse reduction programs is voluntary, the

Administrator denied that the Agency is engaging in any activities which implement

the Kyoto Protocol or that regulate carbon emissions. CRS’ Climate Change

Briefing Book [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.html] discusses many

aspects of the climate change issue.

CRS-32

Table 11. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency,

FY2000-FY2001

(budget authority in billions)

FY2000

enacted

FY2001

request

FY2001

House

FY2001

Senatea

FY2001

Confer.

Science and Technology (incl.

transfers from Superfund)

0.680

0.710

0.685

0.708

0.732

P.L. 106-113 cut (0.38%)

(-0.003)

Environmental programs,

compliance (management)

1.895

2.099

1.895

2.000

2.088

P.L. 106-113 cut (0.38%)

(-0.005)

Office of Inspector Generalb

0.043c

0.046

0.045

0.046

Buildings and facilities

0.062c

0.024

0.023

0.024

Superfund (net, after

transfers)d

1.221

1.290

1.224

1.351

1.222

Leaking Underground Storage

Tank Trust Fund

0.070c

0.072

0.079

0.072

Oil spill response

0.015c

0.016

0.015

State and tribal assistance

3.446

2.907

3.177

3.320

3.629

P.L. 106-113 cut (0.38%)

(-0.021)

P.L. 106-113 cuts: total

-0.029

Subtotal (EPA)

7.433

7.164

7.144

7.534

7.828

Program

Source: H.Rept. 106-988.

Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals. Italics indicates subsumed under above line;

parenthesis indicates amount shown is not included in the line above.

In floor action on October 12, 2000, the Senate replaced the House-passed version of H.R. 4635 with

the version reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. In later action that same day,

the Senate further amended H.R. 4635 by substituting the language that had emerged from the

informal preliminary conference on the bill. The column shown as “Senate” is the version reported

from the Senate’s committee; otherwise, the column would be identical to the last column showing

the amounts approved by the conferees, and enacted as P.L. 106-377.

Includes assumed transfers from Superfund ($11 million in FY2000; $11.7 million for FY2001).

P.L. 106-113 mandated cuts of 0.38% in FY2000 appropriations for many federal programs. In

addition to cuts shown in the table, other cuts to EPA include $29,000 from the Office of Inspector

General; $238,000 from buildings and facilities; $240,000 from the Leaking Underground Storage

Tank Trust Fund; and $26,000 from the oil spill response.

Two agencies, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the National Institute of

Environmental Public Health, were previously shown as funded through the Hazardous Substance

Superfund account. The House Committee on Appropriations now shows these as Independent

Agencies administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but funded through

the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill. Relevant appropriations entries for

those independent accounts are now shown in Table 17 of this report.

CRS-33

For FY2001, EPA requested $227 million, a 121% increase, for climate change

activities. Roughly 70% was intended for activities of the Environmental Programs

and Management account and 30% for those of the Science and Technology account.

Environmental Programs and Management activities are linked to reducing

greenhouse gas emissions, the most controversial portion of the request. The House

Appropriations Committee rejected most of the requested climate change increases,

and restricted the agency from spending funds on certain climate change activities.

Before passage, the House amended the bill to clarify that this restriction did not

apply to activities authorized in law. The conferees adopted this provision, also.

Another amendment adopted by the conferees prohibits EPA spending on

designating any area as an ozone nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act until the

Supreme Court renders a decision on EPA’s 1997 change in that standard. That

decision is expected later this year.

The Superfund for cleaning up toxic waste sites remains an issue. The FY2001

budget request of $1.29 billion represents a $69 million increase over FY2000. Within

this account, $92 million is requested for the Brownfields program to remedy low

level contaminated sites which have economic development potential. Appropriations

for this account are primarily derived from the Superfund Trust fund, maintained on

chemical fees and other taxes. The authority to assess these expired December 31,

1996 and Congress has not reauthorized it. There is concern over the ability of a

declining trust fund to finance the program beyond FY2001. The House approved

$1.223 billion for the Superfund; the Senate approved $1.351 billion, both amounts

net after transfers. The final version of the bill included $1.22 billion.

Committee oversight of the Superfund focused on the efficiency of the program’s

administration and on progress EPA is making in cleaning up all major hazardous

waste sites. The General Accounting Office (GAO) continues to place this program

on its list of troubled federal programs and there are ongoing efforts in both the

House and Senate to legislatively reform this program. In approving funds, the

conferees split off $130 million of the Superfund for two HHS agencies, funding them

independently in the bill and approved $1.24 billion for the Superfund program. It

approved the $92 million requested for the Brownfields program.

For more detailed information on the Superfund, see: CRS Issue Brief IB10011,

Superfund Reauthorization Issues in the 106th Congress. For information on

wastewater treatment issues, see CRS Report 98-323, Wastewater Treatment:

Overview and Background. For an in depth discussion of the EPA budget, see CRS

Issue Brief IB10058: Environmental Protection Agency: FY2001 Budget Issues.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) helps states and localities

prepare for and cope with catastrophic disasters. 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.

CRS-34

Table 12. Appropriations: Federal Emergency Management

Agency, FY2000-FY2001

(budget authority in billions)

FY2000

enacted

FY2001

request

FY2001

House

FY2001

Senatea

FY2001

Confer.

Disaster Relief Fund

0.300a

0.300

Emergency funding

2.480

2.609

1.300

Cerro Grande fire assistance

(P.L. 106-246)

0.500

Pre-disaster mitigation

0.030

Disaster loan subsidy

0.001

0.002

Salaries and expenses

0.180b

0.221

0.190

0.215

Inspector General

0.008b

0.008

0.010

Emergency management,

planning assistance

0.267b

0.270

0.267

0.270

Emergency food, shelter

0.110

0.140

0.110

0.140

Flood map modernize.

0.005

Flood mitigation fund

Radiological emergency

preparedness (net)

-0.001

P.L. 106-113 cut (0.38%)

-0.013

Subtotal (FEMA)

3.838

3.580

0.877

3.516

2.237

Program

Source: H.Rept. 106-988.

Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.

In floor action on October 12, 2000, the Senate replaced the House-passed version of H.R. 4635 with

the version reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. In later action that same day,

the Senate further amended H.R. 4635 by substituting the language that had emerged from the

informal preliminary conference on the bill. The column shown as “Senate” is the version reported

from the Senate’s committee; otherwise, the column would be identical to the last column showing

the amounts approved by the conferees, and enacted as P.L. 106-377.

P.L. 106-113 mandated a cut of 0.38% in FY2000 appropriations for many federal programs. For

FEMA, the cuts included $12.4 million to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF); $50,000 in the Salaries

and Expenses and Inspector General accounts; and $218,000 in the Emergency Management

Planning and Assistance account.

The Administration’s budget requests a $30 million transfer from the DRF for map modernization.

The Administration requests a transfer of up to $50 million from the DRF to reduce losses from

repetitive flooding.

CRS-35

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

Emergency Assistance 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.

As has been the case in previous years, the Administration requests funds in the

expectation that emergencies will occur, and the House Appropriations Committee

indicates its preference for appropriating emergency funds as the need for them arises

in the course of events. The ongoing commitment to provide standby funds in the

Disaster Relief Fund provides spending authority as immediate needs arise, and before

emergency funds can be provided. The Administration requested $300 million for the

Relief Fund account for FY2001, as had been appropriated for FY2000. Both

versions of the bill approve $300 million in disaster relief for FY2001; the Senate bill

contains $2.6 billion in requested emergency funding, the House bill does not include

emergency funding in its bill amounts.

For further budgetary information on FEMA, see: CRS Report RL30460,

FEMA Funding: Budget Information for the Federal Emergency Management

Agency. Citations to and summary information on basic authorities from FEMA can

be found in: CRS Report RS20272, FEMA’s Mission: Policy Directives for the

Federal Emergency Management Agency.

To reduce future losses from disasters, FEMA sought increased funding for

mitigation activities. Some Members voiced general support for the Administration’s

emphasis on disaster mitigation, but disagreed on specifics. Legislation to establish

a new hazard mitigation program has been approved by the 106th Congress. For

information on the legislation, see: CRS Report RL30543, Disaster Mitigation

Assistance Bills in the 106th Congress: Comparison of Provisions.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) receives

appropriations within four accounts: human space flight; science, aeronautics and

technology; mission support; and inspector general. Human space flight includes the

international space station (ISS), including construction of the station and cooperative

activities with Russian space programs, and the space shuttle program, including

shuttle operations, maintenance, performance, and safety upgrades. Science,

aeronautics and technology programs contain the bulk of NASA’s research and

development activities. The programs within this account include space science; life

and microgravity science; earth sciences; aero-space technologies; space operations;

and academic programs. Mission support includes employee salaries and costs;

safety, mission assurance, engineering, and advanced concepts; and construction of

facilities. The last account includes funds for the Office of Inspector General.

For FY2001, the Administration requested $14.035 billion for NASA, an

increase of 3.2% over the amount appropriated for FY2000. The final bill approved

CRS-36

by Congress provides $14.285 billion, 1.8% above the original request and 5.0%

above the FY2000 level. Prior to the conference, NASA had proposed an increase

of $75 million for the Mars 2001 Lander program (in the Office of Space Science)

with funds coming from other parts of the NASA budget. This proposal was granted

by Congress and the final appropriation funds the entire NASA amended request with

the exception of a $49 million general reduction for the Science, Aeronautics, and

Technology account. In addition, $296 million is provided for new and existing

projects and programs specifically identified by Congress.

Table 13. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appropriations, FY1996 - FY2000

(budget authority in billions)

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

$13.88

$13.71

$13.65

$13.67

$13.60

Source: Final spending levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, and

any supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been included. Figures for FY1996-99 are from

budget submissions of subsequent years; figures for FY2000 are from the Conference Report on

H.R. 4635 (H.Rept 106-988) and include the effects of the 0.38% reduction imposed by P.L. 106-113.

NASA requested $2.114 billion for the International Space Station (ISS) for

FY2001, 9.0% below FY2000. The decrease is due to a sharp falloff in future

construction fund requirements as the station’s components near completion.

Substantial activity is expected in FY2001, including the first extended crew

occupation (30 days) and installation of the first research facilities.

The successful launch of the Russian Service Module in July 2000 has ensured

that first habitation of the station will occur next year. In the final bill, Congress

provided the full request plus $3 million for construction design of a Bioastronautics

Facility to conduct biomedical research in order to determine the best way to protect

the health of long-term inhabitants of the ISS. Congress also directed NASA to

submit a plan that considers various options for management of research and

commercialization activities on the ISS. The bill contains language that prohibits

NASA from funding before December 1, 2001, any agreement to perform these

services, giving Congress time to assess possible arrangements.

NASA requested $3.166 billion for space shuttle operations for FY2001, an

increase of 6.2% over the FY2000 appropriations. Nine flights are now planned for

FY2001. In addition, upgrades to combat obsolescence — supportability upgrades

— are to be funded in FY2001. NASA is also embarking on a major safety upgrade

activity designed to improve reliability and ensure safe operations for the next decade.

An independent review panel has been established by NASA to determine the

priorities for these upgrades, which are now planned to be completed by 2005.

Safety continues to be a major concern about the shuttle. Because the shuttle

is likely to be the primary means of human access to space for several more years,

continued efforts to maintain safe shuttle operations are essential. The aging of the

shuttle systems and workforce are likely to make this task increasingly difficult. In

CRS-37

the final bill, Congress provided the full, adjusted request for the shuttle. NASA has

asked for authority to transfer $40 million from Shuttle reserves and

commercialization activities to the Mars 2003 Lander project. Both the House and

Senate appropriations reports contained language supporting the Shuttle upgrades.

Table 14. Appropriations: National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, FY2000-FY2001

(budget authority in billions)

Program

FY2000 FY2001

enacted request

FY2001

House

FY2001

Senatea

FY2001

Confer.

Human space flight

5.511

5.500

5.472

5.400

5.463

Science, aeronaut., tech.

5.607

5.929

5.580

5.837

6.191

Mission support

2.515

2.584

2.609

Inspector General

0.020

0.022

0.023

P.L. 106-113 cut (0.38%)b

-0.052

Subtotal (NASA)

13.602

14.035

13.659

13.844

14.285

Source: H.Rept. 106-988.

Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.

In floor action on October 12, 2000, the Senate replaced the House-passed version of H.R. 4635 with

the version reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. In later action that same day,

the Senate further amended H.R. 4635 by substituting the language that had emerged from the

informal preliminary conference on the bill. The column shown as “Senate” is the version reported

from the Senate’s committee; otherwise, the column would be identical to the last column showing

the amounts approved by the conferees, and enacted as P.L. 106-377.

P.L. 106-113 required a cut of 0.38% to many federal programs. For NASA, the cuts were $23

million in the Human Space Flight account; $25.8 million in the Science, Aeronautics, and

Technology account; and $3.1 million in the Mission Support account.

For Space Science, the largest of NASA’s science activities, NASA requested

an increase of 9.4% above FY2000. The agency proposed an initiative, called Living

With a Star, to enhance its solar research program. The purpose of the initiative is

to learn more about the behavior of solar disturbances that affect the earth’s satellite,

telecommunication, and electric transmission systems.

As a result of the recent failure of two Mars missions, an important issue for

Space Sciences is whether its reliance on a “faster, better, cheaper” (FBC) approach

to scientific space craft development might be resulting in an excessive risk that

projects will fail, thereby compromising the program’s ability to carry out quality

science. Studies recently released indicate that NASA may have gone too far in trying

to cut costs in carrying out the FBC approach and that greater care and more

contractor oversight are needed.

CRS-38

The final bill provides $2.508 billion for space science, 14.4% above the FY2000

level. The amended request for space science, including the additional funds for the

Mars 2003 Lander, was $2.472 billion. Congress also approved the funding request

for the Living With a Star Initiative. It also directed NASA to provide an estimate of

the additional costs to space science projects of implementing the recommendations

of the Mars Program Independent Assessment Team, which investigated the

relationship of the two Mars mission failures and the FBC approach.

For Aero-Space Technology, NASA requested an increase of 6% above

FY2000. The major new initiative in this activity is the second generation reusable

launch vehicle (RLV) program. NASA intends to spend about $4.4 billion over the

next 5 years with the objective that the private sector will provide the remaining funds

to develop a finished RLV by about 2010-12 when NASA believes the Shuttle must

be replaced. The program is complicated and there is no assurance that upon its

completion, the private sector would be willing to continue development without

significant additional support.

In the final bill, Congress approved $1.253 billion for the Office of Aero-Space

Technology, 5.0% above the request and 11.4% above the FY2000 level. Included

in the appropriation is the $290 million requested for the 2nd generation RLV initiative

(space launch initiative or SLI), the $9 million requested for the Small Air

Transportation System initiative, and an additional $13 million for the ultra-efficient

engine technology program. Congress expressed its general agreement with the

direction of the SLI program.

For more discussion on the NASA FY2001 budget request, see CRS Report

RL30493, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s FY2001 Budget

Request: Description and Analysis.

National Science Foundation

P.L. 106-377 appropriates $4.426 billion for the National Science Foundation

(NSF). The Administration requested $4.572 billion for the NSF for FY2001, a 17%

($675.2 million) increase over the FY2000 level of $3.897 billion. The FY2001

request is part of the Administration’s commitment to basic research, as outlined in

the “21st Century Research Fund.” The request provided support for several

initiatives, including nanoscale science and engineering ($217 million), biocomplexity

in the environment ($136 million), and in education and workforce development

($157 million). The House approved a total of $4.046 billion for NSF for FY2001,

$526 million (11.5%) below the Administration’s request. The Senate Appropriation

Committee’s reported version of the bill recommended $4.297 for NSF for FY2001,

$275 million (6%) below the request.

At the suggestion of the President’s Information Technology Advisory

Committee, the NSF has been designated as the lead agency for an initiative on

information technology involving seven federal agencies. NSF’s FY2001 request

provides $327 million for the information technology research (ITR) initiative. The

investment in ITR will support research in areas such as computer system

architecture, information storage and retrieval, scalable networks, connectivity, and

research on the impact of information technology on society. The ITR initiative

CRS-39

builds on NSF’s current investments, and increases the total support for ITR by

approximately 160% over the FY2000 estimate. The NSF continues its involvement

in the National Science and Technology Council interagency programs in FY2001,

providing $187 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, $47 million for

a New Generation of Vehicles, and $125 million for Integrated Science for

Ecosystems Challenges.

Table 15. National Science Foundation Appropriations,

FY1996 to FY2000

(budget authority in billions)

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

$3.22

$3.27

$3.43

$3.67

$3.90

Source: Final spending levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, and

any supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been included. Figures for FY1996-99 are from

budget submissions of subsequent years; figures for FY2000 are from the Conference Report on

H.R. 4635 (H.Rept 106-988) and include the effects of the 0.38% reduction imposed by P.L. 106-113.

P.L. 106-377 contains $3.350 billion for Research and Related Activities

(R&RA). The FY2001 request includes $3.541 billion for R&RA, a 19.7% ($582

million) increase over the FY2000 post-rescission estimate of $2.96 billion. R&RA

funds research projects, research facilities, and education and training activities. In

the FY2001 request, the NSF has placed an emphasis on funding rates for new

investigators and on increasing grant size and duration. The R&RA includes an

activity created in FY1999 — Integrative Activities (IA). IA provides support for

cross-disciplinary research, major research instrumentation, intellectual infrastructure,

and the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI). (The STPI includes what

previously was named the Critical Technologies Institute.) The FY2001 request for

IA is $119 million.

The House approved $3.118 billion for R&RA for FY2001, $152 million more

than last year, but $423 million below the Administration’s request. The R&RA was

proposed at $3.118 billion, 11.9% below the budget request. The House agreed to

$694 million for the EHR in FY2001, 8.6% less than that proposed by the

Administration. The Senate committee bill recommended $3.246 billion for R&RA.

Under the Administration’s request, the Major Research Equipment (MRE)

account would be funded at $138.5 million in FY2001, a 48% increase ($45 million)

over the post-rescission FY2000 level. The MRE, established in FY1995, supports

the construction of major research facilities that are at the “cutting edge of science

and engineering.” Seven projects are supported in this account; two are new for

FY2001. The projects include terascale computing systems ($45 million),

construction funds for the Large Hadron Collider ($16 million), completion of the

design and development phase of the Millimeter Array ($6 million), investments in the

Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation ($28 million), the modernization of

the South Pole Station ($13.5 million), construction of the Earthscope: USArray and

San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth ($17 million), and startup funds for the

National Ecological Observatory Network ($12 million). The House approved $77

CRS-40

million for the MRE account, $18.4 million less than less year and $62 million below

the Administration’s request. The Senate committee bill recommended $109 million,

and the final bill provided $122 million.

Table 16. Appropriations: National Science Foundation,

FY2000-FY2001

(budget authority in billions)

Program

FY2000 FY2001

enacted request

FY2001

House

FY2001

Senatea

FY2001

Confer.

Research, related activities

2.966

3.541

3.118

3.246

3.350

Major research equipment

0.095

0.139

0.077

0.109

0.122

Education, human resources

0.697

0.729

0.694

0.765

0.787

Salaries and expenses

0.149

0.158

0.152

0.171

0.161

Office of Inspector General

0.005

0.006

P.L. 106-113 cut (0.38%)

-0.015b

Subtotal (NSF)

3.897

4.572

4.046

4.297

4.426

Source: H.Rept. 106-988.

Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.

In floor action on October 12, 2000, the Senate replaced the House-passed version of H.R. 4635 with

the version reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. In later action that same day,

the Senate further amended H.R. 4635 by substituting the language that had emerged from the

informal preliminary conference on the bill. The column shown as “Senate” is the version reported

from the Senate’s committee; otherwise, the column would be identical to the last column showing

the amounts approved by the conferees, and enacted as P.L. 106-377.

P.L. 106-113 required a cut of 0.38% to many federal programs. For NSF, the cuts were $7.5

million for the Research and Related Activities account; $1.5 million in the Major Research

Equipment account; $5.7 million in the Education and Human Resources account; and $100,000 in

the Salaries and Expenses account.

The FY2001 request for the Education and Human Resources Directorate

(EHR) is $729 million, a 5.5% increase ($38 million) above the post-rescission

FY2000 estimate. Support at the precollege level ($267.5 million) includes a new

activity, Centers for Learning and Teaching (CLT), which would assist the effort to

improve the quality of instruction. Major undergraduate programs (totaling $144

million) are Advanced Technological Education, Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority

Participation, Scholarships for Services, Minority-Servicing Institutions, and

Distinguished Teaching Scholars. Graduate level ($97 million) support would

increase slightly in the FY2001 request, with the additional funding directed at the

Graduate Teaching Fellows program. Continued support would be given to the

Graduate Research Fellowship, Integrative Graduate Education and Research

Training, Minority Graduate Education, and Postdoctoral Fellowships in Science,

Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education. Funding for the Experimental

Program to Stimulate Competitive Research would be $48 million. (An additional $25

CRS-41

million from R&RA will support EPSCoR activities.) H-1B nonimmigrant petitioner

fees, funded in the EHR, are proposed at $31 million in FY2001. The House

approved $694 million for the EHR, $35 million below the Administration’s request.

The Senate committee version recommended $765 million for EHR. P.L. 106-377

provides $787 million.

For additional information on NSF, see: CRS Report 95-307, U.S. National

Science Foundation: An Overview.

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, 2000.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. This agency, which

manages the Toxic Substances and Environmental Public Health program, was funded

(an earmarked $70 million) from EPA’s Hazardous Substance Superfund during

FY2000, and the President’s request for EPA included an earmarked $64 million for

FY2001. The House is now showing the agency as an Independent Agency within

the Public Health Service, and has recommended $70 million for the agency’s

functions for FY2001; the Senate committee version does not show a comparable

account. However, P.L. 106-377 provided $75 million for the agency.

American Battle Monuments Commission. P.L. 106-377 appropriated $28

million for the Commission. The Administration requested $26.196 million for

FY2001, $2.3 million less than was originally appropriated for FY2000. The House

approved $28 million, and the Senate committee bill would have approved the request

for the Commission, which is responsible for the construction and maintenance of

memorials honoring Armed Forces battle achievements since 1917. Included among

the Commission’s functions are the maintenance of 24 American military cemeteries

and 31 memorializations in 15 foreign countries. The across-the-board cut mandated

by P.L. 106-113 reduced FY2000 funds for the Commission by $108,000.

Cemeterial Expenses, Army. Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers’

and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery are under the administration of the U.S.

Army. At the close of FY1998, 272,195 persons were interred/inurned in these

cemeteries. In addition to almost 6,000 interments and inurnments each year,

Arlington is the site of approximately 2,700 other ceremonies, and 4 million visitors,

annually.

For FY2000, Congress appropriated $12.473 million, which was reduced by

$47,000 by the 0.38% across-the-board cut mandated by P.L. 106-113. The

Administration has requested $15.949 million for FY2001, and the Senate committee

bill accepted the request. The House approved $17.949 million. P.L. 106-377

appropriates the level included in the House bill.

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. P.L. 106-377 split the

difference between amounts approved by the House and the amount contained in the

CRS-42

Senate committee bill, and appropriated $7.5 million. The House approved $8 million

for the Board for FY2001, the same as the Administration requested, and the same

as the amount originally appropriated for FY2000 (which was reduced by $30,000 by

the 0.38% across-the-board cut). The Senate committee version approved $7 million.

The Board, which was authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,

investigates hazardous substance spills or releases.

Table 17. Appropriations: Other Independent Agencies,

FY2000-FY2001

(budget authority in billions)

FY2000

enacteda

FY2001

request

FY2001

House

FY2001

Senatea

FY2001

Confer.

0.028

0.026

0.028

0.026

0.028

Chem. Safety and Hazard

Investigations Board

0.008

0.007

0.008

Cemetery Exp., Army

0.012

0.016

0.018

0.016

0.018

Community Development Financial

Institutions

0.095

0.125

0.105

0.095

0.118

Consumer Inform. Center

0.003

0.007

Consumer Product Safety Commission

0.049

0.053

0.051

0.053

Corporation for National and

Community Service

0.357

0.534

0.005

0.389b

0.434b

Council, Environmental Quality;

Office, Environmental Quality

0.003

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims

0.011

0.013

0.012

Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (transfer)

(0.034)

Neighborhood Reinvestment

Corporation

0.075

0.090

0.080

0.090

National Credit Union Administration

0.001

National Institute, Environmental

Health Sci.

0.060

0.049

0.060

0.063

Office, Science &Tech.

0.005

Selective Service System

0.024

0.023

0.024

Toxic Substance and Environ. Public

Health

0.070

0.064

0.070

0.075

Subtotal:

0.801b

1.118

0.486

0.717

0.939

Program

American Battle Monuments

Commission

Source: H.Rept. 106-988.

Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.

In floor action on October 12, 2000, the Senate replaced the House-passed version of H.R. 4635 with

the version reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. In later action that same day,

the Senate further amended H.R. 4635 by substituting the language that had emerged from the

CRS-43

informal preliminary conference on the bill. The column shown as “Senate” is the version reported

from the Senate’s committee; otherwise, the column would be identical to the last column showing

the amounts approved by the conferees, and enacted as P.L. 106-377.

Includes the effects of reductions of 0.38% mandated by P.L. 106-113. Specifics of those cuts are

discussed in the text for each of the affected Independent Agencies shown in this table.

Includes rescissions from the Corporation operating account; the Senate approved a rescission of

$50 million, Conferees adopted a rescission of $30 million.

Community Development Financial Institution Fund. The Community

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

CDFI fund program is an Administration initiative to provide credit and investment

capital to distressed urban and rural areas. The program also provides training and

technical assistance to qualifying financial institutions. P.L. 104-19 modified the

original Act by giving the Department of the Treasury the authority to manage the

CDFI program, although the program continues to be funded through the VA/HUD

bill. The program has survived despite attempts to eliminate it.

The Administration’s FY2001 budget requested $125 million for the CDFI

program, the same amount requested by the Administration’s last two budgets.

Congress appropriated $95 million for FY2000. P.L. 106-377 provides $118 million

for the CDFI fund program including $5 million for technical assistance to promote

economic development in Native American communities. The House had proposed

$105 million for FY2001 and the Senate Committee on Appropriations had proposed

$95 million.

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

Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund; also, CRS Report RS20286,

Reauthorization of the Community Financial Institutions Fund.

Consumer Information Center (CIC). Congress provided the CIC $2.622

million for FY2000. P.L. 106-377 approved the amount contained in both versions

of the appropriations bill for FY2001, $7.122 million; the Administration had

requested $6.822. The Center, administered through the General Services

Administration (GSA), helps federal agencies distribute consumer information and

promotes public awareness of existing federal publications.

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 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 requested $52.5 million for FY2001; the House

recommends $51 million, the Senate committee bill endorses the requested amount;

conferees accepted the Senate version. Congress appropriated $49 million for

FY2000, which was reduced by $186,000 by the across-the-board cut of 0.38%

mandated by P.L. 106-113.

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNS). The Corporation

administers programs authorized under the National and Community Service Act of

1990 (NCSA) and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (DVSA).

Appropriations for the NCSA programs, the largest of which is AmeriCorps, are

included in the VA-HUD bill.

CRS-44

The key issue concerning the Corporation and the NCSA programs, which are

strongly supported by President Clinton, has been budgetary survival. Some Members

have expressed concerns about partisan activities, program costs, financial

management, and federally funding a “paid volunteer” program. (The DVSA

programs, — e.g., Foster Grandparents Program and Senior Companion Program —

are funded under the Labor/HHS Appropriation bill and have been non-controversial.)

Authorization for CNS, and programs and activities authorized by NCSA, expired at

the end of FY1996. Since then, continued program authority has occurred through

the appropriations process.

The Administration’s FY2001 budget requested $533.7 million for the NCSA

programs, including a $5 million request for the CNS Office of the Inspector General

(OIG). For FY2000, Congress provided $438.5 million (including funding for the

OIG), which was reduced by an across-the-board cut of 0.38% mandated by P.L.

106-113, for an appropriation of $437.138 million. In addition, $80 million

(appropriated in previous years) was rescinded from the National Service Trust, which

is the fund from which educational awards are made. The net FY2000 appropriation

was $357.138 million.

The House did not approve any funding for programs of the Corporation during

FY2001, except for $5 million for the Office of Inspector General. The Senate

Appropriation Committee’s version of the bill recommended funding of $438.5 million

(including funding for the OIG), and rescinding $50 million (appropriated in previous

years) from the National Service Trust. Under the Senate committee version, the net

appropriation would have been $388.5 million, an increase of 9% over the net

FY2000 appropriation.

Conferees, however, went beyond the Senate committee version, appropriating

$25 million more than the Committee's recommended amount, and reducing that

version's recommended rescission of $50 million to $30 million. All versions

approved $5 million for the OIG. Thus, P.L. 106-377 appropriates $458.5 million for

Corporation programs which, after taking into consideration the rescinded amount,

provides a net $428.5 million for those programs (plus $5 million for the OIG).

Among specific spending instructions in the legislation are ones which allocate

$231 million for AmeriCorps grants, and “not to exceed $45 [million] may be used

for national direct programs and $25 [million] shall be for activities dedicated to

developing computer and information technology skill; $10 [million] for the Points of

Light Foundation; $21 [million] for the civilian community corps; $43 [million] for

school-based and community-based service-learning programs; and $5 [million] for

audits and other evaluations.”

Earmarked funds include $ 5 million for Communities in Schools, Inc.; $2.5

million for Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc.; $7.5 million for America’s

Promise–The Alliance for Youth, Inc.; $2.5 million for Boys and Girls Clubs of

America; and $1.5 million for the Youth Life Foundation.

For further information on the Corporation and its programs see: CRS Report

RL30186, Community Service: A Description of AmeriCorps, Foster Grandparents,

and Other Federally Funded Programs.

CRS-45

Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Environmental Quality.

These two entities are within the Executive Office of the President. The Council

oversees and coordinates interagency decisions in matters affecting the environment;

the Office provides the professional and administrative staff for the Council. Congress

appropriated $2.827 million for these functions in FY2000 (reduced $11,000 by P.L.

106-113). The Administration requested $3.02 million for FY2001; both versions of

the bill provide $2.9 million; P.L. 106-377 approved that amount.

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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 law by VA and

the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Court’s decisions constitute precedent to guide

subsequent decisions by that Board. Congress provided $11.45 million for operations

for the Court in FY2000 (reduced $42,000 by P.L. 106-113). The President

requested $12.5 million for FY2001; the House recommends that amount; the Senate

committee version is $5,000 less; P.L. 106-377 adopts the Senate committee

recommendation.

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

General is funded from deposit insurance funds, and has no direct support from

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. For FY2000, the amount approved was $33.666 million; the

Administration requested approval of $33.660 for FY2001; the Senate committee

version endorsed the request; the House approved $33.661; the final bill uses the

Senate committee’s recommended level.

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.

Congress approved a limitation on administrative expenses, which are financed from

the revolving fund, of $257,000 for FY2000. For FY2001, the Administration

proposes a limitation of $296,000 for the agency’s functions. Congress also

approved a revolving loan program for credit union risk pooling for FY2000, with a

subsidy of $1 million (reduced by $4,000 by the across-the-board cut of 0.38%). The

Administration requests appropriations for a similar pooling fund for FY2001, with

a subsidy of $1 million; the House also recommends $1 million, under a slightly

different pooling structure. The Senate committee bill did not include funding for the

pool; P.L. 106-377 provides the amount approved by the House bill.

National Institute of Environmental Public Health. This Institute is within

the National Institutes of Health, administered by the Department of Health and

Human Services (DHHS). For FY2000, $60 million was earmarked for this Institute

from EPA’s Hazardous Substance Superfund account, and the Administration

requested $48.5 million for FY2001. The House now shows this program as an

Independent Agency account, and has recommended that $60 million be appropriated

to it for FY2001; the Senate does not have comparable provisions. Conferees

approved $63 million, specifying $40 million for research, and $23 million for a

worker training program.

CRS-46

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. Nationwide,

there are 184 of these organizations, serving 825 communities in 45 states, with 70%

of the people served living in very low and low-income brackets. Congress provided

NRC with an appropriation of $75 million for FY2000, reduced by $285,000 by the

across-the-board cut of 0.38% mandated by P.L. 106-113. The President requested

$90 million for FY2001; the House approved the requested amount; the Senate

committee version recommends $80 million; P.L. 106-377 appropriated the requested

level.

Office of Science and Technology Policy. P.L. 106-377 appropriated the

requested amount of $5.201 million for this Office. 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 to

the President and executive branch, and reviews and participates in formulation of

national policies affecting those areas. The President requests $5.201 million for

FY2001; the Senate committee version endorsed that request; the House approved

$5.150 million. Congress appropriated $5.108 million for FY2000 (reduced $19,000

by P.L. 106-113).

Selective Service System (SSS). P.L. 106-377 appropriated $24.48 million for

the SSS, as the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended. The SSS was

created to supply manpower to the U.S. Armed Forces during time of national

emergency. Although since 1973, the Armed Forces have 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 $24

million for this office for FY2000, subsequently reduced by $91,000 by the acrossthe-board cut of 0.38%. The President requested $24.48 million for FY2001; the

Senate version of the FY2001 appropriations bill endorsed the request; the House

approved $23 million.

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]

CRS-47

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.