Appropriations for FY2002: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies (P.L. 107-73)
Congressional research reportDec 7, 2001
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Order Code RL31004
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2002:
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
(P.L. 107-73)
Updated December 7, 2001
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
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
authorizations.
This Report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress passes each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. 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.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].
Appropriations for FY2002:
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Summary
P.L. 107-73, the FY2002 appropriations bill (H.R. 2620) for the Departments
of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and several
independent agencies, provides $112.7 billion for FY2002, including $85.4 billion in
discretionary funds. The versions of H.R. 2620 passed by each Chamber were
relatively close in the total amount approved for programs funded through the bill,
although there were serious differences in some areas, and both versions differed from
the Administration’s request. For instance:
! Both Houses added to the request for VA medical programs, with the Senate
adding $400 million, and the House, $303 million. Conferees split the
difference, providing $351 million more than requested, but dropped a House
plan to add $300 million to rehabilitate VA facilities to improve patient safety.
! The Senate offered slightly over $1 billion more than the House in housing and
urban assistance money; the House had approved about $600 million less than
the Administration requested. Conferees settled on $30.1 billion, $168 million
more than the House bill, but $866 million less than the Senate, and $433 less
than requested.
! The House added $229 million, and the Senate $435 million to the request for
EPA. Conferees topped both bills, and added $586 million to the request.
! The House did not fund programs of the Corporation for National and
Community Service (which supports AmeriCorp), while the Administration
proposed to maintain almost the same funding as in FY2001, and the Senate
approved that amount and added $4 million; conferees provided $13 million
less than the Senate.
! The Administration did not request emergency funding for FEMA’s disaster
relief efforts; the House bill provided $1.3 billion in emergency relief funds, the
Senate, $2 billion. Conferees provided $1.5 billion.
! The House added $367 million to the NSF request; the Senate added $200
million; conferees agreed to add $316 million to the request.
! The Senate added $50 million to the NASA request, while the House increased
it by $440 million. Conferees settled on $282 million above the request.
The President requested $83.4 billion in discretionary funds for programs
covered by VA-HUD appropriations. H.Con.Res. 83, the Concurrent Resolution on
the FY2002 Budget adopted by Congress, assumed $84.1 billion in discretionary
funds.
Following the September 11 terrorist attack, Congress enacted P.L. 107-38 to
provide $40 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations to aid victims, bolster
counter-terrorism, and pursue the investigation and prosecution of those responsible.
The new law contains $34.4 million for FEMA, and $3.2 million for EPA responses
to terrorist acts.
Key Policy Staff
Name
Area of Expertise
CRS
Division
Tel.
Keith Bea
Disaster Assistance; Emergency Mgmt.
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
M. Ann Wolfe
Housing for Homeless, AIDS Victims
DSP
7-6262
Division abbreviations: DSP=Domestic Social Policy; G&F=Government and Finance;
RSI=Resources, Science and Industry.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Total Appropriations Enacted for FY2001 and Requested for FY2002 for VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Terrorism: Federal Emergency Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
VA Cash Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Veterans Housing Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Medical Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
VA Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Program Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Improving HUD management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Major Housing Policy Issue: Affordable Rental Housing . . . . . . 15
Housing Certificate Fund: A Closer Look . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Public Housing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Housing programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Federal Emergency Management Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
International Space Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Space Shuttle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Space Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Earth Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Aero-Space Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Other Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
American Battle Monuments Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Cemeterial Expenses, Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Community Development Financial Institution Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNS) . . . . . . . . . 49
Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Environmental Quality . 52
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Federal Consumer Information Center (FCIC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
National Credit Union Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Office of Science and Technology Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Selective Service System (SSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. Summary of VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations, FY2001-FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY1997-FY2001 . . . 5
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2001-FY2002 . . 6
Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,
FY1997 to FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 6. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development, FY2001-FY2002 17
Table 7. Spending Authority: Housing Certificate Fund (HCF), FY2002 . . . . 20
Table 8. Community Development Block Grants, FY2001-FY2002 . . . . . . . . 28
Table 9. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations, FY997-FY2001 . . 36
Table 10. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2001-FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 11. Appropriations: Federal Emergency Management Agency,
FY2001-FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 12. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Appropriations,
FY1997-FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 13. Appropriations: National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
FY2001-FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 14. National Science Foundation Appropriations, FY1998 to FY2002 . . 45
Table 15. Appropriations: National Science Foundation, FY2001-FY2002 . . . 46
Table 16. Appropriations: Other Independent Agencies, FY2001-FY2002 . . . 50
Appropriations for FY2002:
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Most Recent Developments
President signs H.R. 2620 as P.L. 107-73. On November 26, 2001,
President Bush signed the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies appropriations bill.
Conferees finished their work on November 6, and both Chambers approved the
Conference Report (H.Rept. 107-272) on November 8.
Continuing resolutions start FY2002. As FY2002 began on October 1,
Congress provided a series of resolutions to provide federal programs continuing
spending authority until final appropriations work is completed.
Congress approves, President signs P.L. 107-38, an emergency
supplemental in response to terrorist acts. On September 18, the President
signed H.R. 2888, a bill Congress unanimously approved (September 14) that
provides $40 billion “...for additional disaster assistance, for anti-terrorism
initiatives, and for assistance in the recovery from the tragedy that occurred on
September 11, 2001, and for other purposes.”
House and Senate approve versions of VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies, FY2002 appropriations bills. The Senate passed H.R. 2620,
FY2002 funding for VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, on August 2, after
amending it to substitute the text of the bill (S. 1216) reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee on July 19 (S.Rept. 107-43). The House passed its
version of H.R. 2620 (H.Rept. 107-159) on July 31.
President signs H.R. 2216 as P.L. 107-20, the FY2001 Supplemental
Appropriations Act. On July 24, the President signed H.R. 2216, supplementary
appropriations for FY2001. (For more information, see CRS Report RL30995,
Supplemental Appropriations for FY2001: Defense Readiness and Other Programs.)
Status
Table 1. Status of VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations, FY2002
Subcommittee
markup
Conference
Passed
Report approval
House
Senate Senate Conference
House Senate Report
Report (as H.R Report
Signed
(H.R.
(S. (H.Rept. Passed (S.Rept. 2620,
(H.Rept.
P.L.
2620) 1216) 107-159) House 107-43) amend.) 107-272) House Senate 107-73
7/10
7/19
7/17
7/31
7/19
8/2
11/6
11/8
11/8
11/26
CRS-2
Total Appropriations Enacted for FY2001 and
Requested for FY2002 for VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies
Table 2. Summary of VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2001-FY2002
(budget authority in billions)
Department or Agency
FY2001 FY2002
enacted request
FY2002
House
FY2002
Senate
FY2002
Confer.
Department of Veterans Affairs
47.948
50.686
51.355
51.139
51.135
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
28.476
30.581
29.980
31.014
30.148
Environmental Protection Agency
7.829
7.317
7.545
7.752
7.903
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
4.440
2.213
3.557
3.278
3.058
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
14.285
14.511
14.951
14.561
14.793
National Science Foundation
4.426
4.473
4.840
4.673
4.789
Other Independent Agencies
.939
.889
0.512
0.932
0.915
Filipino veterans provisiona
.003
--
--
--
--
Grand Total: Appropriations
108.346
110.672
112.743
113.351
112.743
Score keeping adjustmentsb
-0.370
4.196
-0.125
-0.004
-0.004
Receipts; misc. adjustments
-0.182
-0.004
-0.125
-0.004
-0.004
Advance approp. FY2002
-4.200
4.200
--
--
--
Advance approp. FY2001
4.200
--
--
--
--
Across the board cut (0.22%)
-0.188
--
--
--
--
Total: Fiscal Year mandatory
and discretionary authority
107.976
114.868
112.618
113.347
112.739
Mandatory
25.518
31.505
27.184
27.305
27.305
Discretionary
82.458
83.363
85.434
86.043
85.434
Source: H.Rept. 107-159; S.Rept. 107-43; H.Rept. 107-148; H.Rept. 107-272
Note: Totals will not add due to rounding at agency level. Italics indicates lines are subsumed
within entry above.
a
P.L. 106-377 raised VA service-connected disability compensation for certain resident 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.
b
Adjustments include various legislative changes, rescissions, cancellations, receipts, supplementals,
advance appropriations, accounting changes, and reestimates of program experience.
CRS-3
Key Policy Issues
Terrorism: Federal Emergency Responses
P.L. 107-38, Special Emergency Supplemental Legislation (H.R.
2888/S. 1426). On September 18, 2001, the President signed P.L. 107-38, a bill
Congress unanimously approved to provide $40 billion in supplemental funds in
response to the terrorist attacks on September 11. The bill makes $10 billion
immediately available to the President’s Emergency Response Fund, for disaster relief
and recovery. Another $10 billion will become available after the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) submits its plan to Congress for the allocation of
those funds. The remaining funds will be added to the appropriations bills currently
working their way through the appropriations process.
An August 2001 OMB report, Annual Report to Congress on Combating
Terrorism, provides guidance as to the likely effect on the programs funded through
the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies bill (H.R. 2620). Although all federal agencies
have responsibilities to protect citizens, employees, and physical assets of the federal
government, FEMA and EPA have direct responsibilities for responding to such acts,
usually through assisting with recovery and environmental aftermath of terrorist
activities. According to the report, for FY2002, the Administration requested $34.4
million for FEMA, and $3.2 million for EPA to prepare for such needs.
For further information on congressional responses to the terrorist threat, see
CRS Report RL31187, Terrorism Funding: Congressional Debate on Emergency
Supplemental Allocations, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels; and RL31173,
Terrorism Funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations – Distribution of
Funds to Departments and Agencies, by James R. Riehl.
Specific responses by FEMA. P.L. 107-38 provides broad authority for
the President to transfer portions of the $40 billion “to any authorized federal
government activity” to assist victims of the September 11 attacks and to manage
consequences of the attacks. Of the five purposes set out in the legislation, three
appear to be related to the mission of FEMA—“providing federal, state, and local
preparedness for mitigation and responding to the attacks,” “repairing public facilities
and transportation systems damaged by the attacks,” and “supporting national
security.”
The amount of funding to be made available to FEMA cannot be determined, but
the act specifies that at least $20 billion is reserved for the costs associated with the
disasters associated with the three terrorist acts in New York, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania. As the lead agency for coordinating federal disaster response activities,
FEMA directs mission assignments to federal agencies, including the removal of
debris and activities that minimize future property losses from the catastrophes.
Specific responses by HUD. HUD has taken steps to alleviate some of the
adverse affects of this incident. HUD Secretary Martinez has encouraged all home
mortgage lenders, including those with loans not insured by the FHA, and Freddie
Mac and Fannie Mae, to give relief to families affected by terrorist attacks. In past
CRS-4
natural disasters, lenders have been asked not to start or threaten foreclosures for at
least 90 days, while families are recovering from the financial problems caused by the
loss of a family member or by the loss of employment. HUD’s Government National
Mortgage Association, Ginnie Mae, will also encourage lenders to follow HUD’s
homeowner relief guidance by advancing payments to Ginnie Mae securities investors
that a lender might otherwise make from homeowners mortgage payments.
HUD’s assistance to the victims of the terrorism attacks will also include:
! A hotline number for HUD’s Housing Counseling clearinghouse (1-800-2176970), a nationwide referral center that provides information on housing
counseling services available in areas across the country.
! Providing temporary housing and shelter for disaster victims. HUD will work
with FEMA to identify vacant HUD-owned homes and multifamily units that
can be used as temporary housing for those forced from their homes.
! Requesting that all HUD-approved agencies reach out to affected families and
provide services to all those in need of shelter and/or financial assistance.
! Providing counseling grants, should counseling agencies need additional
resources to provide services.
HUD’s Mortgagee Letter 01-21, Relief Options for Borrowers Affected by the
Events of September 11, 2001, details options available for affected families with
FHA-insured mortgages who cannot make their loan payments. The letter can be
found at: [http://www.hud.gov/fha/mletters/mltrmenu.html].
Department of Veterans Affairs
With final passage of H.R. 2620, Congress provided $51.135 billion for
programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for FY2002. According to
congressional estimates, the Administration requested $50.7 billion for VA programs
for FY2002.
In passing H.R. 2620, the House approved $51.4 billion for VA programs for
FY2002; the Senate version of the bill contained $51.1 billion. The difference was
primarily in a fund the House bill proposed that would have provided $300 million to
upgrade VA medical facilities for safety, and for corrections of earthquake damages.
The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY2002 (H.Con.Res. 83) assumed
that the ultimate amount appropriated would be $51.5 billion, after improvements to
the Montgomery GI Bill and veterans burial benefits were adopted. Conferees on the
Resolution rejected recommendations approved by each House that would have
provided for additional VA spending. The House had approved $52.3 billion and the
Senate $53.8 billion, in their respective versions of the Resolution.
Congress appropriated $47.9 billion for VA for FY2001, $25.5 billion of which
was for mandatory spending for cash benefit programs. Mandatory spending for VA
entitlements is projected to rise by $1.8 billion during FY2002, to a total of $27.3
billion. Congress provided $22.4 billion for discretionary programs for FY2001,
$20.3 billion of which is for medical care. The Administration requested $23.4 billion
for discretionary programs for FY2002; House bill approved $24.05 billion, the
CRS-5
Senate approved $23.83 billion. The Administration requested $21 billion for medical
care for FY2002; the House approved $21.3 billion, the Senate provided $21.4 billion.
For additional information on VA programs, see CRS Report RL30803,
Veterans Issues in the 107th Congress, by Dennis Snook.
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations,
FY1997-FY2001
(budget authority in billions)
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
$40.33
$42.41
$44.25
$46.04
$47.95
Source: Figures for FY1997-FY2000 are from administration budget submissions of subsequent
years; figures for FY2001 are from H.Rept. 107-159, and are the latest available estimates for that
fiscal year. Final spending levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded,
and any supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been included.
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, $25.5 billion was estimated to
have been required for these entitlements, mostly service-connected compensation,
means-tested pensions, and Montgomery GI-Bill education payments. The
entitlement programs are estimated to cost $27.3 billion during FY2002.
Veterans Housing Benefits. Historically, the opportunity for veterans to
have home loans guaranteed by the federal government contributed significantly 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.
Medical Care. Conferees settled on $22.022 billion, including an estimated
$691 million in recycled receipts from cost recoveries, as the amount that would be
available for VA medical care during FY2002. The Administration had requested
$21.671 billion in spending authority for VA medical care for FY2002, an increase of
$750 million over the $20.921 billion approved for FY2001, which was an increase
of nearly $1.3 billion over FY2000. Congress approved $19 billion for FY2000, after
adding $1.7 billion to the Administration’s request of $17.3 billion. The House
approved $21.3 billion for VA medical care programs for FY2002; the Senate version
of the bill provided $21.4 billion. In nominal dollars, VA medical care costs have
increased by 24% over the amount requested 2 fiscal years earlier, an indication of the
blooming demand by veterans for VA medical care.
CRS-6
The following table shows appropriations to VA for FY2001, the
Administration’s request for FY2002, amounts recommended by each House’s
version of H.R. 2620, and the amounts ultimately enacted by Congress and signed by
the President.
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,
FY2001-FY2002
(budget authority in billions)
Program
FY2001
enacted
FY2002
request
FY2002
House
FY2002
Senate
FY2002
enacted
(H.R. 2620)
(S. 1216)
P.L. 107-73
Comp., pension, burial
23.356
24.944
24.944
24.944
24.944
Insurance/indemnities
.020
.026
.026
.026
.026
Housing programs
.166
.204
.204
.204
.204
Readjustment benefits
1.981
2.135
2.135
2.135
2.135
Subtotal: Mandatory
25.522
27.309
27.309
27.309
27.309
Medical carea
20.282
20.980
21.282
21.380
21.331
Med., prosthetic research
.351
.360
.371
.390
.371
Medical Administration
.062
.068
.067
.068
.067
General operating exp.
1.050
1.195
1.196
1.195
1.196
Admin. expense (hsng.)
.163
.165
.165
.165
.165
Nat’l Cemetery Admin.
.110
.121
.121
.121
.121
Inspector General
.046
.048
.052
.048
.052
Construction, major
.066
.183
.183
.155
.183
Facility rehab. fund
--
--
.300
--
--
Construction, minor
.171
.179
.179
.179
.211
Grants; state facilities
.100
.050
.100
.100
.100
Parking, revolving fund
—
.004
.004
.004
.004
State veteran cemeteries
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
Subtotal: Discretionary
22.426
23.377
24.046
23.830
23.827
Subtotal: (VA)
47.948
50.686
51.355
51.139
51.135
Source: H.Rept. 107-159; S.Rept. 107-43; H.Rept. 107-148; H.Rept. 107-272
Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.
a
Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) receipts are restored to the Medical Care account, as an
offset equal to the estimated recovered spending authority ($639 million for FY2001). H.Rept.
107-159 estimates $691 million in MCCF receipts will be restored in FY2002, plus $121
million in receipts to the Health Services Improvement Fund (HSIF), which receives funds
from various consolidations and liquidations of VA capital assets, for a total of $812 million
CRS-7
in recovered spending authority. H.Rept. 107-159 treats HSIF receipts as an offset against
mandatory spending in H.R. 2620, but not specifically as an offset to mandatory spending
totals by VA. S.Rept. 107-43 estimates $691 million in MCCF receipts for FY2002, and is
silent on the HSIF; conferees accepted the Senate approach and estimates.
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 continue increasing, rising above 4 million
annually by the end of FY2001. The long-term decline in inpatient admissions
reversed, with admissions increasing from an average of 78,345 daily inpatients in
FY2000 to an estimated 80,540 in FY2001. Outpatient care is climbing at a faster
rate, and the increase in total patients, combined with additional resources for VA
medical care, probably accounts for the increase in inpatient care, as more patients
examined means more cases identified that might benefit from the intensive services
provided on an inpatient basis.
In spite of the growing caseload, VA estimates that it will reduce the number of
personnel engaged in direct patient care by 1,290 staff slots during FY2002, and total
employment in VA health care will decline by 2,200 slots, according to VA estimates.
VA has enrolled all veterans who applied to its health care plans, which are
administered by VA through 22 regional Veterans Integrated Service Networks
(VISNs). VA considered limiting enrollments during FY2002, but VA Secretary
Principi announced on November 29, 2001 that enrollments of all veterans who
sought enrollment would continue for at least another year.
Receipts to the medical care account from recovered costs. In
addition to funds directly appropriated to VA for medical care, the Congressional
Budget Office estimates that $639 million more in medical care funding was provided
in FY2001 from the Medical Care Cost Collections Fund (MCCF). 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. Proceeds of the fund are returned to VA medical care programs,
primarily to the facilities responsible for their collection. The Millennium Health Care
Act (P.L. 106-117) also made available to the medical care program, proceeds from
improved use of VA capital assets, including rental of space, contracting for services,
and sale of surplus facilities.
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
CRS-8
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
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.
H.Rept. 107-159 estimates that the combined amount of the MCCF, and the
Health Services Improvement Fund (HSIF) will total $812 million for FY2002.
S.Rept. 107-43 does not estimate funds for the HSIF, and accepts the
Administration’s estimate of recoveries of $691 million to the MCCF. Conferees did
not accept the House approach to estimating resources, nor its proposed HSIF, and
accepted the Administration’s estimate, as endorsed by the Senate.
The conferees were concerned about the inability of VA to collect all of the
funds due the MCCF, and instructed the Department to install, in one of the 22
VISNs (but with applicability to all VISNs), using a private contractor and at least $3
million, a 2-year project that demonstrates a total “patient financial services system.”
The conferees emphasized that “an essential element of this demonstration is the
effective use of private sector business services in concert with VA employees.”
Atypical anti-psychotic medications. Over the last few years, some
veterans organizations have become concerned that the shift to more outpatient care
has left seriously mental ill patients without adequate or appropriate treatment. Some
suggest that VA’s push to greater efficiency has led its physicians to prescribe antipsychotic medications according to cost-saving or other non-medical determinations,
rather than choosing the best medication for each particular case. Some suggest that
the emphasis on outpatient care has encouraged a management approach to treatment,
in which the primary objective is to keep patients manageable in an outpatient
modality.
In this view, the treatment plan is not designed with the primary purpose of
improving the patient’s mental health, but to lessen the burden the patient places on
the broader society within which the patient lives. By this view, medications are
primarily used to gain or retain stabilization so that outpatient treatment can continue.
In the event that outpatient treatment is not successful, then the medications are
thought to be intended to keep inpatient mental illness cases manageable with fewer
staff required.
The conferees acknowledged that there is an “abundance of conflicting
information and lack of uniformity across VA’s health system in regard to atypical
anti-psychotic medications.” In addressing the concerns of critics of perceived or
potential VA irregularities in the treatment of mental illness, the conferees stress that
prescribing practices of these drugs “...must not be used as performance indicators
when evaluating a physician’s work; nor should price, market share, and corporate
interest factor into choosing the best drug to treat mental illness...[and VA must]
communicate clearly to each doctor, facility director, and pharmacy manager that
atypical anti-psychotic pharmaceutical prescribing practices are not to be used as a
measure of job performance...physicians are to use their best clinical judgement.”
CRS-9
While the conferees want VA to make its physicians aware “....that there is a
wide price disparity....” among these drugs, and VA “...should feel free to also
communicate relative cost data for all atypical anti-psychotic drugs to its physicians,”
the conferees also direct VA “to keep an open policy with regard to formulating new
schizophrenia and serious mental illness treatment protocols as new treatments
become available, but those protocols should be based on scientific and clinical studies
showing improvements in treatment efficacy or a decrease in side-effects, with cost
savings as a subordinate goal....”
Response to Hepatitis C (HCV). Some 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
(within the VA medical care budget) for the diagnosis and treatment of infected
veterans will rise to $172 million in FY2002, up from $152 million in FY2001, and
$100 million in FY2000. (In documents published in previous years, VA estimated
expenditures on HCV using different accounting methods, and the amounts spent on
HCV appear to be larger than shown here for FY2000-FY2002. The apparent
differences do not indicate policy changes.)
Medical research. The House bill approved $371 million for VA medical
research projects for FY2002; the Senate bill contained $390 million; the Conference
settled on the House level of $371 million. With respect to intellectual property
rights, the conferees directed VA to report to the Committees on Appropriations by
February 1, 2002, on how VA plans to reconcile the interests of its university research
partners as reflected by VA’s sharing agreements with research institutions, and the
federal requirements that are placed on similar agreements utilized by other agencies.
The Administration requested $360 million for FY2002, up from the $351
million Congress appropriated for VA medical research in FY2001. Congress
appropriated $321 million for medical and prosthetic research in FY2000.
VA Construction. The conference agreed with the House level of $183
million for major construction projects for FY2002, and approved $211 million for
minor construction projects. The minor construction level in the final version of the
bill is $32 million more than requested, or approved by either House.
The House had approved the Administration’s request for $183 million for major
construction projects; the Senate version of the bill approved $155 million. The
Administration requested $179 million for minor construction (projects with an
estimated cost under $4 million); both versions of the bill approved that amount.
FY2001 appropriations were $66 million for major construction and $171 million for
minor construction. Congress appropriated $65 million for major construction, and
$160 million for minor construction for FY2000.
Capital asset realignment. VA has developed a comprehensive planning
approach to constructing, altering, extending, or otherwise improving facilities. In
CRS-10
part, this new planning approach, called Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced
Services (CARES), is the Department’s reaction to the criticism it has received from
areas of the country in which hospital resources have been cut back, in order to
redirect those resources to outpatient care, usually in other geographical areas. While
VA has been successful in expanding the number of patients it serves, conflict
continues between advocates of a more efficient use of resources (who advocate
reducing hospital space and closing or selling superfluous inpatient facilities), and
veterans groups (who see any reduction in inpatient care as a threat to the medical
care needs of the veteran population).
The CARES effort is an attempt to make the planning process by which the
capital assets are developed, used, modified, or relinquished, open to veterans groups.
Often, the fears about reductions in health care to veterans are based on an inadequate
understanding of the improvements in care for more veterans that such realignment
of resources makes possible, and the CARES approach may lessen those
misunderstandings.
Some veterans have expressed the belief that, over time, moving resources from
an inpatient facility in one area to outpatient access in another yields an unacceptable
rate of deterioration in the former facility, as the commitment to maintain the building
is diminished as the Department moves toward its eventual abandonment. The House
bill establishes a fund for the rehabilitation of existing facilities for which safety or
seismic concerns exist, and would appropriate $300 million to be used in conjunction
with the CARES process. The purpose of the rehabilitation fund is to assure that
patient safety is not compromised in unsafe facilities, while the realignment of
resources is underway.
Conferees did not adopt the House recommendation, but expressed strong
support of the CARES review process, and specified that $60 million in the major
construction budget is to be used to support CARES initiatives.
Program Administration. The House approved $1.196 billion for General
Operating Expenses (GOE) for FY2002; the Senate approved $1.195; the final bill
uses the House level. The Administration had requested $1.195 billion, up from $1.05
billion in FY2001. The request for FY2002 medical administration funds was $68
million, up from $62 million appropriated for FY2001. The House bill provided $67
million, and the Senate $68 million. The difference between the two versions of the
bill in the administrative cost area is traceable to accounting differences. Conferees
agreed to the House level, and instructed VA to provide detailed accounting of how
VISNs will improve financial management to avoid shortfalls of the kind that required
3 VISNs to seek supplemental funding during the second consecutive year. 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 204,670 in FY2002, down from an estimated average of
205,896 in FY2001, and 202,621 in FY2000. Much of the decline will be in medical
staff.
CRS-11
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.
Summary: Appropriations for HUD Programs. Conferees provided
HUD with $30.15 billion for FY2002, a $1.67 billion (6%) increase above the
FY2001 level of $28.48 billion, but $433 million less than the Administration’s
request. Conferees provided more than half of the HUD budget, a total of $16.28
billion (including $640 million made available by reducing Section 8 reserve funds) to
renew all Section 8 expiring contracts, add an additional 25,900 vouchers, and pay for
contract administration and various tenant protection assistance.
Conferees approved nearly $3.5 billion for the Public Housing Operating Fund,
an increase of $253 million over last year’s level, but required that Drug Elimination
Grants be paid from the fund. In FY2001, Drug Elimination Grants were funded
separately at $310 million. The Public Housing Capital Fund received $2.84 billion,
a decrease of $157 million from last year. Conferees agreed to $574 million for the
HOPE VI program. Housing for people with AIDS was funded at $277 million, up
by $19 million from last year’s appropriation. Housing programs for the elderly and
disabled were given $1.024 billion; of that amount, $241 million was specified for
housing for the disabled, an increase of $24 million for those housing assistance
programs. Conferees agreed to $1.12 billion for Homeless Assistance Grants, $98
million above last year’s appropriation. However, that level includes the funding for
the Shelter Plus Care Renewal program, which was funded during FY2001 by a
separate appropriation of $100 million.
Community Development Block Grants received $5 billion, about $58 million
less than last year. The HOME program received $1.85 billion, $46 million more than
the FY2001 funding level. Empowerment Zones received $45 million compared to
$75 million last year and the Administration’s request for $150 million.
Improving HUD management. HUD Secretary Martinez has said he intends
to focus on internal HUD management issues, and wait for the recommendations of
the Millennial Housing Commission (due early in 2002) before starting new initiatives
or programs. Although a recent GAO study found improvements in HUD operations
(HUD Management: Progress Made on Management Reforms, but Challenges
Remain), GAO found that serious problems remain. Secretary Martinez said he
would consider consolidating some of the more than 300 HUD programs, as well as
speeding up the decision-making process by giving HUD field offices more authority
to act without having to get approval from headquarters. The Secretary also said he
intended to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of HUD staff (now at about
10,000, down from a high of 17,000), and whether the work performed by them is
appropriate to HUD’s mission. The GAO report questioned whether HUD had
CRS-12
adequately prepared for replacing retiring employees with knowledgeable successors,
given that 40% of HUD’s employees are eligible to retire within 5 years.
Management of unspent funds. In recent years, problems in obtaining
accurate and timely information about the nature, amount, and availability of unspent
balances has made it difficult for Congress to determine the policy effect of any
specific funding level for a number of HUD programs. The problem has been
particularly concentrated in the two main rental housing assistance programs, the
Housing Certificate Fund, and the public housing programs, which together account
for nearly 75% of the $30 billion appropriated to HUD for FY2002.
Much of the problem arises from the need for HUD to disburse its funding
assistance to semi-autonomous local entities, known as Public Housing Authorities
(PHAs). PHAs evaluate a specific eligible family’s housing needs, generally
addressing these needs by providing housing vouchers. Ideally, the supply of suitable
units available in the local community would be adequate for families to make use of
their vouchers, but evidence abounds that this ideal is rarely matched by experience.
PHAs also manage over 1.2 million public housing units. While PHAs are usually in
the best position to manage the problems arising from particular cases and localized
housing issues, the downward flow of HUD funds reflects national priorities
determined by Congress and administered by HUD. Inevitably, incomplete and
delayed procedures make tracking the funds somewhat difficult and often imprecise,
as the flexibility necessary to achieve policy purposes can conflict with accounting
cycles.
In testimony before the Senate’s Banking Subcommittee on Housing and
Transportation, GAO noted that HUD had recaptured (or taken back from PHAs)
about $3 billion each year between fiscal year 1998 and 2000, and that Congress has
rescinded (cancelled) almost $2 billion from Housing Certificate Fund (HCF) balances
in each of the past 2 years, using the funds for other purposes. In its FY2001
appropriation, Congress provided the HCF with $4.2 billion in advanced
appropriations that will be available for spending in FY2002, and GAO asked how
much additional funding is actually needed for the Fund for FY2002, given the
combination of recaptures, rescissions, and advance appropriations. The $4.2 billion
was not designated for any program activity in FY2002, and the GAO concluded that
“[w]hile HUD may need to carry over some unobligated funds from one fiscal year
to the next, HUD has not provided rationale supporting $4.2 billion as the amount of
unobligated balances it needs...” (The FY2002 HUD budget passed by Congress on
November 8, 2001, also contains a $4.2 billion advance appropriation, for which full
spending authority will be delayed until FY2003.)
Thus, the amounts appropriated in recent years for particular programs have
become less of an indicator of what was spent the previous year, during that year, or
during the following year. HUD reports that there was a total unexpended balance
of over $36 billion in various HUD program accounts during FY2001.
The matter of unspent funds prompted debate over HUD’s proposal to cut $707
million from the public housing capital fund for FY2001. Earlier in the year, HUD
estimated that PHAs had over $6 billion in unspent funds for public housing, which
was more than adequate to fund 2 years at the current spending rate, and concluded
CRS-13
that putting more funds into the pipeline was not necessary. PHAs countered that
HUD had been slow in getting the funds out to them, a claim acknowledged by HUD.
Conferees addressed the issue of unspent funds in a number of ways. Of the
$2.84 billion approved for the public housing capital funds, $550 million is to be
allocated only to those PHAs that are in compliance with timeliness requirements
under the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. P.L. 107-73
includes language that requires the recapture of funds from PHAs that are not in
compliance with the 1998 Act’s timeliness requirements. The conferees also request
HUD to provide quarterly reports on PHA utilization of capital funds, with the first
report due by February 1, 2002.
Debates over the use of “excess” mortgage insurance premiums
to fund HUD rental production programs. Some analysts have identified what
they believe is a surplus of reserves in the basic FHA mortgage insurance program.
In their view, funds collected as mortgage insurance premiums that exceed the rate
at which payments must be made to cover insured events (plus a reasonable
contingency reserve), should be put to a public policy purpose, rather than allowed
to languish in a federal account with no particular advantage accruing to anyone as
a result of the growing balance. Several “National Affordable Housing Trust Fund”
bills in the 107th Congress, for example, H.R. 2349 and S. 1248, reflect this view.
Another view suggests that instead of using a growing balance in the fund for an
unrelated purpose, the premiums should be lowered to more closely approximate the
actual experience of mortgage insurance liabilities (for example, S. 607).
During the past decade, mortgage insurance premiums, the main income of the
FHA single-family program, have greatly exceeded the losses from mortgage
foreclosures. The $5 billion of reserves frequently cited over the past few years as a
potential source of income for a rental housing production program, was the excess
of premiums over expenditures and reserves during FY1998-FY1999. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) recently reclassified these excess reserves (above the required “capital ratio”),
no longer treating the entire amount of the growing fund balance as unobligated
“mandatory” spending authority, but treating the amount determined as excess as
unobligated “discretionary” spending authority.
The effect of this “scoring” change, meant that, at least in part, the FY2001
estimate of VA/HUD appropriations was revised downward from $30.7 billion to
$28.5 billion, as approximately $2.25 billion of FHA “negative subsidies” were moved
from an accounting category of unobligated mandatory spending, to the discretionary
side of the ledger, which shows them as unspent discretionary funds. The conference
report for the FY2002 HUD budget (H.Rept. 107-272) shows $2.32 billion of
negative subsidies. As a result of the accounting change, these negative subsidies
reduce the apparent total of appropriations to HUD for discretionary programs, and
are subtracted from that fiscal year’s discretionary appropriation.
Because these excess reserves were already within the federal budget (and until
recently, at least, contributing to the budget surplus), they are not excess funds from
the perspective of the federal budget or to federal taxpayers. Premiums paid to the
insurance account are federal revenues; payments from the account are federal
CRS-14
expenditures. Any excess of revenues over expenditures contributes to the federal
surplus (or would offset a federal deficit, if one exists). The excess in the insurance
account can be drawn down for other HUD programs, but such a proposal must go
through the normal appropriation process: it would be spending authority that is
ultimately drawn from federal revenues, and counted within the federal budget
accordingly. Thus, any projected fund excess that is reclassified as discretionary
cannot be treated as new money that previously had not been counted within federal
budget totals.
An undated written CBO response to the House Financial Services Housing
Subcommittee explains that, after extensive discussion, CBO and OMB agreed to
reclassify the FHA’s Mutual Mortgage Insurance and Cooperative Housing Mortgage
Insurance (MMI/CHMI) fund excess as “discretionary” rather than “mandatory,”
clearing the way for the excess to be offset against other discretionary spending in the
upcoming VA-HUD appropriations bill, as well as in the totals for HUD
appropriations over the last several years. The CBO memorandum says that the
change in the scoring method should have no effect on the amount of budgetary
resources available to HUD or any congressional committee.
A February 2001 GAO report (Mortgage Financing: FHA’s Fund Has Grown,
but Options for Drawing on the Fund Have Uncertain Outcomes; GAO-01-460)
concluded that the FHA may actually have taken on more high-risk borrowers in
recent years and as a result, may need more reserves than immediate past experience
suggests is necessary, in order to weather a serious economic downturn. With
increasing unemployment and an FHA loan delinquency rate over 10%, the FHA
reserve fund could begin to decrease. In any event, using the insurance fund to build
more affordable rental housing would have to go through the normal appropriation
process regardless of the amount of existing FHA insurance reserves. The reserve is
simply an account balance within the budget, not a source of unspent funds available
for reprogramming without further effect on the federal budget, or to taxpayers.
Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations, FY1997 to FY2001
(budget authority in billions)
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
$16.30
$21.44
$24.08
$25.92
$28.48a
Source: Figures for FY1997-FY2000 are from administration budget submissions of subsequent
years; figures for FY2001 are from H.Rept. 107-159, and are the latest available estimates for that
fiscal year. Final spending levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded,
and any supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been included.
a
Reflects $1.83 billion in rescissions required by P.L. 106-377; also includes $-2.246 billion in
excess mortgage insurance premiums (scored as an offset against discretionary spending
within the Federal Housing Administration). Because of the scoring change, the estimate for
FY2001 is not comparable to figures shown for previous fiscal years.
CRS-15
The Major Housing Policy Issue: Affordable Rental Housing. The
slower economy of the last several quarters could limit rent increases in some areas
of the country, but it is unlikely to bring significant relief to lower-income households
looking for affordable rental housing. The strong economy of the previous half dozen
years created a large number of new jobs and increased incomes, putting substantial
pressures on housing markets. Increased demands lowered vacancy rates and pushed
rents higher, as more people entered the rental market with sufficient incomes to
avoid sharing apartments and houses. While this increased demand encouraged more
units to be built, rents for these new dwellings are almost always out of the range of
lower income families. Restrictive zoning, building codes, and local opposition have
made it difficult to construct basic 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, thereby contributing
to the difficulty tenants have in finding affordable apartments. With more profitable
alternatives available, some rental property owners have decided not to renew their
federal contracts. Older apartment buildings with lower rent units continue to be torn
down or renovated for an upscale market, as the tight rental market pressures
generate more profitable alternatives for investors in rental housing. Fewer apartment
owners in the suburbs of metropolitan areas are willing to rent to subsidized tenants,
either because the owners want to avoid bureaucratic program “red tape” or because
the value of the voucher is not sufficient for subsidized tenants to afford the units.
Early in 2001, HUD reported that American Housing Survey data from the U.S.
Census Bureau showed a drop from 1997 to 1999 in the number of “worst case”
renters – those who pay more than half their income for housing or live in substandard
housing, and have incomes below 50% of the local median, but who receive no
assistance.1 Their numbers fell for the first time in 10 years, from 5.4 million
households in 1997 to 4.9 million in 1999. This decline was likely the result of
increases in income among very-low income renters, rather than an expansion in the
number of rental housing units affordable to them. The median incomes of this group
rose 14%, while rents rose 6%.
The National Housing Conference (NHC) has also examined 1997 and 1999
American Housing Survey data, looking at households with critical housing needs –
those paying more than 50% of their income for housing – but focused on those with
moderate to lower middle-incomes. These are households with incomes from 80%
to 120% of the local median income. In February 2001, the NHC reported that the
number of such households with critical housing needs had increased 74%. These
households are much less likely to receive rental assistance than those with incomes
below 50% of the local median.
Thus, the NHC concluded that affordable housing problems had moved up the
income ladder. Media attention has focused on the trouble public safety officers,
teachers, fire fighters, and other municipal employees, who generally fall into this 80%
1
A Report On Worst Case Housing Needs In 1999: New Opportunity Amid Continuing
Challenges. Executive Summary. January 2001. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Office of Policy Development and Research.
CRS-16
to 120% median income category, have been having in finding affordable housing.
A June 2000 NHC report stated 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 officers across the country spend more than half
their income for housing, and the problem is growing worse.”2
After a long hiatus, Congress appropriated money for 50,000 additional housing
vouchers in FY1999, 60,000 in FY2000, and 79,000 in FY2001 (bringing the
estimated total number of vouchers to about 1.4 million in FY2001). The
Administration proposed an additional 34,000 for FY2002. However, the
Committees on Appropriations have become concerned about the difficulty that some
PHAs have in putting these vouchers to use. H.Rept. 107-159 reports that the
average utilization of vouchers has fallen from 96.7% in FY1999, to an estimated
92.4% in FY2001. The conference agreement (H.Rept. 107-272) specifies that $144
million will be given to fund 25,900 additional vouchers for FY2002. In an effort to
get PHAs to be more proactive and creative in making use of all of their vouchers,
conferees made $104 million of the $144 million available on a fair share basis only
to those PHAs that have no less than a 97% utilization rate of their existing vouchers.
In 39 tight rental markets, HUD now permits the allowable rent level (Fair
Market Rents or FMRs) for rental units eligible for subsidization to be based on the
50th percentile for the local rental housing market, rather than the previous 40th
percentile. To increase the chances of families being able to use their vouchers, last
year’s appropriations bill allowed public housing authorities to increase, under certain
circumstances, their payments for assisted rents under Section 8, to a maximum of
150% of the FMR. Other expected improvements to make vouchers more effective
include help by PHAs in paying security deposits, giving counseling to PHAs on how
to be more aggressive in reaching out to landlords, and giving landlords more
incentives to participate in the rental program. Finally, HUD has promised to improve
its acknowledged tardiness in getting funds to PHAs in a timely manner.
The voucher utilization issue has led to discussions about the need for a HUD
rental housing production program (along with a renewed determination to preserve
the existing stock of affordable rental housing). The Senate Committee on
Appropriations expressed its concern that “families with vouchers often have little
choice in their rental decisions, leaving them often in low-income and very lowincome neighborhoods and living in substandard 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. However,
Congress enacted P.L. 106-554 in 2000, which increases the Low Income Housing
Tax Credit by 40%, in an effort to stimulate additional affordable rental housing
production by a projected 30,000 units a year.
2
The Center for Housing Policy (a research affiliate of the National Housing Conference),
Housing America’s Working Families, New Century Housing (Washington, D.C.), June
2000, p. 2.
CRS-17
For additional information on housing issues, see CRS Report RL30916,
Housing Issues in the 107th Congress, by Richard Bourdon. See also CRS Report
RL30486, Housing the Poor: Federal Programs for Low-Income Families.
Lower income and minority homeownership initiatives. In early
2001, Secretary Martinez said he would limit new initiatives to those presented by the
President in his election campaign, including a proposal that homeownership
opportunities would be expanded for lower income and minority families. The current
homeowner rate for minorities, and for many central cities, is below 50%, while the
rate for non-Hispanic whites reached a record 74.6% in the third quarter of 2001.
Several of the Administration’s proposed homeownership initiatives are within HUD;
a fourth proposes changes to the tax code.
One initiative would set aside $200 million from the HOME program for an
American Dream Down Payment Fund, to provide a 3-for-1 match of third-party
contributions, up to a maximum of $1,500. The House agreed to $200 million for this
initiative, but the Senate bill did not contain any funding. Conferees approved $50
million for this new program.
Under a second initiative, HUD will seek authority to allow the FHA to offer
low-income families hybrid adjustable rate mortgages that would have lower rates for
an initial number of years (for example, the first 3, 5, or 7 years), with annual
adjustments thereafter, indexed to Treasury securities. A third initiative would create
a $1.7 billion tax credit over 5 years to support the rehabilitation or new construction
of an estimated 100,000 homes for purchase by low-income households.
Table 6. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,
FY2001-FY2002
(budget authority in billions)
FY2002
House
FY2002
Senate
FY2002
Confer.
(H.R. 2620)
(S. 1216)
(H.R. 2620)
FY2001
Enacted
FY2002
Request
Housing certificate fund
Appropriation
Advance appropriation
Sec.8 recaptures
(rescissions)
13.941
9.741
4.200
15.717
15.717
--
15.694
11.494
4.200
15.659
11.459
4.200
15.641
11.441
4.200
-1.947
–
-.886
-.615
-1.200
Public housing capital fund
3.000
2.293
2.555
2.943
2.843
Pub. housing operat. fund
3.242
3.385
3.495
3.385
3.495
Drug elimination grants
.310
--
–
.300
--
Revitalization of distressed
public housing (HOPE
VI)
.575
.574
.574
.574
.574
Native American housing
block grants
.650
.649
.649
.649
.649
Indian housing loan guar.
.006
.006
.006
.006
.006
Program
CRS-18
Program
Native Hawaiian loan
guar.
FY2001
Enacted
FY2002
Request
FY2002
House
FY2002
Senate
FY2002
Confer.
(H.R. 2620)
(S. 1216)
(H.R. 2620)
–
–
–
.001
.001
Hsng., persons with AIDS
.258
.277
.277
.277
.277
Rural Housing; Economic
Development
.025
--
–
.025
.025
.200
.150
–
.075
.045
Community Devel. Blk.
Granta
5.124
4.802
4.812
5.013
5.000
Sec.108 loan guar.;
subsidy
.030
.015
.015
.015
.015
Brownfields redevelopment
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
HOME Invest.
Partnerships
1.800
1.796
1.996
1.796
1.846
Homeless Assist. Grants
1.025
1.023
1.028
1.023
1.123
Shelter Plus Care Renew.
.100
.100
–
.100
--
.996
1.001
1.024
1.001
1.024
.779
.217
.783
.218
.783
.241
.783
.218
.783
.241
-1.341
-1.671
-1.707
-1.671
-1.671
GNMA (net)c
-.338
-.373
-.373
-.373
-.373
Research and technology
.054
.043
.047
.053
.050
Fair housing activities
.046
.046
.046
.046
.046
Office of lead hazard
control
.100
.110
.110
.110
.110
--
.002
–
--
--
Salaries and expenses
.543
.556
.546
.546
.556
Inspector General
.053
.062
.062
.067
.067
--
-.007
-.015
-.015
-.026
28.476
30.581
29.980
31.014
30.148
Empowerment zones;
enterprise communities
Housing for special
populations
Housing for the elderly
Housing for the disabled
Federal Housing Admin.
(net)b
Millenial Housing Comm.
Rescissions; legislative
savings
Subtotal (HUD) net
Source: H.Rept. 107-159; S.Rept. 107-43; H.Rept. 107-148; H.Rept. 107-272
Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.
a
P.L. 106-554, FY2001 appropriations for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human
Services (Labor-HHS), included $110 million for HUD’s empowerment zones program, and
CRS-19
$66 million for CDBG, and those amounts are incorporated into the program baseline for
FY2001.
b
Net, interagency transfers and offsetting receipts against appropriations of the current year;
included in the totals are experience gains on premiums to the mortgage insurance fund, which
are now treated as offsetting receipts against discretionary funds. The effect is estimated to
be $-2.246 billion for FY2001, and $-2.323 billion for FY2002.
c
Net, interagency transfers and offsetting receipts against appropriations of the current year.
Housing Certificate Fund: A Closer Look. The Housing Certificate Fund
(HCF) is the major disbursing mechanism through which HUD provides funding to
local entities responsible for administering project-based housing programs and direct
low-income rental housing subsidies (vouchers). The Administration requested $15.7
billion for the Housing Certificate Fund in FY2002, for an increase of $1.8 billion over
the FY2001 funding level of $13.9 billion. Of this amount, $197 million was for
34,000 incremental vouchers to add new families to the assisted housing roles.
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. Almost 3 million families are
assisted under Section 8. The largest portion of the Administration’s request for new
funding was for subsidized rental contracts, including $15.1 billion in new budget
authority for funds to renew expiring Section 8 rental contracts in FY2002.
The House agreed to a total of $16.3 billion for the Housing Certificate Fund,
including $15.7 billion in direct appropriations (plus $640 million carryover from
reserve funds of previous years – see below) for the Housing Certificate Fund. The
House agreed to $197 million for 34,000 incremental vouchers, with $40 million setaside for 7,914 new vouchers for disabled residents affected by public housing units
designated as “elderly only.” The House bill also required that $886 million be
rescinded from unobligated balances remaining from funds appropriated for FY2001
and prior years.
The Senate version of the bill recommended $15.7 billion in direct appropriations
for the Housing Certificate Fund, the same as the House. An additional 17,000
vouchers were to be funded at $99 million, compared to the 34,000 requested by the
Administration and agreed to by the House. The Senate explained that this reduction
(below the Administration’s request) reflected the concerns of the Committee that
vouchers are not always the best mechanism to help low-income families obtain
affordable housing. The Senate version of the bill called for a rescission of $615
million of unobligated Section 8 balances.
P.L. 107-73 appropriates $15.6 billion for the HCF. Conferees specified that an
additional $640 million will be available to the HCF from a carryover that was the
result of reducing reserve funds made available to PHAs, bringing the total funding
available for the Fund in FY2002 to $16.28 billion. Most of the funds, $15.725
billion, will be used for the renewal of Section 8 contracts. Funding is also provided
for 26,900 incremental vouchers ($144 million). Of this amount, $104 million is to
fund 18,000 vouchers, to be distributed on a fair share basis to PHAs having a
voucher utilization rate of at least 97%, with the remaining $40 million to be used for
7,900 vouchers for disabled residents who are affected by the designation of public
CRS-20
and other assisted housing as “elderly-only” developments. The conference
agreement also provided funding for contract administration ($196 million) and tenant
protection ($203 million) under this program. In addition, conferees rescinded $1.2
billion from unobligated balances available from the recapture of excessive Section 8
funds.
The following table shows the Administration’s request for FY2002 funding for
the Housing Certificate Fund compared with House and Senate recommendations,
and the final amounts appropriated by the conferees.
Table 7. Spending Authority: Housing Certificate Fund
(HCF), FY2002
($ in billions)
President’s
request
(HUD
estimates)
House
Senate
Conf.
(H.R. 2620)
(S. 1216)
(H.R. 2620)
Housing Certificate Fund
15.717
16.334
15.659
16.281
FY2002 Appropriations (Table 6)
15.717
15.694
15.659
15.641
Carry-over of reserve funds from
previous fiscal years
--
.640
--
.640
15.108
(.046)
.197
-–
-.203
.196
.013
15.725
(.046)
.197
(.157)
(.040)
-.203
.196
.013
15.507
-.099
(.099)
-.040
--.013
15.725
-.144
(.104)
(.040)
-.203
.196
.013
HCF Programs
Housing Certificate Fund:
Expiring Sec. 8 Contracts
FSS coordinators
Incremental Vouchers
Fair-share
Non-elderly disabled
Non-elderly disabled vouchers
Tenant Protection
Contract Administration
Working capital fund
Source: HUD: Congressional Justifications for FY2002; H.Rept. 107-159; S.Rept. 107-43; H.Rept.
107-272.
Note: Italics indicate lines subsumed under major heading for HCF in Table 6 and Table 7.
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. The proposed budget for FY2002 says that HUD is committed to
sustaining and improving the Nation’s public housing.
CRS-21
Public Housing Operating Fund. HUD requested $3.39 billion for the
Operating Fund for FY2002, an increase of $143 million over the FY2001 level of
$3.24 billion, an increase that partly offsets higher utility costs. The House agreed to
$3.49 billion for the operating fund in FY2002. H.Rept. 107-159 explained that the
increase is in lieu of funding for Drug Elimination grants, noting that operating funds
can, and are being used for anti-drug and anti-crime efforts by PHAs. The report
points out that only 1,000 of the 3,400 PHAs receive funding under the Drug
Elimination formula grants program, with four PHAs receiving 25% of the total
funding available. The House recommended that $20 million of the $3.5 billion be
made available for programs, determined by the Attorney General, which assist in the
prosecution and prevention of violent crimes and drug offenses in public and
federally-assisted low-income housing. The $20 million would be administered by the
Department of Justice.
The Senate recommended $3.39 billion in FY2002 to run public housing,
following the Administration’s request. (It also provided $300 million for Drug
Elimination Grants, continuing the program.)
P.L. 107-73 provides $3.49 billion to the Public Housing Operating Fund for
FY2002, the same as the House recommended – an increase of $253 million above
the FY2001 appropriation. The funds will remain available until September 30, 2003.
The conference agreement explains that the increase over last year’s funding reflects
the merger of funds previously provided in the Drug Elimination Grants program (that
will be ended). The conferees note that PHAs have the authority to use their
operating and capital funds for anti-crime and anti-drug activities, and that only onethird of PHAs received supplemental funding under the Drug Elimination Grants
program. To the extent that additional assistance might be required by some PHAs
to combat crime and drugs, there will be $10 million for programs determined and
administered by the Attorney General to assist in the investigation, prosecution, and
prevention of violent crimes and drug offenses in public and federally-assisted lowincome housing, including Indian housing. The conference agreement assumes the
termination of the Operation Safe House program and rescinds $11 million of
unobligated balances from this program.
Public Housing Capital Fund. This fund provides formula grants to PHAs
to meet modernization requirements, including the backlog of rehabilitation and
modernization needs. The rehabilitation of existing public housing developments is
important to help ensure that they do not become so obsolete that they must be
demolished. The Administration’s proposed FY2002 budget would have provided
$2.293 billion for the Public Housing Capital Fund, a reduction of $707 million
compared to FY2001. Because HUD estimates that additional capital needs are
accruing at an annual rate of $2.1 billion, and that PHAs have more than $6 billion of
unspent capital funds from prior years, HUD believes that this amount would be
sufficient to meet all new modernization requirements.
Reducing new appropriations for capital funds reduces previously appropriated
funds that have not been expended by PHAs. While HUD recognizes that these funds
are primarily for capital improvement projects, it nevertheless expects PHAs to
obligate these funds within 24 months and expend them in 48 months. HUD has
concluded that, while not all PHAs are falling behind in scheduled modernization, the
CRS-22
buildup of unobligated and unexpended funds by some PHAs suggests that
modernization funds may not be reaching the PHAs with the greatest need or
capacity.
HUD reports that as of June 1, 2001, nearly $4.7 billion of funds provided in
FY1998, 1999 and 2000 had not been spent, and $2.7 billion of this amount had not
been obligated (put under contract). HUD plans to review, and where necessary,
modify the capital fund program to ensure a timely and effective reduction of the
nearly $20 billion backlog of modernization and rehabilitation needs. The HUD
Secretary has reassured PHAs that are utilizing their allocations that they will not be
penalized by efforts to reduce unspent funds in the pipeline, and that instead, funds
will be reallocated to PHAs with demonstrable success in meeting their program
objectives.
The House agreed to $2.56 billion for the capital fund. The Committee noted
in its report that as of June 1, 2001, $733 million in FY1998 and FY1999 funds
remained unobligated by PHAs, with 25 PHAs accounting for 73% of these unspent
funds. Thus, the House bill specified that $262 million would be allocated among
public housing agencies that have obligated all of their assistance within the 24-month
statutory requirement. The HUD Secretary would be required to recapture FY1999
and prior year funds that have not been obligated within the required period under the
law and redistribute those funds to PHAs that are in compliance.
The Senate approved $2.94 billion for the capital fund, $650 million above the
President’s request.
P.L. 107-73 provides $2.84 billion, to remain available until September 30, 2005.
Of this amount, $550 million was to be reserved for those public housing agencies
that had obligated all assistance from the agency for FY1998 and FY1999. Language
requires HUD to approve at the level of Deputy Secretary, any extension of the time
periods required under the law to obligate amounts made available for FY1998, 1999,
2000, 2001, or 2002. Under certain circumstances, amounts in the capital fund made
available for FY1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, are to be recaptured and reallocated
among PHAs that are not in violation of the time limits. Up to $75 million is to be
made available for grants to PHAs for capital needs resulting from emergencies and
natural disasters in FY2002. In addition, $15 million is to be made available to PHAs
for a Neighborhood Networks initiative that will make competitive awards to PHAs
for the establishment and initial operation of computer centers in and around public
housing to close the “digital divide” and enhance resident employability and economic
self-reliance.
HOPE VI Revitalization of Distressed Public Housing. HUD is
transforming public housing through the use of HOPE VI grants by rehabilitating or
demolishing severely distressed public housing units and replacing them with lowdensity, garden-style apartments or townhouses to be occupied by mixed-income
families. Unless it is reauthorized, the HOPE VI program is scheduled to end on
September 30, 2002, but HUD plans to ask for an extension of the program.
The Administration requested $578 million for HOPE VI grants in FY2002,
nearly level with the $575 million enacted for FY2001. Both the House and Senate
CRS-23
agreed to provide funding for the HOPE VI program for FY2002 at nearly the level
requested by the Administration. The Senate committee report expresses concern that
HUD may not meet its goal of demolishing 100,000 public housing units by the end
of FY2002 when the program’s authorizing statute expires. It directed HUD to
advise it on what form this program should take after authorization ends.
Conferees approved $578 million for HOPE VI grants for FY2002, of which $5
million is designated for the Neighborhood Networks Initiative. This amount, along
with $15 million under the public housing capital fund and an additional $5 million in
current on-going projects, will provide a total of $25 million for the Neighborhood
Networks program in FY2002.
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 Drug Elimination Grants program received
an appropriation of $310 million for FY2001. These grants support efforts to reduce
drug activity and other crimes in and around public housing developments. 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.
In recent years there has been some controversy over how grant money has been
spent, such as using money for gun buy-back programs to lessen the number of guns
in a community. Last year’s Senate Report, 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.
In one of the more controversial parts of HUD’s proposed FY2002 budget, the
Administration would eliminate the program, contending that there have been abuses
and that the program is outside of HUD’s core mission. In testimony before the
House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies (May 23, 2001), Secretary Martinez reported $660 million of unspent funds
in the drug elimination program.
The HUD budget for FY2002 proposed to consolidate and streamline the
Department’s anti-drug use activities. While ending the Drug Elimination Grants,
they proposed to increase the Public Housing Operating Fund by $150 million for
anti-drug activities and other purposes as decided by local priorities. Housing
authorities would be encouraged to continue major partnerships with local police
departments. In addition, the Department would continue to work closely with other
federal agencies such as Justice, Health and Human Services and the Office of
National Drug Control Policy to administer proven prevention and intervention
programs, and with faith-based organizations that also provide treatment and
counseling.
The House followed the Administration’s request and would provide no funding
for the Drug Elimination Program for FY2002. The Senate approved $300 million
CRS-24
for Drug Elimination Grants in FY2002. Conferees provided no funding for this
program but, as explained under the Public Housing section above, additional funding
for anti-drug and anti-crime efforts were made through an increase in the Public
Housing Operating Fund in lieu of funding Drug Elimination Grants as a separate
program. PHAs will be allowed to spend their existing Drug Elimination Grants. The
conferees noted that over the last six years, more than $9 billion in new federal
assistance had been provided through the Department of Justice for over 110,000 new
police offices in local communities and to establish 1,000 new Boys and Girls clubs
exclusively in public housing.
Native American Block Grants. This block grant provides tribes or tribally
designated housing entities with a flexible source of funding for affordable housing
and related activities. As provided in the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act, block grant funds may be used for a wide range of
homeownership and rental activities. The Administration’s FY2002 budget requested
$649 million, slightly below the $650 million enacted in FY2001. The House, Senate,
and the conference agreed to $649 million for FY2002, the same as the President’s
request.
Community Planning and Development. HUD has several programs and
initiatives to assist communities with difficult housing issues, and with planning and
development of housing programs.
Housing for Persons with Aids (HOPWA). The President requested $277
million for HOPWA for FY2002, up $19 million from the $258 million enacted in
FY2001 (including the 0.22% reduction which was mandated last year). And
Congress, agreeing with the Administration, funded HOPWA with $277 million for
FY2002. HUD is required to renew all expiring HOPWA contracts for permanent
supportive housing funded under the non-formula component of the program so long
as the projects meet all other program requirements. Two million dollars of the total
appropriated funds may be used for training, oversight and technical assistance
activities. HOPWA provides grants to states, localities and nonprofit organizations
to meet the housing need of individuals with HIV/AIDS and their families.
HUD reported in December 2000, that the HOPWA program predominately
serves extremely low-income (54%) and very low-income (27%) persons living with
HIV/AIDS and that in 1999 the HOPWA program was providing housing assistance
to approximately 49,000 low-income persons living with HIV or AIDS. This is
approximately one-sixth of the estimated 311,701 persons living with AIDS in the
United States as of June 2000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). The CDC reported that through June 2000, the number of HIV
infections reported in states with confidential HIV reporting (34 states and two
territories) was 120,223 for a cumulative total of 431,924 persons identified as being
HIV positive or of having AIDS. The total of HIV positive persons is believed to be
considerably higher.
For more information on HOPWA, see CRS Report RS20704, Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) by M. Ann Wolfe.
CRS-25
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, $25 million was appropriated. The proposed FY2002
HUD budget did not include a request for funds for this program because the
Administration claimed that it duplicates several programs, including CDBG and those
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The House version of the bill did not fund this
program, agreeing with the Administration that the program is redundant. The Senate
approved $25 million for this program. Conferees approved $25 million with
language requiring that the funds be awarded competitively by June 1, 2002.
Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. This initiative is
an interagency effort to promote economic development and community revitalization
in distressed areas by directing tax relief and federal funds to designated
Empowerment Zones (EZs) and Enterprise Communities (ECs). EZs and ECs are
eligible for a variety of different tax credits and other incentives designed to stimulate
investment and economic growth. EZs and ECs also receive federal funding for
revitalization activities. Grants are used for a wide variety of activities that assist
residents and businesses, including workforce preparation and job creation efforts
linked to welfare reform; neighborhood development; support for financing capital
projects; financing of projects in conjunction with Section 108 loans or other
economic development projects. Funds are also used for rental assistance and other
housing assistance, policing and healthcare.
To date, there have been two rounds of EZ/EC designations. In the first round,
nine communities (six urban and three rural) were designated as Empowerment Zones
and 95 communities were named as Enterprise Communities. Twenty new
Empowerment Zones – 15 urban and five rural – were designated in the Round II
competition, along with 20 new Enterprise Communities, all rural. HUD is
responsible for providing each of the 15 Round II urban Empowerment Zones with
$10 million in annual funding. As funding to date has lagged behind this committed
level, HUD is seeking full funding of $150 million for FY2002, $50 million less than
the $200 million appropriated in FY2001.
The conference agreement approved $45 million for urban Empowerment Zones
for FY2002, including $3 million each for the 15 Round II zones designated by HUD.
The House would have provided no funding for Empowerment Zones and enterprise
communities in FY2002. H.Rept. 107-159 stated that financial constraints prevented
the appropriation of funds for Round II Empowerment Zones at this time. The Senate
agreed to $75.0 million, half of the President’s request of $150 million.
Community Development Fund (Community Development Block
Grants). P.L. 106-377 established the Community Development Fund (CDF) to
support federal financial administrative responsibilities which had been previously
managed as an administrative function of the Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG) program. The Bush Administration’s FY2002 budget proposed $4.8 billion
for the CDF to provide $4.399 billion in formula-based funds to CDBG entitlement
communities and states. The Administration’s budget request would have frozen the
formula-based portion of the program at the FY2001 funding level, but would reduce
the amount of funding for set asides by 43%, from $713 million to $403 million.
CRS-26
Much of the proposed $310 million reduction would have been achieved by
eliminating funding for the Economic Development Initiative.
The House recommended an appropriation of $4.812 billion for the Community
Development Fund. This was $10 million more than requested by the Administration,
but $312 million less than appropriated for FY2001. The House bill included $413
million in set-asides. The Senate version of the bill would have appropriated $5.013
billion for the CDBG program and related set-asides. The bill would have
appropriated $4.524 billion for the formula-based component of the CDBG program.
This was $113 million more than the $4.411 billion provided for FY2001. The bill
also included $489 million in CDBG-related set-asides. This exceeded the amount
requested by the Administration ($403 million) and approved by the House ($413
million).
The conference provided $4.341 billion for the formula-based CDBG program
and $659 million in CDBG-related set-asides. The set-asides include $294 million in
funding for Economic Development Initiative grants identified in the conference
agreement. The $659 million in set-asides exceeds the $403 million requested by the
Administration, but is $54 million less than appropriated in FY2001. This is $63
million less than the $357 million in FY2001 EDI earmarked funds. Congress also
included funds for a number of other CDBG-related programs, including $65 million
for Youthbuild; $55 for Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services Grants; $42
million for the Neighborhood Initiative Program; $29 million for Capacity Building
for Community Development and Affordable Housing Grants.
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. Currently, 991 communities (838 cities and 153 urban counties) meet the
definition of entitlement community. The remaining 30% of appropriated funds were
allocated by formula to states for distribution to nonentitlement communities.
The Administration proposed two new initiatives under the CDF program, $80
million for the Community Technology Centers Initiative (CTC), and $20 million for
the Administration’s Improving Access Initiative. HUD’s proposed CTC Initiative
would complement an existing program administered by the Department of Education
and HUD’s Neighborhood Network Initiative. The CTC Initiative is intended to
expand access to computers and to promote the use of technology in education
through the development of model programs in HUD insured and assisted housing.
Funds are targeted to economically distressed communities in urban and rural areas
and may be used to fund personnel salaries and equipment. Although the Senate bill
included the $80 million requested by the Administration for its CTC initiative, the
conference approved the House recommendation that no funds be provided.
The Administration’s budget also includes $20 million for its Improving Access
Initiative, a grant program that would provide financial assistance to civic and
religiously-affiliated institutions with limited resources that are exempt from the
CRS-27
Americans with Disabilities Act. The grants would help fund projects intended to
make the facilities of eligible organizations disabled-accessible. Congress did not look
favorably upon this initiative, and no funds were provided.
In the Administration’s budget, these and other CDF-based initiatives were to
be offset by eliminating funding for two CDF set asides, the Neighborhood Initiative,
which received $44 million for FY2001, and the Economic Development Initiative,
which received $357 million in FY2001. The Neighborhood Initiative supports
projects intended to stimulate economic diversification and investment in areas
experiencing population losses, improve conditions in blighted and distressed
neighborhoods, and facilitate the integration of housing assistance with welfare reform
initiatives. For FY2001, Congress appropriated $44 million, with all of the funds
directed to specific projects.
In past years, the Economic Development Initiative (EDI) has routinely been
used to fund specific projects of interest to individual Members. Entitlement
communities, states, and previous administrations have objected to this type of
congressionally-directed funding on the grounds that it is noncompetitive, and reduces
the amount of funds available under the core CDBG program for distribution to
entitlement communities and states.
For FY2001, $357 million in EDI assistance was directed to more than 300
specific projects identified in the conference report accompanying the FY2001
appropriations act for VA-HUD, and Independent Agencies. This represented
approximately 50% of the $713 million in total CDBG set-asides for FY2001. For
FY2002, conferees approved approximately 45% ($294 million) of the $659 million
in CDF set-asides for specific EDI projects. The conference agreement allocates the
earmarked EDI funds to over 800 projects, with the average grant amount equal to
$360,000. Many of the EDI funds would be allocated to communities receiving
entitlement funds. This year’s EDI allocation has the net effect of reducing the amount
allocated to entitlement communities by $50 million when compared to entitlement
allocations for FY2001 (See Table 8).
Brownfields Redevelopment. The Administration requested $25 million
in funding for brownfields redevelopment projects for FY2002. This is the same
amount appropriated in FY2001. Brownfields 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 with
EPA brownfield cleanup efforts. The Bush Administration estimates that FY2002
funds could support the cleanup of 25 brownfield sites and create approximately
5,400 jobs. The House and Senate bills and the conferees agreed to appropriate $25
million for brownfields redevelopment grants. The funds are to remain available until
September 30, 2003.
CRS-28
Table 8. Community Development Block Grants,
FY2001-FY2002
(funding in millions)
Programs and set-asides
FY2001 FY2002
FY2002
House
FY2002
Senate
FY2002
Conf.
enacted
request
(H.R. 2620)
(S. 1216)
(H.R. 2620)
713
3,087
1,324
403
3,079
1,320
413
3,079
1,320
489
3,167
1,357
659
3,039
1,302
70.8
3.0
2.6
45.4
(7.0)
69.0
3.0
2.2
38.4
(7.0)
69.0
3.3
2.8
34.4
(7.0)
71.0
3.0
2.6
45.5
(8.0)
70.0
3.3
2.6
42.5
(7.0)
(10.0)
(6.5)
(3.0)
(10.0)
(6.5)
(3.0)
(10.0)
(6.5)
(3.0)
(11.0)
(7.5)
(3.0)
(10.5)
(7.5)
(3.0)
(3.0)
(3.0)
(7.9)
(5.0)
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
3.0a
3.0a
(7.9)
(4.0)
0.0
80.0
20.0
22.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(7.9)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
80.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(4.0)
(3.0)
(7.5)
0.0
9.6
0.0
0.0
22.0
5.0
5.0
28.4b
(25.0)c
(3.4)
29.4 b
(25.0) c
(4.4)
0.0
29.4d
(4.4)
0.0
25.0
0.0
29.0 b
(25.0)c
(4.0)
54.9
43.9
2.0
54.9
0.0
0.0
54.9
25.0
0.0
55.0
0.0
0.0
55.0
42.0
0.0
14.9
59.9
357.3
$5,124
18.0
59.9
0.0
$4,802
15.0
69.9
77.0
$4,812
0.0
59.9e
140.0
$5,013
13.8
65.0e
294.2
5,000.0
Subtotals:
set-asides (see below for details)
formula-bsd. (entit. communities)
formula-based state allocation
Set-asides:-Indian Tribes
Housing Assistance Council
Nat’l Amer.Indian Hsng. Council
Section 107
Insular areas
Historically Black Colleges
and Universities
Hispanic Serving Institutions
Community Dev. Work Study
Alaskan Native and Native
Hawaiian Serving Institutions
Tribal Colleges; Universities
Comm. Outreach Partnership
Management Info. Systems
Hawaiian Homelands Homeowner.
Community Technology Center
Improving Access Initiative
Self-Help Housing Opportunity
National Housing Dev. Corp.
Nat. Council of La Raza Hope
Capacity Building for Community
Develop. & Affordable Housing
National Com. Dev. Initiative
Habitat for Humanity
Resident Opportunities and Self
Sufficiency (Supportive Services)
Neighborhood Initiative
Salt Lake City Olymp. Temp. Hsng.
Working Capital Fund for the
develop. of info. tech. systems
Youthbuild
Economic Develop. Initiative:
Total: CDF, CDBG
Source: H.Rept. 107-159; S.Rept. 107-43; H.Rept. 107-148; H.Rept. 107-272
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Italics indicate entries subsumed under CDBG line in
Table 6; parentheses indicate entry subsumed in this table under line immediately above.
CRS-29
a
Requested as a stand-alone program instead of a Section 107 (Special Purpose Grants).
FY2001 appropriations included $5 million for rural and tribal areas. The FY2002 budget
requested $4.9 million for these areas; the conference approved $5 million.
c
Includes funding for the Enterprise Foundation and the Local Initiative Support Corporation
(LISC) in support of local community development corporations.
d
Includes $24.9 for the Enterprise Foundation and LISC, including $4.9 million for rural areas.
e
Includes $2 million for Youthbuild capacity building and $10 million for underserved and rural
areas.
b
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 program mandates that all
households assisted have incomes below 80% of the area median and 90% of those
assisted with rental housing have incomes below 60% of median. The Administration
requested $1.796 billion for the program for FY2002, $4 million less than the $1.8
billion enacted in FY2001. Of the total proposed for FY2002, $1.54 billion was for
HOME formula grants, consisting of $923 million for local participating jurisdictions
and $615 million for states. Funds may be used to help new homebuyers (including
downpayment assistance), and renters or existing homeowners through rehabilitation
of substandard housing, new construction or tenant-based rental assistance. Some
HOME funds are used with the HOPE VI program and with the Low Income
Housing Tax Credit. There is also a $20 million set-aside for Housing Counseling for
renters and those interested in home purchase and other housing matters.
The Administration’s FY2002 proposal for HOME included a $200 million setaside for a “Downpayment Assistance for Homebuyers” program to assist first-time
low-income homebuyers. Funds would be provided on a competitive basis and would
be administered by state housing finance agencies, and be expected to assist over
130,000 first-time buyers each year. Funds would be matched on a three to one basis
up to $1,500 per family. Some organizations, including those representing the
National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, testified before
the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity (May 22, 2001),
in opposition to the $200 million set-aside, arguing that HOME funds may already be
used for downpayment and/or closing cost assistance. They claimed that an
unnecessary mandate could result in a $200 million cut in formula grants. They also
opposed it because “it chooses one delivery system – state housing finance agencies
– for no proven programmatic purpose.” They argued that some communities already
have a high homeownership rate and that affordable rental housing is the critical need.
The House agreed to $1.996 billion for FY2002, $196 million more than the
Administration’s request. This included a $200 million set-aside for the
Downpayment Assistance Initiative, subject to enactment of authorization legislation
by June 30, 2002. The Senate recommended $1.796 million, the same amount asked
for by the President. However, the Senate-passed bill did not include $200 million for
the Administration’s downpayment assistance fund. S.Rept. 107-43 notes that
“downpayment assistance is already permissible under the HOME program and
therefore does not require new or additional authorization.”
Conferees provided $1.846 billion for the HOME program, $46 million more
than appropriated in FY2001. The funds are to be available for obligation for 3 years.
A new Downpayment Assistance Initiative will receive $50 million, subject to
CRS-30
authorization legislation by June 30, 2002. Otherwise, the $50 million will be
available for any authorized purpose. Up to $20 million is to be made available for
housing counseling, which the conferees claim is a critical component of effective
homeownership programs. Conferees claim that this not only helps families and
individuals understand homeownerhsip issues, but helps protect first-time buyers
against predatory lending practices. Counseling is to be provided to all homebuyers
participating in the new Downpayment Assistance Initiative.
Homeless Assistance Grants. President Bush’s FY2002 budget requested
$1.123 billion for homeless assistance, including $1.023 billion for Homeless
Assistance Grants, $100 million for Shelter Plus Care Renewals (funds utilized for the
renewal on an annual basis of contracts expiring or projected to run out of funds
during FY2003) and $500,000 for the Interagency Council on the Homeless. Grant
funds will provide support for an estimated 40,000 transitional beds and permanent
beds in new and renewal projects. The requested overall grant funding of $1.023
billion includes up to $15 million for technical assistance, Working Capital Fund and
Management Information Systems and is the same level as the FY2001 budget. This
year’s Shelter Plus Care Renewals request is the same as that funded in FY2001.
For FY2002, Congress appropriated a total of $1.123 billion for Homeless
Assistance. From this total, $1.057 billion will be used to fund the four programs
grouped under the Homeless Assistance Grants, i.e., Supportive Housing Program,
Emergency Shelter Grants Program, Shelter Plus Care Program and Section 8
Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program. The remaining $65
million will be used to fund the Technical Assistance ($6.6 million), Working Capital
Fund ($5.6 million), the Interagency Council on the Homeless ($500 thousand) and
the National Homeless Data Analysis Project ($2 million) - the conferees believe that
it is critical to develop an unduplicated count of the homeless population. Not less
than 30% of funds made available, excluding amounts provided for renewals under
the Shelter Plus Care program, must be used for permanent housing. All funds
awarded for services must be matched by 25% in funding by each grantee - both the
House and the Senate support HUD’s efforts to transfer the responsibility for services
to HHS, leaving the housing component to HUD. Full funding for the Shelter Plus
Care renewals is included under the homeless assistance grants account instead of
providing funds under a separate account.
The homeless assistance programs are intended to help homeless persons and
families break the cycle of homelessness and to move to permanent housing and selfsufficiency. The Continuum of Care (CoC) process encourages the creation of
linkages to other housing and community development programs including public
housing, Section 8, Community Development Block Grants, HOME, Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS and state and local programs. In addition, the
strategy promotes direct links to mainstream social service programs critical to the
success of homeless assistance efforts, such as Medicaid, State Children’s Health
Insurance Program, Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
and services funded through the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Block Grant,
Workforce Investment Act, and the Welfare-to-Work grant program.
CRS-31
For more information on federal programs for the homeless, see CRS Report
RL30442, Homelessness: Recent Statistics and Targeted Federal Programs, by M.
Ann Wolfe.
Housing programs. HUD operates several programs to improve the
nation’s housing capacity.
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 $783 million for housing assistance for the elderly in FY2002,
a $4 million increase over FY2001. Of the $783 million requested, $683 million
would be used for the Section 202 Supportive Housing program.
The House, Senate, and the conference agreed to $783 million for the elderly for
FY2002, the same as the Administration’s request. Of the $783 million, $50 million
is for the conversion of eligible Section 202 projects to assisted living and $50 million
is for service coordinators and the continuation of existing congregate service grants
for residents of assisted housing projects to help the elderly maintain their
independence. HUD is to issue a notice of funding availability (NOFA) for up to
three grants for the conversion of unused or underutilized commercial properties into
assisted living facilities for the elderly from funds provided for Section 202
conversions.
The Administration also requested $218 million for housing for the disabled
(Section 811) for FY2002, about the same as provided for FY2001. To assure
flexibility and choice in housing for the disabled, no less than 25% (but no more than
50%) of the funding could 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 $40 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 agreed to $241 million for housing for the disabled, an increase of
$24 million over the FY2001 appropriation. The increase would fund the renewal
costs of Section 811 tenant-based rental assistance. The Senate agreed to fund this
program at $218 million, the same as requested by the President. The conferees
approved $241 million as proposed by the House. Of this amount, $23 million is for
the renewal of Section 811 tenant-based rental assistance. Up to $1.3 million is also
provided to renew project rental assistance for up to a one-year term. The conferees
also require HUD to simplify the Section 811 application and review process.
For more information on housing for the elderly, see CRS Report RL30247,
Housing for the Elderly: Legislation in the 106th Congress, by Susan M.
Vanhorenbeck.
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA). As requested by the
Administration for FY2002, the conference agreement authorizes an insurance
commitment limitation of $160 billion for the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance and
Cooperative Housing Mortgage Insurance (MMI/CHMI) fund, the same level as
CRS-32
authorized for FY2001. A $21 billion insurance commitment limitation is
appropriated for the General Insurance and Special Risk Insurance (GI/SRI) fund.
In a technical budgetary change based on the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) have determined that FHA receipts under the MMI account should be
classified within the discretionary rather than the mandatory part of HUD's budget.
This has no effect on actual program levels. According to CBO the reclassification has
no effect on the amount of budgetary resources available to HUD, and the MMI
program will continue operating as it did prior to the reclassification. Mandatory
spending must comply with the pay-as-you-go rules of the Budget Enforcement Act
(BEA) while discretionary spending must comply with the BEA’s discretionary
spending caps. Spending for the MMI program will be determined by the annual
appropriations acts.
As requested, the conference agreement provides a direct loan limitation of $250
million for the MMI/CHHI fund and a direct loan limitation of $50 million for the
GI/SRI fund. These are the same limits as in FY2001. The direct loans are used to
facilitate the sale to municipalities and nonprofit corporations of single family and
multifamily properties that have been acquired by the insurance funds through defaults
and foreclosures by borrowers.
The Administration requested $857 million for administrative expenses of the
FHA program accounts – $497 million of the MMI/CHMI accounts and $360 million
in the GI/SRI accounts. The House bill requested $331 million for the MMI/CHMI
accounts and $212 million for the GI/SRI accounts. The Senate bill requested $330
million for the MMI/CHMI accounts and $211 million for the GI/SRI accounts. The
conference agreement appropriates for administration expenses $337 million for the
MMI/CHMI accounts and $216 million for the GI/SRI accounts.
The agreement appropriates $15 million for credit subsidies to support loan
guarantees under the GI/SRI programs. This is significantly less than the $101 million
appropriated for this purpose in FY2001. The credit subsidy is based on the net cost
to the Government, exclusive of administrative expenses, of a direct loan or loan
guarantee over its full term, discounted to the present value at the Treasury's
borrowing cost. The reduced need for credit subsidy is based on recent changes in
regulation regarding mortgage insurance premiums paid by borrowers in the HUD
multifamily programs.
Though HUD has always had statutory authority to set the insurance premiums
between 0.25% and 1% of the outstanding loan balance, the regulations have always
set the premium at a specific figure. An Interim Rule was published in the Federal
Register on July 2, 2001 to amend the regulation to state that borrowers will pay an
insurance premium of not less than 0.25% and not more than 1% of the loan amount,
and that the specific premium to be charged will be set forth in a Federal Register
notice. A Notice was published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2001 which set the
insurance premium for most of the FHA multifamily housing programs at 0.8% of the
outstanding loan balance. The premiums had been set at 0.5% of the loan balance.
The Interim Rule and the Notice had an effective date of August 1, 2001. The
assumption is that this change, coupled with changes in the subsidy rates for other
CRS-33
programs in the GI/SRI fund and changes that the Administration intends to make in
the underwriting criteria for several of the programs, will enable the fund to provide
up to $21 billion in loan commitments with a lower amount of credit subsidies than
have been needed in past years.
As in prior years, however, if these assumptions prove wrong, the funding of
loans under the program may be temporarily suspended until supplemental
appropriations of credit subsidy are provided. The Senate report language noted
concern that HUD has failed to adequately calculate the amount of credit subsidy
needed to support its multifamily housing programs and noted its expectation that
HUD will devise a computer program to accurately identify the default and financial
risks to the insurance funds. HUD would have been directed to establish a task force
to study the issue and report its finding by July 15, 2002. In lieu of the Senate report
language, conferees note that they expect HUD to work with the housing industry to
review the technical assumptions that OMB provides to HUD regarding the risk
model used to estimate the subsidy costs for the multifamily housing programs.
The conferees also expect HUD to update its information technology systems
for the program accounts of FHA. To understand its financial exposure and the
extent of risk for loss, at the end of each business day HUD is expected to examine
the extent of financial risk and exposure under each FHA mortgage insurance
program.
As requested by the Administration, the conference agreement permits the FHA
to offer hybrid adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) to low-income families. Under
these mortgages, the interest rate would be fixed for the first few years of the loan,
then the interest may adjust annually according to changes in market interest rates.
The interest rate would be fixed for at least the first 3 years of the loan. HUD
estimates that the introduction of hybrid adjustable rate mortgages would allow FHA
to provide mortgages to an additional 40,000 families in FY2002. HUD estimates
that it also would yield additional income of $99 million for the FHA and $13 million
for the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). Data indicate a
higher default rate for FHA adjustable rate mortgages than the rate under its fixed rate
mortgages, so any increase in income during the early years of the loans may be partly
offset in later years by higher losses. Current law limits ARMs in a given fiscal year
to no more than 30% of the number of mortgages insured by FHA in the previous
fiscal year. The Administration did not propose a change in law regarding the limits
on ARM loans.
The loan limits for the FHA multifamily housing programs had not been adjusted
since 1992 and it is often argued that it is no longer possible to use the FHA
multifamily programs in certain parts of the country. Administrative provisions in the
conference agreement raise the loan limits of the multifamily housing programs by
25%. Under current law, cost adjustments of up to 240% may be allowed for certain
high cost areas. It is assumed that the 25% increase in the loan limits, when
combined with the existing ability to multiply loan limits by up to 240%, would enable
the FHA multifamily insurance program to be usable in virtually all parts of the
country.
CRS-34
More than 800,000 assisted rental units in approximately 8,500 Section 8
project-based rental complexes have mortgages that are insured by FHA. The Office
of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring (OMHAR) was established in 1997
to reduce the cost to the federal government of renewing the rental contracts on these
projects. The federal government is expected to save $563 million over 20 years from
the transactions that have been completed to date. Its authority to operate was to
expire on September 30, 2001, but it has been extended temporarily by several
continuing resolutions.
To facilitate timely passage, reauthorization of OMHAR until October 1, 2004,
and various programmatic changes to the program, have been placed in Title VI of
the Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education appropriations bills (H.R.
3061 and S. 1536) for FY2002, but these bills remain in conference. Under Title VI,
the head of OMHAR would report to the FHA commissioner rather than to the HUD
secretary, as currently required, giving the commissioner oversight authority over
OMHAR. OMHAR funding would be made a part of the FHA budget. In H.Rept.
107-272, conferees note their concern over the manner that OMHAR has been
managed. They believe that OMHAR has violated the Anti-Deficiency Act in 2 out
of the 3 years of its existence by violating government spending law regarding grants
to HUD tenant groups. HUD is directed to revoke OMHAR’s funds allotment
privileges and provide vigorous financial and management oversight of OMHAR.
For more information on credit subsidies, see CRS Report RS20670, Temporary
Suspension of New Mortgages under the FHA General and Special Risk Insurance
Funds. For more information on OMHAR, see CRS Report RL31182, Assisted
Housing: Section 8 Mark-to-Market Restructuring.
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. HUD’s FY2002 budget promised vigorous enforcement
of fair housing laws and increased educational activities to combat discrimination in
housing. For FY2002, HUD requested $46 million, about level with the FY2001
appropriations.
Two programs comprise HUD’s fair housing efforts: the Fair Housing Initiatives
Program (FHIP), and the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP). FHAP
strengthens nationwide enforcement efforts by providing grants to state and local
agencies to enforce laws that are substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Housing
Act. For FY2002, HUD requested $23 million for FHAP. FHIP provides funds for
public and private fair housing groups, as well as state and local agencies, for
activities that educate the public and housing industry about the fair housing laws,
including accessibility requirements; investigate allegations of discrimination; help to
combat predatory lending practices, and reduce barriers to minority homeownership.
Under the request, FHIP would have been funded at $23 million in FY2002. The
Administration explained that $7.5 million of last year’s FHIP budget was dedicated
to the National Survey of Housing Discrimination, a major study being conducted by
the Urban Institute. Because survey funding is not required for FY2002, the
Administration planned to redirect those funds to the FHIP. HUD said this would
allow them to significantly expand the geographic distribution of FHIP awards to
CRS-35
communities that are currently underserved or not served at all by fair housing
organizations. In FY2001, HUD was only able to fund 42% of eligible applicants.
With the increased availability of funds for FHIP, HUD claimed it would be able to
fund an estimated 72% of eligible applicants.
During FY2002, HUD also plans to continue its efforts to combat predatory
lending. The Department will work closely with interested parties, including
consumer groups, federal, state and local regulators, and the industry to put an end
to predatory lending, increase financial literacy and expand access to homeownership
and private mortgage credit.
Both the House and the Senate agreed with the Administration’s request for
$45.9 million for FY2002. Conferees approved $46 million to be available until
September 30, 2003. Of this amount, $20 million is for FHIP. The $7.5 million in
FY2001 that went to the National Survey of Housing Discrimination, that is no longer
required, will now go equally to FHAP and FHIP. The extra amount to FHAP is to
be used to reduce the backlog of cases pending.
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction. Title X of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550), authorized HUD to establish
the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant program. Before 1997, funding for the
lead hazard control grant program was provided under the Annual Contributions for
Assisted Housing Account. In 1997 and 1998, the program was funded as a set-aside
under the Community Development Block Grant account. Starting in 1999, the
program was funded as a separate, stand-alone program.
Over the past decade, HUD has worked with local governments and agencies to
increase the number of lead hazard control programs, and measurable lead levels in
children has declined. However, millions of housing units remain contaminated with
lead-based paint. To further reduce lead paint health hazards, the FY2002 HUD
budget requested a $10 million increase over FY2001, bringing the total to $110
million. Funds would be distributed through competitive grants to entities that agree
to match those federal grants. The requested amount, when combined with private
sector funding, was expected to support a 10-year strategy to eliminate lead paint
hazards in 2.3 million private housing units occupied by low-income children.
Included in this request was a set-aside of $10 million to continue the Healthy Homes
Initiative which helps to develop, demonstrate and promote cost-effective, preventive
measures to correct multiple safety and health hazards in the home that can cause
serious disease and injuries to children.
Both the House and the Senate agreed with the Administration’s request for
$110 million for FY2002, and conferees concurred. The funds are to remain available
until September 30, 2003. Conferees allocated $80 million for grants to state and
local governments, and Native American Tribes for lead-based paint abatement in
private low-income housing, $10 million for the Healthy Homes Initiative, $3.5
million for a one-time grant to the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing, $6.5
million for a new initiative called Operation LEAP (competitive awards to non-profit
organizations and the private sector), and $10 million for technical assistance and
support to state and local agencies and private property owners.
CRS-36
Environmental Protection Agency
The President’s FY2002 request for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is $7.317 billion in spending authority or 7% less than the $7.829 billion
appropriated for FY2001. The House has passed $7.545 billion; the Senate $7.752
billion; conferees adopted a total of $7.888 billion.
Accounting for the proposed decrease is the Administration’s decision not to
seek continued funding for about $500 million earmarked for numerous activities in
the FY2001 conference report. This includes some $340 million for specific
wastewater grants, numerous research grants, and other special grants. Both
chambers have reinstated most of these grants. Other prime issues include the
adequacy of funds to capitalize wastewater needs; shifting of enforcement
responsibility to the states; EPA’s climate change activities; and future funding of the
Superfund program.
How to meet the Nation’s water infrastructure capital needs remained the
primary appropriations issue for EPA. The Administration’s proposed FY2002 level
of $3.289 billion for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account (STAG) was
$340 million, or 9%, less than the $3.629 billion allocated in FY2001. The major
reason for the proposed decrease was the Administration’s decision not to seek
continued funding for over $300 million designated for specific wastewater grants in
FY2001. The House passed $3.437 billion; the Senate $3.603 billion; conferees
settled on $3.733 billion. Both chambers essentially proposed to reinstate funding for
specific wastewater projects; conferees agreed, and added more funds than either
House approved.
Table 9. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations,
FY1997-FY2001
(budget authority in billions)
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
$6.8
$7.4
$7.6
$7.4
$7.8
Source: Figures for FY1997-FY2000 are from administration budget submissions of subsequent
years; figures for FY2001 are from H.Rept. 107-159, and are the latest available estimates for that
fiscal year. Final spending levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded,
and any supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been included.
Within the STAG account, the budget proposed to spend $850 million for
wastewater funding, $500 million less than the $1.35 billion for FY2001. However,
it also sought an additional $450 million for new sewer overflow grants. Another
major account activity, drinking water state revolving funds, was projected to receive
$823 million, the same as funding for FY2001.
The request was unclear as to how new sewer overflow grants would be funded
under the requested funds. The Wet Weather Water Quality Act, (P.L. 106-554,
Division B, Section 1112) authorizes a $1.5 billion grants program to reduce wet
weather flows from municipal sewer systems. It authorizes these grants if the Clean
CRS-37
Water wastewater state revolving fund was funded at a level of $1.35 billion, a level
not requested by the budget. In response to questions before House Appropriations
VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Subcommittee hearings (May 9-10, 2001), the EPA
Administrator acknowledged that the agency was “not meeting the language,” i.e.
$1.35 billion threshold, and was “asking for flexibility.”
Congress denied the President’s request for the $450 million in “wet weather”
funding, but increased funding for clean water state revolving funds. The conferees
provided $1.35 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $850 million for
Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
For state and tribal administrative grants, the budget sought $1.1 billion, $50
million more than current funding; every major category of state administrative grants
would remain the same as in the current year. Congress approved about this amount.
Two new grant programs were proposed. One would provide $25 million in grants
to assist states in managing environmental information. The other would fund $25
million in grants to assist states in enforcing environmental laws and regulations. The
latter represents a shift in policy, moving more enforcement to the states, and is
accompanied by a related $25 million decrease in EPA’s own enforcement efforts.
At House Subcommittee hearings, some Members criticized this shift in enforcement
policy. Conferees disapproved of the shift in enforcement responsibilities, denied the
new grant money, and reinstated the accompanying proposed decrease of $25 million
for EPA headquarters enforcement activities.
EPA’s climate change activities, funded through the Science and Technology,
and the Environmental Compliance accounts, have been controversial in the past.
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. In the past, some Members have maintained
that EPA’s involvement in some carbon reduction activities can be viewed as
implementing the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases, which the Bush
Administration opposes. An online report, CRS’ Climate Change Briefing Book
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.html], discusses many aspects of the
climate change issue.
CRS-38
Table 10. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2001-FY2002
(budget authority in billions)
Program
FY2001
enacted
FY2002 FY2002 FY2002
FY2002
House Senate
Conf.
request (H.R. 2620) (S. 1216) (H.R. 2620)
Science and Technology (incl.
transfers from Superfund)
.734
.677
.717
.703
.735
Environmental programs,
compliance (management)
2.088
1.973
2.005
2.062
2.055
Office of Inspector General
.046
.046
.046
.046
.046
Buildings and facilities
.024
.025
.025
.025
.025
Superfund (net, after transfers)
1.222
1.219
1.221
1.226
1.221
Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund
.072
.072
.079
.072
.073
Oil spill response
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
State and tribal assistance
3.629
3.289
3.437
3.603
3.733
Subtotal (EPA)
7.829
7.317
7.545
7.752
7.903
Source: H.Rept. 107-159; S.Rept. 107-43; H.Rept. 107-148; H.Rept. 107-272
Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.
For FY2001, EPA requested a 121% increase for climate change activities, an
increase denied by appropriators. The FY2002 budget did not seek the major
increases previously sought; the $153 million requested was about the same level as
approved for FY2001. 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.
Both chambers essentially approved the request for climate change activities. In the
House, the Committee on Appropriations included report bill restricting EPA from
spending funds on certain climate change activities. The House removed that
language during floor proceedings.
The future of the Superfund, and its purpose of cleaning up toxic waste sites
remains an issue. The FY2002 budget request of $1.219 billion was a proposed $3
million decrease compared to FY2001, and Congress approved the President’s
request for Superfund. There is concern over the ability of that declining trust fund,
which is financed by chemical fees and other taxes, to finance the program beyond
FY2002. The available balance of the fund has been declining since its taxing
authority expired on December 31, 1995. The President’s FY2002 budget did not
propose renewing the taxes that support Superfund, and its balance at the beginning
of FY2002 was projected to be $955 million, a level sufficient to accommodate the
CRS-39
fund’s share of the projected spending authority of $1.2 billion needed for FY2002,
half of which would come from the fund and half from general appropriations.
By October 1, 2002, the beginning of FY2003, the fund level would fall to $539
million. During discussion of this at the May House Subcommittee hearings, the
Administrator of EPA stated “that obviously we are going to have to depend more
and more on general revenues.” Historically, the share paid by the trust fund has been
declining. In the past, the trust fund paid for the majority of Superfund activities; in
the current year, the fund supports 50% of the program costs, in future years, general
appropriations would pay the majority of costs. Some have criticized this
fundamental change in policy, which lessens the responsibility of polluters, under the
principle that the “polluter pays,” and instead socializes pollution costs across the
economy, by funding them as costs to the general Treasury.
For more detailed information on the Superfund, see: CRS Issue Brief
IB10078, Superfund and the Brownfields Issue in the 107th 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 proposal, see CRS Issue Brief IB10086, The Environmental Protection
Agency’s FY2002 Budget.
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, including: disaster relief, fire prevention, earthquake
hazard reduction, emergency broadcasting services, flood insurance, mitigation
programs, and dam safety.
At least 28 statutes and executive directives set forth the responsibilities of
FEMA. (These authorities are summarized in CRS Report RS20272, FEMA’s
Mission: Policy Directives for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.) The
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.) authorizes the President to declare major disasters or emergencies (the latter
provide considerably less federal assistance than the former), sets out eligibility
criteria for federal aid, and specifies the types of assistance that may be provided by
FEMA and other federal agencies. Disaster assistance funding varies from year-toyear 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. For detailed information see CRS Report
RL30460, The Federal Emergency Management Agency: Overview of Funding for
Disaster Relief and Other Activities.
CRS-40
Table 11. Appropriations: Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FY2001-FY2002
(budget authority in billions)
Program
FY2001
enacted
FY2002
House
FY2002 (H.R.
request 2620)
FY2002
Senate
(S. 1216)
FY2002
Conf.
(H.R.
2620)
Disaster Relief Fund
.300
1.369
1.369
.359
.664
Emergency funding
1.300
--
1.300
2.000
1.500
Disaster assist. loan; admin.
.002
.001
.001
.001
.001
Radiological emergency prep.
0
-.001
-.001
-.001
-.001
Salaries and expenses
.215
.234
.228
.234
.234
Inspector General
.010
.010
.010
.010
.010
Emergency management,
planning assistance
.270
.355
.405
.430
.405
Emergency food, shelter
.140
.140
.140
.140
.140
Misc. supplement. approp.a
.100
0
0
0
0
Nat’l Flood Insurance Fundb
.103
.105
.105
.105
.105
Emergency Response Fund
(P.L. 107-38)
2.000
0
0
0
0
Subtotal (FEMA)
4.440
2.213
3.557
3.278
3.058
Source: H.Rept. 107-159; S.Rept. 107-43; H.Rept. 107-148; H.Rept. 107-272
Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.
a
P.L. 106-554, FY2001 appropriations for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human
Services (Labor-HHS), included $100 million for FEMA.
b
National Flood Insurance Fund data includes salaries and expenses and flood mitigation funding.
The FEMA budget requests for each year include funds for normal agency
operations and grant-in-aid assistance to nonfederal entities, in addition to emergency
disaster relief. Should funds appropriated in annual legislation for disaster relief prove
insufficient, supplemental funds are requested. For FY2002, the Administration
requested $1.4 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund account for FY2002. For the
entire agency, the House approved $3.557 billion, the Senate approved $3.278 billion.
The primary difference between the two versions is in disaster relief. The House
provided $1.369 billion in direct appropriations to the disaster relief fund, while the
Senate approved $359 million. In contrast, the House provided $1.3 billion in
emergency funding for disaster programs, and the Senate approved $2 billion. The
Senate also approved $430 million in emergency management planning assistance,
$25 million more than provided under the House bill.
CRS-41
To reduce future losses from disasters, in recent years FEMA has sought
increased funding for mitigation activities. Legislation to establish a new hazard
mitigation program was approved by the 106th Congress (P.L. 106-390). For
information on the legislation, see: CRS Report RS20736, Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000 (P.L. 106-390): Summary of New and Amended Provisions of the Stafford
Disaster Relief Act.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) receives
appropriations within three accounts: human space flight; science, aeronautics and
technology; and inspector general. Human space flight includes the international
space station (ISS), including construction of the station and cooperative activities
with Russian space programs; the space shuttle program, including shuttle operations,
maintenance, performance, and safety upgrades; space operations, and safety, mission
assurance, engineering, and advanced concepts. Science, aeronautics and technology
programs contain the bulk of NASA’s research and development activities. The
programs within this account include space science; biological and physical research;
earth sciences; aero-space technologies; and academic programs. The last account
includes funds for the Office of Inspector General.
NASA requested $14.51 billion for FY2002, an increase of 1.8% above the
FY2001 level. According to NASA, the budget request gave “strong” support to the
space launch initiative, improving aviation safety, and the Space and Earth Sciences
programs. NASA officials also stated that the budget emphasized space exploration
and science. During FY2002, NASA is making the first step in a 2-year transition to
a full cost accounting budget, assigning all of the mission support activities to the
respective enterprise accounts. The House approved $14.95 billion for NASA for
FY2002, while the Senate approved $14.56 billion. In the final bill, Congress
appropriated $14.79 billion, $281 million above the request. Included in the
appropriation is about $206 million for specifically directed projects.
International Space Station. For the International Space Station (ISS)
within the Human Space Flight account, NASA requested $2.087 billion, a 1.2%
decrease below the FY2001 level. In March, 2001, NASA announced that an
additional $4 billion might be needed to complete the station as currently configured.
In order to accommodate this finding, NASA proposed scaling back the ISS to
include only those units already constructed and awaiting launch, added about $1
billion to the ISS budget over the next 5 years, and canceled the crew return vehicle
(CRV) project. The proposed changes could have a significant impact on the
station’s ultimate use as a research facility.
The House approved $1.832 billion for the ISS and the transfer of $284 million
for ISS research to the Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR). The
House also approved a separate $275 million for development of a CRV. The Senate
approved $1.681 billion, a reduction of $150 million from the request, and joined the
House in its recommendation that ISS research be transferred to the OBPR. Both the
House and Senate expressed displeasure about the cost overruns, and the Senate
capped total expenditures for the ISS during the period FY2002 through FY2006 at
$6.678 billion.
CRS-42
Table 12. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Appropriations, FY1997-FY2001
(budget authority in billions)
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
$13.71
$13.65
$13.67
$13.60
$14.29
Source: Figures for FY1997-FY2000 are from administration budget submissions of subsequent
years; figures for FY2001 are from H.Rept. 107-159, and are the latest available estimates for that
fiscal year. Final spending levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded,
and any supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been included.
The final bill provides $1.756 billion for the ISS. This amount is $75 million
below the modified request which transferred $284 million for ISS research to the
OBPR. The transfer was endorsed by Congress. No funding was provided for the
CRV. In addition, Congress limited total expenditures on the ISS for FY2002 to
$1.963 billion, including civil service compensation, which currently is included in
another budget line. Congress also directed NASA, along with OMB, to provide
Congress with a report, specifying details of the U.S. Core Complete configuration,
the content and scope of the scientific research program to be carried out on the ISS,
and the costs and schedule of a CRV development program. Congress further
directed NASA to put in place an integrated financial management system so that it
can adequately manage its programs. Finally, Congress reduced funding for the ISS
by $75 million from the request in order to force NASA to make the management
reforms Congress believes are necessary to get ISS costs under control.
Space Shuttle. For FY2002, NASA requested $3.283 billion for the Space
Shuttle program, 5.3% above the FY2001 level. The increase was intended to
upgrade the shuttle to enhance safety and reliability. 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
operations are essential. The aging of the shuttle systems, and a corresponding
attrition of the loss of skills of an experienced workforce as the Space Shuttle
program evolves to the Space Flight Operations Contract, are likely to make this task
increasingly difficult.
The House approved $3.311 billion for the Shuttle for FY2002, adding $35
million for infrastructure needs. The Senate approved $3.326 billion adding $50
million for safety upgrades. Both the House and Senate reaffirmed their interest in
improving Shuttle safety and reliability. The final bill provides $3.27 billion for the
shuttle program. The amount includes an increase of $20.0 million above the request
for high priority shuttle safety upgrades.
Space Science. For FY2002, NASA requested $2.786 billion for Space
Science, 5.7% above the FY2001 level. The Mars Exploration Program has been
restructured and expanded, and four missions this decade are now planned (including
one launched in April, 2001). NASA plans to launch several space science missions
in FY2002, including the last great observatory currently planned, the Space InfraRed
CRS-43
Telescope Facility. NASA also announced that the Pluto/Kuiper mission will be
deferred indefinitely because of cost considerations.
The House provided $2.759 billion for Space Science, reducing funding from the
request for the Next Generation Space Telescope. The Senate approved $2.765
million, reducing funding for the Mars program by $50.0 million to await further
development of the Mars exploration strategy by NASA. The Senate recommended
partially restoring funding for the Pluto/Kuiper mission.
The final bill provides $2.85 billion for space science. Included in the increase
above the request is $30 million for the Pluto/Kuiper mission and $10 million for the
Living With a Star program. Congress lso provided the full request for the Mars
Exploration program, but directed NASA to submit a report on missions planned past
2007. In addition, Congress noted NASA’s desire to maintain a level of core
competence at its centers, and permitted NASA to operate the Europa Orbiter mission
intramurally if NASA can certify that doing so is necessary to maintain that
competency. Further, Congress capped funding for the entire mission at $1billion.
Table 13. Appropriations: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, FY2001-FY2002
(budget authority in billions)
Program
FY2001
enacted
FY2002 FY2002 FY2002
FY2002
House
Senate
Conf.
request (H.R. 2820) (S. 1216) (H.R. 2820)
Human space flight
5.463
7.296
7.047
6.868
6.912
Crew return vehicle
0
0
.275
0
0
Science, aeronaut., tech.
6.191
7.192
7.605
7.670
7.857
Mission support
2.609
0
0
0
0
Inspector General
.023
.024
.024
.024
.024
Subtotal (NASA)
14.285
14.511
14.951
14.561
14.793
Source: H.Rept. 107-159; S.Rept. 107-43; H.Rept. 107-148; H.Rept. 107-272
Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.
Earth Science. NASA requested $1.515 billion for Earth Sciences, a 12%
reduction, compared to FY2001. The Office of Earth Science (OES) continued its
efforts to complete the first series of Earth Observing System (EOS) and Earth Probes
and to establish a process by which the next generation of EOS and Earth Explorer
missions could be defined and formulated. Five new missions are expected to be
approved during FY2002. The OES will also orient the commercial remote sensing
and applications program toward state and local government needs. In other areas,
the OES plans to suspend development of the Triana satellite due to lack of space on
the Space Shuttle to carry the satellite for the foreseeable future.
CRS-44
The House approved $1.517 billion for Earth Science, reducing funding for the
EOS follow-on by $30 million. The Senate approved $1.558 billion, adding $31
million for development of the EOS Data Information System. The Senate expressed
concern about the pace of implementation of a congressional directive to expand
public/private remote sensing efforts and applications. In the final bill, Congress
provided $1.573 billion for Earth Science. Included in the increase are $6.0 million
for expansion of data processing and distribution capacity of the EOSDIS core
system, and $23.5 million to develop additional uses for EOS data.
Aero-Space Technology. For Aero-Space Technology, NASA requested
$2.376 million for FY2002, a 7% increase above the FY2001 level. Included in the
request was a 64% increase for the Space Launch Initiative (SLI). NASA also
proposed a refocused aeronautics R&D program, aimed at a 21st Century aerospace
vehicle. The features of this program are not well defined, and critics suggest that it
may not be what the commercial aviation industry needs at this point.
The House approved $2.431 billion for Aero-Space Technology including full
funding of the SLI after expressing its strong support for the program. The House
also expressed deep concern about the decline in NASA funding for aeronautics R&D
over the past several years. It directed NASA to restore a specific line for aeronautics
R&D to its operating plan and to include more industry representatives as it develops
a blueprint for future aeronautical R&D efforts. The Senate approved $2.47 billion
for Aero-Space Technology including increases for several aeronautics R&D
programs. It also reduced funding for the SLI by $15.0 million from its request and
directed NASA to improve coordination of the SLI with the Space Shuttle upgrade
program.
The final bill provides $2.490 billion for Aero-Space Technology. Included in
the increase are $10 million for the Ultra Efficient Engine Technology program and
$15 million for aviation safety. Congress also reduced funding for the SLI by $10
million. In the accompanying report, Congress noted its dissatisfaction with NASA’s
treatment of aeronautical research and directed the agency to reestablish a specific line
in the budget for aeronautics research for the FY2003 submission.
National Science Foundation
The FY2002 appropriation for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is $4.789
billion, 8% ($372.5 million) above FY2001. Support is provided for several
interdependent priority areas: biocomplexity in the environment, information
technology research, learning for the 21st century, and nanoscale science and
engineering.
NSF will continue its lead role in the multi-agency National Nanotechnology
Initiative. The appropriation includes $160 million in support of the President’s New
Math and Science Partnerships Initiative (MSPI), and NSF will assume a leadership
role in the MSPI. The MSPI will provide funding for states and local school districts
to join with colleges and universities to strengthen K-12 science and mathematics
education. The FY2002 appropriation includes $75 million for a comprehensive
research initiative on plant genomes for economically significant crops, including
funding for high-throughput sequencing (such as full-length cDNA sequencing) of
CRS-45
economically important crops. Also, conferees directed $105.5 million for graduate
level stipends in the support of the research and teaching fellowship programs and
training programs, approximately $10 million above the Administration’s request.
Included in the FY2002 appropriation is $3.598 billion for Research and Related
Activities (R&RA), 8% ($256 million) above the estimated $3.343 billion that was
spent during FY2001. R&RA funds research projects, research facilities, and
education and training activities. NSF has placed an emphasis in FY2002 on funding
rates for new investigators and on increasing grant size and duration.
The R&RA includes Integrative Activities (IA), created in FY1999, which funds
cross-disciplinary research, major research instrumentation, intellectual infrastructure,
and the Science and Technology Policy Institute. The FY2002 appropriation for IA
is $106.5 million, a 9% increase above the FY2001 level. Included in the support is
$4 million for the Science and Technology Policy Institute, $27 million for the Science
and Technology Centers, and $76 million for major research instrumentation. The
legislation provides specific increases of $25 million for information technology
research, $25 million for nanotechnology, and $12.5 million for increased energy and
fuel costs related to polar and ocean sciences.
The conferrees directed NSF to establish priorities in the upgrading of its
astronomical facilities and equipment, including the Very Large Array radio telescope
in New Mexico, and the Greenbank Observatory and Robert C. Byrd Telescope in
West Virginia. Funds were provided to increase the number of individual
investigators in the astronomical sciences. Conferees placed a high priority on
mathematics research, funded within the Mathematical and Physical Sciences in the
R&RA.
Table 14. National Science Foundation Appropriations,
FY1998 to FY2002
(budget authority in billions)
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
$3.43
$3.67
$3.90
$4.43
$4.79
Source: Figures for FY1997-FY2000 are from administration budget submissions of subsequent
years; figures for FY2001 are from H.Rept. 107-159, and are the latest available estimates for that
fiscal year. Final spending levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded,
and any supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been included.
The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account
is funded at $139 million in FY2002, 14% above the FY2001 level. (Formerly Major
Research Equipment, the name was changed by conferees to better describe the
mission of the activities in the account.) Established in FY1995, this account supports
the construction of major research facilities that are at the “cutting edge of science
and engineering.” Projects funded in the MREFC for FY2002 include the Large
Hadron Collider ($17 million); the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
($24 million); Terascale Computing Systems ($35 million); the development,
production, and instrumentation of the High-Performance Instrumented Airborne
CRS-46
Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER); the initial construction of the
Atacama Large Millimeter Array radio telescope ($12.5 million); and start-up costs
for the IceCube Neutrino Detection project ($15 million).
Funding was completed in FY2001 for the South Pole Station Modernization.
Language was included in the conference report directing the NSF to provide a report
by the end of February 2002, on the full life-cycle cost of the projects and facilities
supported by this account. The report is to include details of the implementation of
the management plan submitted to the Administration in September of this year. The
plan, Large Facility Projects Management & Oversight Plan, resulted from
congressional concerns related to cost overruns and management by NSF.
Table 15. Appropriations: National Science Foundation,
FY2001-FY2002
(budget authority in billions)
Program
FY2002 FY2002
FY2001 FY2002
House
Senate
enacted request (H.R. 2620) (S. 1216)
FY2002
Conf.
(H.R. 2620
Research, related activities
3.350
3.327
3.642
3.514
3.598
Major research equipment
.122
.096
.135
.109
.139
Education, human resources
.787
.872
.886
.872
.875
Salaries and expenses
.161
.170
.170
.170
.170
Office of Inspector General
.006
.007
.007
.007
.007
Subtotal (NSF)
4.426
4.473
4.840
4.673
4.789
Source: H.Rept. 107-159; S.Rept. 107-43; H.Rept. 107-148; H.Rept. 107-272
Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.
The FY2002 appropriation for the Education and Human Resources Directorate
(EHR) is $875 million, 11% above the FY2001 level. Support at the precollege level
includes an investment of $160 million to initiate the MSPI. The MSPI is the
centerpiece of EHR’s education activities at this level, resulting in the redirection of
some funds from other EHR programs. The MSPI addresses such issues as teacher
preparation and training, curriculum construction, and science and mathematics
standards. Conferees requested that NSF provide detailed information to the
Committee on Appropriations concerning the operation and execution of the MSPI.
Support continues for the Centers for Learning and Teaching, the Systemic
Reform Initiatives, and Instructional Materials Development. Major programs at the
undergraduate level are Advanced Technological Education, Louis Stokes Alliances
for Minority Participation, Scholarship for Service, Minority-Servicing Institutions,
and Course Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement. Funding has been provided
for a new undergraduate workforce initiative which includes a competitive grants
CRS-47
program for increasing the number of students pursuing degrees in science and
engineering.
Increased support at the graduate level will allow NSF to raise the stipend of
graduate fellows and to increase the number of new fellowships offered. (Depending
on the availability of funds, the graduate stipend level is projected to increase to
$21,500 in FY2002.) Support at this level is directed at the Graduate Research
Fellowship, Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education, Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeships, and Alliances for Graduate Education and the
Professoriate (formerly the Minority Graduate Education program).
Approximately $2.6 million was provided to establish a program to develop the
research infrastructure at those Historically Black Colleges and Universities that offer
doctorate programs in science and engineering. Funding for the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is $80 million (an additional
$30 million from R&RA will support EPSCoR activities).
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, 2001.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. This agency
manages the Toxic Substances and Environmental Public Health program, which
issues toxicological profiles of possible toxic substances. The Agency conducts health
studies, evaluations, or other activities, using biomedical testing, clinical evaluations,
and medical monitoring. The agency was funded (via earmark) through EPA’s
Hazardous Substance Superfund through FY2000. P.L. 106-377 provided a separate
line of $75 million for the agency for FY2001, although the Agency continued to be
financed through the structure of the Superfund. The Administration proposed $78
million for FY2002, and recommended continuing the separate funding line for its
appropriations. Both House and Senate versions of H.R. 2620 approved the
requested level, and conferees concurred, asking that adequate funds be used for
minority health professions, and for studies of the health effects of consuming Great
Lakes fish.
American Battle Monuments Commission. The Commission 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, as well as 3 large memorials in the U.S.
The House approved a $7 million addition to the Administration’s request for
the Commission, in part, to complete scheduled, but delayed maintenance; $5 million
of the added amount is to provide for development of a visitor’s center at the site of
CRS-48
the D-Day invasion in Normandy. The Senate approved the $28 million the
Administration requested for FY2002, without reference to the House proposal for
clearing up the maintenance backlog or the D-Day center. Conferees accepted the
House proposed funding level, and endorsed the planned use of the additional funds
for maintenance and for the visitors center at Normandy.
In recent years, the Commission has received considerable attention as the
agency that collects funds for the construction of a memorial in Washington, D.C. to
honor those who served during World War II. The Commission projects that the
World War II Memorial Fund will reach $175 million by FY2002. Congress has given
the Commission authority to borrow up to $65 million from the U.S. Treasury to
facilitate a more rapid completion of the memorial. P.L. 106-377 appropriated $28
million for the Commission for FY2001.
Cemeterial Expenses, Army. Arlington National Cemetery and the
Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery are administered by the U.S. Army.
By FY2001, 283,553 persons were interred/inurned in these cemeteries. In addition
to almost 6,300 interments and inurnments each year, Arlington is the site of
approximately 3,000 other ceremonies, and 4 million visitors, annually.
P.L. 107-73 provides the amount that the Administration requested for this
function for FY2002, $18.4 million. The House approved $22.5 million for FY2002,
endorsing a $4.1 million addition to the request for the purpose of building an
additional Columbarium for Arlington Cemetery. The Senate bill approved $17.9
million, the amount provided for FY2001. For FY2000, Congress appropriated $12.5
million. The increase for FY2001 was intended to augment the expansion of
Arlington National Cemetery into contiguous land sites previously used for military
commands, and to fund the next increment of the Columbarium Complex.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. The Board, which
was authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, investigates hazardous
substance spills or releases. Congress appropriated $7.5 million to the Board for
FY2000, provided a similar amount for FY2001, and the Administration requests $7.6
million for FY2002.
The House approved $8 million for FY2002, and the Senate approved the
requested level. Both versions contain language that instructs the Inspector General
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to assume IG
responsibilities for the operations of the Board. Conferees settled on $7.85 million.
Community Development Financial Institution Fund. The Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI) was created by P.L. 103-325. The
CDFI fund program was a Clinton 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.
CRS-49
P.L. 106-377 provided the Fund with $118 million for FY2001. Of this total,
$5 million was set aside for technical assistance to promote economic development
in Native American communities. The Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000
(P.L. 106-554) created the New Markets Tax Credit Program which will be
administered by the Fund. Through this program the Fund will allocate tax credits as
part of an effort to expand incentives for business investment in low-income
communities. Implementation of this program will begin upon completion of
appropriate rules and regulations by the Internal Revenue Service.
P.L. 107-73 appropriates $80 million for FY2002, a decrease of 32% from the
$118 million appropriated in FY2001. The Administration requested $68 million for
FY2002. The Senate approved an appropriation of $100 million. The House
approved an appropriation of $80 million and this was the amount agreed to by the
conference. The conference agreed with the Senate provision for a set-aside of $5
million for Native American, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiian communities.
Conferees also agreed with the Senate’s request for a report on rural lending practices
to be included as part of the FY2003 budget submission.
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. Congress appropriated $49 million for FY2000, and $52.5
million for FY2001.
P.L. 107-73 provides $55.2 to the Commission for FY2002. The House had
approved $54.2 million, the amount requested by the Administration. The Senate
approved $56.2 million, with $1 million to be used for continuing efforts in support
of recall and compliance activities, and $1 million to fund a research project “designed
to accelerate the incorporation of state-of-the-art sensor technologies from the
industrial, defense, and space sectors into consumer products.”
Conferees expressed a public concern about “...the potential health and safety
risks related to the use of chromated copper arsenate (CCA) to treat wood
playground equipment....” and directs the Commission to report to the Committees
on Appropriations by February 15, 2002, on progress made in the effort to identify
whether there are significant risks to children playing on equipment treated with CCA.
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. The DVSA programs, — e.g., Foster
Grandparents Program and Senior Companion Program — are funded under the
Labor/HHS Appropriation bill. Authorization for CNS, and programs and activities
authorized by NCSA, expired at the end of FY1996. Since then, continued program
authority has occurred through
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
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.