Appropriations for FY2005: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies

Order Code RL32304

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Appropriations for FY2005:

VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies

Updated December 28, 2004

Richard Bourdon and Paul Graney

Coordinators

Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and

supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also

encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit

legislation, other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the

operation of programs and the spending of appropriated funds are subject to

constraints established in authorizing statutes. Congressional action on the budget

for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission of the President’s budget at

the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing the consideration

of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the Constitution, the

standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

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

considers each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the

House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on the Department of Veterans

Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies. It summarizes

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

activity, and is updated as events warrant. 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 FY2005: VA, HUD,

and Independent Agencies

Summary

On February 2, 2004, the Administration presented its proposed FY2005 budget

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

Development (HUD), and several Independent Agencies, including the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). On November

20, 2004, the House and Senate approved the Consolidated Appropriations Act of

FY2005 (H.Rept. 108-792, H.R. 4818) providing $129.0 billion for VA/HUD and

Independent Agencies, nearly $5.5 billion (4.4%) above FY2004 appropriations of

$123.5 billion and $1.7 billion more than the Administration’s request of $127.2

billion. On December 8, 2004, the President signed the funding bill into law: P.L.

108-447. However, the figures in this report do not include an across-the-board

rescission of 0.80% that will be applied to all discretionary appropriations.

Some departments or agencies fared better than others as the Congress faced

strong pressures to limit all non-defense discretionary spending. The Department of

Veterans Affairs will be funded at nearly $66 billion, $4.1 billion more than FY2004

appropriations and $1.2 billion above the President’s budget. The Administration’s

request once again included new user fees at healthcare facilities and increased

copayments for pharmaceuticals — proposals that were not adopted.

HUD received $32.0 billion, $838 million more than FY2004 appropriations.

The sizable increase provided for the Section 8 voucher program, about $1 billion

above FY2005 and nearly $1.8 billion more than the Administration request, made

it necessary to cut all other agency programs, including the Community Development

Fund (down $225 million from FY2004 appropriations), HOME (down $91 million),

housing for the elderly (down $27 million), housing opportunities for persons with

AIDS (down $11 million), and homeless assistance grants (down $9 million). The

controversial initiative proposed by the Administration, the Flexible Voucher

Program (FVP), intended to control spending under the Section 8 rental voucher

program, was not adopted, but the use of budget-based funding continues.

The conferees agreed to $8.1 billion for EPA, a cut of $278 million from

FY2004 appropriations of $8.4 billion, with $274 million less than last year for

assistance grants to state, local, and tribal environmental protection programs,

primarily involving water resources. The Superfund received $1.3 billion, equal to

the FY2004 level. The National Science Foundation will be funded at $5.5 billion,

about $61 million less than the prior year, including a $91 million reduction in

education and human resources.

The conferees approved $16.2 billion for NASA for FY2005, an increase of

$822 million (5.3%) over the prior year to cover the increased costs associated with

the Hubble servicing and repair mission and the shuttle return-to-flight activities,

with the agency given almost total funding flexibility.

This report will not be updated.

Key Policy Staff

Name

Area of expertise

CRS

Division

David Bearden

Environmental

Policy

RSI

Richard Bourdon

Housing

DSP

(name redacted)

(name redacted)

Bruce Foote

Paul Graney

(name redacted)

Christine Matthews

(name redacted)

Bruce Mulock

Sidath Panangala

(name redacted)

Marcia Smith

Community

Development

Environmental

Policy

Housing

Veterans Benefits

Administration

National and

Community Service

National Science

Foundation

Housing

Consumer

Affairs

Veterans Health

Administration

Banking

National Aeronautics

and Space

Administration

G&F

RSI

DSP

DSP

DSP

RSI

DSP

G&F

DSP

G&F

RSI

Telephone and E-Mail

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

Division abbreviations: DSP=Domestic Social Policy; G&F=Government and Finance;

RSI=Resources, Science and Industry.

Contents

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

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 Signed into Law . . . . . . . . . . . 1

H.Con.Res. 528 Approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

House and Senate Approve Third Continuing Resolution,

H.J.Res. 115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

House and Senate Pass Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 . . . . . . 1

Senate Appropriations Committee Approves S. 2825 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

House Appropriations Committee Approves H.R. 5041 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Administration Submits Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

Total Appropriations Enacted for FY2004 and Requested for FY2005 for

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

Title I: Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Key Budget Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

VA Cash Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

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

Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Key Budget Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Funding Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Section 8 Voucher Funding Level and the Flexible Voucher

Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

HOPE VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Public Housing Funding and New Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Homeownership Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

The Samaritan and Faith-Based Prisoner Reentry Initiatives . . . . . . . 13

Title III: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

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

Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Key Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

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

Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Key Budget Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Key Budget Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Other Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

American Battle Monuments Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Cemeterial Expenses, Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund . . . . . . 26

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) . . . . . . . . 27

Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental

Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Interagency Council on the Homeless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Office of Science and Technology Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Selective Service System (SSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Commission on National Moment of Remembrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Selected Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

HUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

NSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

CNCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

List of Tables

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

FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

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

FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations,

FY2000 to FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,

FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,

FY2001 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 6. Housing and Urban Developmeny Appropriations,

FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 7. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations,

FY2000 to FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 8. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency,

FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 9. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Appropriations,

FY2000 to FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 10. Appropriations: National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 11. National Science Foundation Appropriations,

FY2000 to FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 12. National Science Foundation Appropriations,

FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 13. Other Independent Agencies Appropriations,

FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appropriations for FY2005:

VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies

Most Recent Developments

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 Signed into Law. On

December 8, 2004, the President signed an omnibus spending bill, H.R. 4818 (P.L.

108-447) that provides $129.0 billion, 4.4% above FY2004 appropriations.

H.Con.Res. 528 Approved. On December 6, 2004, the House approved the

amendment to H.Con.Res. 528 that the Senate had passed on November 20, 2004,

correcting the enrollment of H.R. 4818 to lower the across-the-board rescission.

House and Senate Approve Third Continuing Resolution, H.J.Res.

115. On November 24, 2004, both the House and Senate agreed to H.J.Res. 115,

which funded all non-defense agencies at FY2004 levels through December 8, 2004.

House and Senate Pass Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Conference Report H.Rept. 108-792,

H.R. 4818) was passed by the House and Senate on November 20, 2004.

Senate Appropriations Committee Approves S. 2825. On September

21, 2004, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S. 2825 (S.Rept. 108-353)

recommending $130.0 billion for FY2005, almost $6.6 billion more than the FY2004

appropriations and $2.8 billion above the Administration’s request of $127.2 billion.

House Appropriations Committee Approves H.R. 5041. On July 22,

2004, the House Appropriations Committee approved H.R. 5041 (H.Rept.108-674,

reported on September 9, 2004) recommending $128.0 billion for FY2005, $4.6

billion above the FY2004 appropriations and $801 million more than the

Administration’s request of $127.2 billion.

Administration Submits Budget. On February 2, 2004, the President

submitted the Administration’s FY2005 budget to Congress, requesting $127.2

billion for VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies.

Status

Budget figures in this report for FY2004 and FY2005 are from the House

Appropriations Committee’s funding tables found in H.Rept. 108-792, beginning on

page H10177 of the Congressional Record of November 20, 2004. These figures do

not reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.80% to be applied to discretionary

accounts.

CRS-2

Table 1. Status of VA, HUD and Independent Agencies

Appropriations, FY2005

Conference report P.L.

Subcommittee Committee

Committee

Omnibus H.Rept. 108-792

markup

108markup

Passed markup

Passed

conference

447

H.Rept. House

S.Rept. Senate

reported

House Senate 108-674

House Senate signed

108-353

07/20

07/22

09/21

11/19

11/20

11/20

12/08

Total Appropriations Enacted for FY2004 and

Requested for FY2005 for VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies

Table 2. Summary of VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2005

(budget authority in $ billions)

FY2004

enacted

FY2005

request

FY2005

House

Comm.

FY2005

Senate

Comm.

FY2005

Conf.

Department of Veterans

Affairs

$61.8

$64.8

$66.0

$66.1

$66.0

Department of Housing and

Urban Development

31.2

31.5

32.6

32.2

32.0

Environmental Protection

Agency

8.4

7.8

7.8

8.5

8.1

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

15.4

16.2

15.1

16.4

16.2

National Science Foundation

5.6

5.7

5.5

5.7

5.5

Other Independent Agencies

1.1

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.1

mandatory

32.7

35.1

35.1

35.1

35.1

discretionary

90.8

92.1

92.9

94.9

93.9a

Total: VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies (net)

$123.5

$127.2

$128.0

$130.0

$129.0

Department or Agency

Source: H.Rept. 108-792, H.R. 4818.

a. The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) requires a rescission equal to 0.80%

of all discretionary accounts. The Act also includes $31 million in Community Development

Funds outside of the HUD appropriations that are included in the bill total, but are not included

in the HUD total.

CRS-3

Title I: Department of Veterans Affairs

Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations,

FY2000 to FY2004

(budget authority in $ billions)

VA

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

$47.95

$52.38

$58.10

$61.85

$65.96

Source: Amounts for FY2001-FY2004 are from reports of the Appropriations Committees

accompanying the appropriations bills for the following years. The amount for FY2005 is from

funding tables in H.Rept. 108-792 and does not include an across-the-board rescission of 0.80% that

is to be applied to all discretionary accounts. Actual final spending levels for any fiscal year include

all supplemental appropriations or rescissions. Final totals remain uncertain until all program

experience has been recorded, a process that may not be completed for several months after the end

of the fiscal year.

Agency Mission

Federal policy toward veterans recognizes the importance of their service to the

nation and the effect that service may have on their subsequent civilian lives. The

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers, directly or in conjunction with

other federal agencies, programs that provide cash benefits and other services to

veterans and their dependents and beneficiaries. The three primary organizations in

VA that work together to accomplish this mission are the Veterans Benefits

Administration (VBA), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and the National

Cemetery Administration (NCA). The benefits provided include compensation for

disabilities sustained or worsened as a result of active duty military service; pensions

for totally disabled, poor war veterans; cash payments for certain categories of

dependents and/or survivors; education, training, rehabilitation, and job placement

services to assist veterans upon their return to civilian life; loan guarantees to help

them obtain homes; free medical care for conditions sustained during military service

as well as medical care for other conditions, much of which is provided free to lowincome veterans; life insurance to enhance financial security for their dependents;

and burial assistance, flags, grave sites, and headstones when they die.

CRS-4

Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,

FY2004 to FY2005

(budget authority in $ billions)

FY2004

enacted

FY2005

request

FY2005

House

Comm.

FY2005

Senate

Comm.

FY2005

Conf.

Compensation, pension,

burial

$29.845

$32.608

$32.608

$32.608

$32.608

Readjustment benefits

2.530

2.556

2.556

2.556

2.556

Insurance/indemnities

0.029

0.044

0.044

0.044

0.044

Housing program (net,

indefinite)

0.306

-0.100

-0.100

-0.100

-0.100

Subtotal: Mandatory

32.710

35.108

35.108

35.108

35.108

Medical services

16.662

—

19.499

17.199

19.473

Two-year funding

1.100

—

—

1.100

—

Emergency funding

—

—

—

1.200

—

Medical administration

4.971

—

4.705

4.705

4.705

Medical facilities

3.976

—

3.745

3.745

3.745

Medical prosthetic research

0.406

0.385

0.385

0.406

0.406

Medical care

—

25.353

—

—

—

Two-year funding

—

1.396

—

—

—

-0.270

—

—

—

—

(offsetting receipts)

-1.555

-2.002

-2.002

-2.002

-2.002

(appropriations indefinite)

1.555

2.002

2.002

2.002

2.002

Subtotal: Medical

programs and

administration

(appropriations)

26.845

27.133

28.333

28.354

28.328

[Total available for VHA]

(including receipts)

[28.399]

[29.135]

[30.335]

[30.356]

[30.330]

General administration

expenses (total)

1.276

1.325

1.320

1.400

1.325

National Cemetery

Administration

0.143

0.149

0.149

0.149

0.149

Program

Rescission

Medical care cost collect.a

CRS-5

Program

FY2004

enacted

FY2005

request

FY2005

House

Comm.

FY2005

Senate

Comm.

FY2005

Conf.

Inspector General

0.062

0.065

0.070

0.065

0.070

Construction

0.522

0.690

0.690

0.690

0.690

Grants; state facilities

0.101

0.105

0.105

0.105

0.105

State veteran cemeteries

0.032

0.032

0.032

0.032

0.032

Housing program admin.

0.154

0.154

0.154

0.154

0.154

Other loan funds

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

Subtotal: Discretionary

(including medical

programs and

administration)

29.136

29.654

30.854

30.949

30.854b

Total

$61.845

$64.762

$65.962

$66.057

$65.962

Sources: H.Rept. 108-674, H.R. 5041, S.Rept. 108-393, S. 2825, H.Rept. 108-792, H.R. 4818.

a. Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) receipts are restored to the VHA as an indefinite budget

authority equal to the revenue collected, estimated to be $2 billion in FY2005.

b. The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) requires a rescission equal to 0.80%

of all discretionary accounts.

Key Budget Issues

P.L. 108-447 includes almost $66 billion for VA with the $30.9 billion in

discretionary funding subject to the 0.80% across-the-board rescission also included

in the new law. The $30.9 billion is the amount approved by the House

Appropriations Committee, which is $1.2 billion more than the Administration’s

request and almost $100 million less than the Senate Appropriations Committee

approved. The budget submitted by the Administration had called for funding VA

at a level of $64.8 billion for FY2005.

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

and the amounts requested in the budget are based on projected caseloads. Eligibility

requirements and benefit levels are specified in law. While the number of veterans

is declining, VA entitlement spending, mostly service-connected compensation,

pensions, and readjustment (primarily education) payments, reached $28.4 billion in

FY2002, $31.6 billion in FY2003, $32.7 billion in FY2004, and is projected to reach

$35.1 billion in FY2005. Much of the projected increase in recent years results from

cost-of-living adjustments for compensation benefits and from liberalizations to the

Montgomery GI Bill, the primary education program.

Medical Care. In FY2004 the Administration requested approximately $25.7

billion for VHA. Congress appropriated approximately $26.8 billion for VHA to be

CRS-6

spent through an account structure comprising four new accounts: medical services,

medical administration, medical facilities, and medical and prosthetic research.

For FY2005, the Administration submitted its budget request to Congress using

a new account structure — consolidating several accounts into two business lines:

medical care, and medical and prosthetic research. The Administration requested

approximately $27.1 billion for VHA for FY2005. Under the bill approved by the

House Appropriations Committee, the Veterans Health Administration would have

received approximately $28.3 billion in FY2005 using the FY2004 account structure

— a $1.4 billion increase from FY2004 and $1.2 billion more than the President’s

request. This included nearly $19.5 billion for medical services, approximately $4.7

billion for medical administration, $3.7 billion for medical facilities, and $385

million for medical and prosthetic research. The $2 billion in medical care

collections that was projected to be available in the budget request remained the same

throughout the appropriations process.

Under the Senate bill, S. 2825, the Veterans Health Administration would have

received approximately $28.4 billion in FY2005. This was a $1.5 billion increase

from FY2004, $1.2 billion more than the President’s request, and $21 million more

than the House Appropriations Committee recommendation. This included nearly

$19.5 billion for medical services,1 approximately $4.7 billion for medical

administration, $3.7 billion for medical facilities, and approximately $406 million for

medical and prosthetic research.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L.108-447), appropriates $28.3

billion for VHA in FY2005 — an increase of $1.2 billion over the FY2005

appropriation request, and $1.5 billion over FY2004. None of the funds would be

contingent upon an emergency declaration as proposed by the Senate Appropriations

Committee. P.L.108-447 provides $19.5 billion to finance medical services.

Furthermore, it appropriates $4.7 billion for medical administration, $3.7 billion for

medical facilities, and $406 million for medical and prosthetic research. Another $2

billion in medical care collections is expected to be available to VHA in addition to

the appropriated amount. The conference agreement also includes $371 million from

the major construction account and $182 million from the minor construction account

for CARES-related activities.

In its budget submission to Congress, the Administration also proposed several

legislative and regulatory changes. Among the Administration’s proposals were: to

increase the veteran’s share of pharmaceutical copayments from $7 to $15 for each

30-day prescription for all enrolled veterans in Priority Groups 7 and 8; to increase

the veteran’s share of copayments for outpatient primary care from $15 to $20 for

each appointment for all enrolled veterans in Priority Groups 7 and 8; to establish an

annual user fee of $250 for all enrolled veterans in Priority Groups 7 and 8; to end

pharmacy copayments for veterans in Priority Groups 2 through 5 with incomes

between $9,894 and $16,509; to end long-term care copayments for former prisoners

1

This amount includes $1.1 billion in two-year funding and $1.2 billion designated as an

emergency requirement. By designating funding as an emergency requirement, it is not

subject to enforcement procedures under the congressional budget process.

CRS-7

of war; to authorize payment of out-of-pocket expenses for emergency room care or

urgent care in non-VA medical facilities for all enrolled veterans; and to end hospice

copayments. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations did not accept

any of the Administration’s above proposals. The conference report also rejected

these changes, as well as the Administration’s proposal to fund VHA through an

alternative account structure.

For a more detailed discussion of the VA medical care budget, see CRS Report

RL32548, Veterans’ Medical Care Appropriations and Funding Process.

Title II: Department of Housing and

Urban Development

Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Appropriations, FY2001 to FY2005

(net budget authority in $ billions)

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

$28.48

$30.15

$31.01

$31.20

$32.04

Source: Amounts for FY2001-FY2004 are from reports of the Appropriations Committees

accompanying the appropriations bills for the following years. The amount for FY2005 is from

funding tables in H.Rept. 108-792 and does not include an across-the-board rescission of 0.80% that

is to be applied to all discretionary accounts. Actual final spending levels for any fiscal year include

all supplemental appropriations or rescissions. Final totals remain uncertain until all program

experience has been recorded, a process that may not be completed for several months after the end

of the fiscal year.

Agency Mission

Most of the appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) are designed to address housing problems faced by households

with very low incomes (for example, the typical recipient of a housing voucher has

an income of about $12,000) or other special housing needs. These include programs

of rental assistance for the poor, elderly or disabled, housing assistance for persons

with AIDS, and shelter for those who are homeless. The two large HUD block grant

programs, HOME and Community Development Block Grants, also help

communities finance a variety of activities to address housing needs of disadvantaged

populations. In recent years, HUD has focused more attention on efforts to increase

the homeownership rates for lower-income and minority households. (At the end of

the third quarter of 2004, the national homeownership rate stood at 69.0%, while the

rates for white, black, and Hispanic households stood at 76.1%, 49.7% and 47.4%

respectively.) HUD’s Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insures mortgages

made by lenders to lower-income homebuyers, and to developers of multifamily

rental buildings containing relatively affordable units.

CRS-8

Table 6. Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,

FY2004 to FY2005

(budget authority in $ billions)

Program

FY2004

enacted

FY2005

request

FY2005

House

Comm.

FY2005

Senate

Comm.

FY2005

Conf.a

Housing Certificate Fund

(Section 8) includes

advance appropriations

$19.257

$18.466

$20.018b

$20.708

$20.226b

Tenant-based Rental

Assistance (Section 8)

—

—

14.677

—

14.885

Project-based Rental

Assistance (Section 8)

—

—

5.341

—

5.341

Public housing capital fund

2.696

2.674

2.580

2.700

2.600

Public housing operating

fund

3.579

3.573

3.425

2.610

2.458

HOPE VI

0.149

0.000

0.143

0.150

0.144

Native American housing

block grants

0.650

0.647

0.622

0.650

0.627

Native Hawaiian Block

Grant

0.000

0.010

0.000

0.000

0.000

Housing, persons with AIDS

(HOPWA)

0.295

0.295

0.282

0.295

0.284

Rural Housing Economic

Development

0.025

0.000

0.024

0.025

0.024

Empowerment zones;

enterprise communities

0.015

0.000

0.014

0.000

0.010

Community Development

Block Grant (including

supplemental)

4.934

4.618

4.711

4.950

4.709

Brownfields redevelopment

0.025

0.000

0.024

0.025

0.024

HOME Investment

Partnerships

2.006

2.084

1.920

2.050

1.915

Homeless Assistance Grants

1.260

1.282

1.206

1.260

1.251

Samaritan Initiative

0.000

0.050

0.000

0.000

0.000

Housing for the elderly

0.774

0.773

0.741

0.774

0.747

Housing for the disabled

0.249

0.249

0.238

0.250

0.240

Housing Counseling

0.000

0.045

0.000

0.000

0.000

CRS-9

FY2004

enacted

FY2005

request

FY2005

House

Comm.

FY2005

Senate

Comm.

FY2005

Conf.a

Research and technology

0.047

0.047

0.045

0.047

0.046

Fair housing activities

0.048

0.048

0.046

0.048

0.047

Office, lead hazard control

0.174

0.139

0.167

0.175

0.168

Salaries and expenses

0.544

0.592

0.544

0.591

0.547

Working capital fund

0.234

0.234

0.100

0.234

0.270

Inspector General

0.077

0.077

0.077

0.084

0.080

Loan Guarantees

0.014

0.002

0.013

0.009

0.013

Subtotal: Appropriations

37.049

35.904

36.940

37.633

36.429

Section 8 recaptures

(rescission)

-2.844

-1.557

-1.557

-2.588

-1.557

Rental housing assistance

(rescission)

-0.303

-0.675

-0.675

-0.675

-0.675

Other rescissions

-0.030

-0.089

-0.089

-0.089

-0.089

-3.177

-2.321

-2.321

-3.352

-2.321

Federal Housing

Administration (net)

-2.364

-1.707

-1.682

-1.707

-1.710

GNMA (net)

-0.305

-0.357

-0.357

-0.357

-0.357

-2.669

-2.064

-2.040

-2.064

-2.068

$31.202

$31.519

$32.579

$32.218

$32.040

Program

Assistance

Subtotal: Rescissions

Subtotal: Offsets

Total

Sources: H.Rept. 108-674, H.R. 5041, S.Rept. 108-393, S. 2825, H.Rept. 108-792, P.L. 108-447.

a. The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) requires a rescission equal to 0.80%

of all discretionary accounts.

b. The House Committee bill and the Consolidated Appropriations law split the Housing Certificate

Fund into two separate accounts: tenant-based rental assistance (vouchers) and project-based

rental assistance.

Key Budget Issues

Funding Level. On November 20, 2004, the House and Senate passed the

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005. The conference report agreed to fund

HUD at $32.0 billion, up $838 million or about 2.7% from FY2004. (This increase

will be about 1.9% after the approved 0.80% rescission is imposed, which is not

shown in this report.) The Administration had proposed a budget for FY2005 of

CRS-10

$31.5 billion, an increase of about 1% above the FY2004 enacted budget.2 This

follows an increase of about 0.7% from FY2003 to FY2004. Affordable housing

advocates who argue for larger increases in the HUD budget point to the 2004 report,

The State of the Nation’s Housing, by Harvard’s Joint Center For Housing Studies,

which found that “Although the overwhelming majority of Americans are well

housed, nearly a third of all households spend 30% or more of their income on

housing and 13% spend 50% or more. In addition to widespread affordability

problems, crowding is on the increase, some 2.5-3.5 million people are homeless at

some point in a given year, and nearly 2 million households still live in severely

inadequate units.” Harvard’s 2003 Joint Center report concluded: “Progress in

tackling the nation’s housing challenges has stalled.”

HUD Deputy Secretary Roy Bernardi acknowledged in a June 2004 interview

that “there is not enough money right now in the country to provide housing for all

the people who need it,” but he cited current budget constraints caused by the

demands of homeland security, combating terrorism, and national defense.3

Section 8 Voucher Funding Level and the Flexible Voucher

Proposal. HUD’s FY2005 budget proposes to eliminate the Section 8 voucher

program (which is the largest component of the Housing Certificate Fund) and

replace it with a new grant program called the Flexible Voucher Program. According

to HUD, the FVP proposal would have provided an incentive for the Public Housing

Authorities (PHAs) that administer both Section 8 vouchers and public housing to

control the rising costs of housing vouchers. Under FVP, PHAs would have received

a fixed budget and most federal regulations governing the current program would

have been eliminated. The Administration expected the conversion to FVP to save

$1.6 billion in FY2005. A similar initiative was rejected by Congress in FY2004.

The funding requested for FVP was about $1 billion less than the voucher

program received in FY2004 and it has been estimated by advocates to be more than

$1 billion less than what would be needed to maintain the voucher program at its

current level if the FVP proposal was not adopted.4

The House Appropriations Committee bill did not adopt FVP and proposed to

fund the Section 8 program at $1.6 billion above the requested level. The House bill

also proposed to split the Housing Certificate Fund into two separate accounts:

Project-based Rental Assistance and Tenant-based Rental Assistance.

The Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bill did not adopt the FVP

proposal either and would have increased funding for the Housing Certificate Fund

2

Budget figures in this report are from funding tables in the Conference Report, H.Rept.

108-792. H.R. 4818 (Congressional Record of Nov. 20, 2004, pages H10177-H 10179) and

from HUD’s Congressional Justifications for 2005 Estimates.

3

4

Interview with Roy Bernardi. The Post-Standard (Syracuse, N.Y.), June 20, 2004.

See Barbara Sard and Will Fischer, Administration Seeks Deep Cuts in Housing Vouchers

and Conversion of Program to a Block Grant, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May

24, 2004.

CRS-11

more than $2.2 billion above the President’s request. Unlike the House bill, S. 2825

did not propose to split the Housing Certificate Fund account.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) did not adopt the FVP

proposal and it provides just under $1 billion more than was provided in FY2004 —

$1.8 billion more than the President requested. It splits the Housing Certificate Fund

into two accounts, as proposed by the House, citing a need for better transparency

and oversight.

Dollar-Based Funding in the Voucher Program. The House, Senate, and

final FY2005 funding bill all continue the controversial practice of dollar-based

funding in the voucher program, first adopted in FY2004 and proposed as a part of

the FVP initiative.

Prior to FY2004, PHA budgets were determined based on the number of

vouchers they were authorized to administer and the actual cost of those vouchers.

This method of calculating budgets has come to be called unit-based funding. In

the FY2004 HUD funding law, Congress changed this formula and began funding

PHAs based on the number of vouchers they were authorized to administer, at a fixed

cost (rather than an actual cost) for each of those vouchers. Specifically, the cost of

vouchers was fixed at the August 1, 2003 level, plus an inflation factor. This practice

is referred to as dollar-based funding (or budget-based funding), and its adoption

was very controversial among PHA groups and low-income housing advocates who

feared that it would lead to an erosion in the number of people served in the program.

Communities that faced reduced funding under this methodology have adopted a

number of cost-saving strategies, including not re-issuing vouchers when families

leave the program and/or cutting the subsidies paid to landlords (who, in some cases,

willingly took the cuts, and in others, chose to no longer participate in the program).

In FY2005, HUD proposed to continue the practice of budget-based funding for

PHAs in its FVP proposal (see above). H.R. 5041 did not adopt FVP but did direct

the Secretary to continue the practice of funding PHAs on a dollar-based system.

Unlike the FY2004 law, the House bill did not specify a formula for the Secretary to

use when determining PHA budgets. S. 2825 also proposed to continue the practice

of budget-based funding. The bill directed the Secretary to fund PHAs based on a

fixed cost, established by looking at PHAs’ most recently submitted end-of-year

financial statements, adjusted for any additional information submitted by the PHAs

as of October 1, 2004, plus an inflation factor. The Senate bill proposed an inflation

factor that would be more broadly defined than the one adopted in FY2004. The

final FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) directs the Secretary

of HUD to provide a dollar-based budget to PHAs based on their average costs and

units leased over May, June, and July of 2004 (or earlier data, if not available), plus

a HUD inflation factor. HUD is directed to publish guidance implementing the new

funding law within 30 days of its passage and notify PHAs of their budget levels

within 45 days of passage.

Housing Certificate Fund Rescission. Each year, a portion of the cost of

the Housing Certificate Fund is offset by a recapture of unobligated balances from

previous years. For FY2004, the President’s budget indicated that just under $1.4

billion would be available for rescission. However, Congress rescinded double that

CRS-12

amount in FY2004, over $2.8 billion. The additional funds were estimated to be

available as the result of savings from a one-time accounting change enacted in the

program.

In FY2005, the President’s budget indicated that over $1.5 billion would be

available for rescission from prior years’ unobligated balances. The House

Appropriations Committee bill would have rescinded that amount. S. 2825 proposed

to rescind over $2.5 billion and directed the Comptroller General to audit and certify

all funds available for rescission within the account. The bill further directed that,

if sufficient funds to meet the rescission were not available within the HCF account,

the difference would be required to be met through a proportional rescission taken

from each discretionary account funded in the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies

appropriations bill, with the exception of the Medical Services account in VA. The

final Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) rescinds the amount proposed

by the President.

HOPE VI. For the second year in a row, the President’s budget requested no

new funding for HOPE VI, a public housing rehabilitation program that received

$149 million in FY2004. In justifying the funding cut, the Administration points to

more than $2 billion of unspent funds in the pipeline that will keep the program

going for several years. Advocates for the program, including many Members of

Congress, contend that HOPE VI has been successful in replacing some of the most

dilapidated housing projects with new mixed-income housing, and that it needs to be

continued. The Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) provides $144

million for HOPE VI, instead of $150 million as proposed by the Senate and $143

million proposed by the House.

Public Housing Funding and New Initiatives. As a new initiative in

FY2005, the President proposed to fund Voluntary Graduation Bonuses as a part

of the Public Housing Operating Fund. Voluntary Graduation Bonus funds would

be awarded to PHAs that exceed a baseline number of families who have exited

public and assisted housing. The stated goal is to “move program participants away

from dependency on public housing assistance programs.”

The House

Appropriations Committee did not adopt the President’s Voluntary Graduation Bonus

proposed set-aside. S. 2825 set aside $15 million for the bonuses. The Consolidated

Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) provides $10 million for graduation bonuses.

As proposed in the Senate bill, the Consolidated Appropriations Act directs the

Secretary of HUD to move all PHAs to a single, unified fiscal year ending on

December 1, 2005. PHA fiscal years, and therefore their funding, have typically

lagged the federal fiscal year and the calendar year. This change to a unified fiscal

year provides Congress a one-time savings of almost a billion dollars with no

decrease in the program level. As a result, the final FY2005 appropriations law

provides $1 billion less than the President requested for the Public Housing

Operating Fund.

Homeownership Initiatives.

The Administration’s Downpayment

Assistance Initiative program provides grants to participating jurisdictions for

downpayment help to low-income families. It received an $87 million set-aside

within the HOME program in FY2004 and the Administration’s FY2005 budget

CRS-13

requested $200 million. The conferees provide $50 million as was proposed by the

Senate, instead of $85 million recommended by the House. A second Administration

homeownership initiative, the Zero Downpayment program (H.R. 3755) proposed to

help an estimated 150,000 first-time homebuyers annually purchase with no money

down and finance all settlement costs. On June 3, 2004, the House Financial

Services Committee passed an amended H.R. 3755. No further action occurred.

The Administration maintains that homeownership for low-income and minority

families helps create a stable living environment for children and allows these

families to accumulate wealth. They point to substantially lower homeownership

rates for minorities and lower-income households. Critics contend that the

Administration’s focus on homeownership is unbalanced and political; taken

together, homeownership programs cost HUD nothing (the FHA insurance program

made an estimated profit of $2.9 billion for the agency in FY2004); that too many

lower-income families are being enticed to purchase a home with little or no savings,

with little or no financial knowledge about budgets or home repair contracts, and that

they are especially vulnerable to layoffs and a variety of financial and mortgage- and

housing-related scams. They point to very high FHA mortgage delinquency rates —

currently above 12%. While the Administration’s FY2005 budget projected no cost

for the Zero Downpayment program, assuming higher insurance premiums would

cover costs, on June 21, 2004, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) put out an

estimate of $562 million over the 2006-2009 period. CBO estimates that defaults for

the new program would average about 1% each year and that the cumulative default

rate over a 30-year period would exceed 30%. Neither the House nor Senate

Appropriations Committees, nor the Consolidated Appropriations bill, included

funding for the Zero Downpayment program for FY2005.

The Samaritan and Faith-Based Prisoner Reentry Initiatives. The

Administration’s FY2005 budget included $50 million for the new Samaritan

Initiative, a proposal designed to address the President’s goal of ending chronic

homelessness. It would have provided communities with funds for new housing

options and aggressive outreach and services to homeless people. Bills to authorize

the Samaritan Initiative were introduced in both the House and Senate (H.R. 4057

and S. 2829). The $25 million Faith-Based Prisoner Reentry program, was proposed

as an effort with the Labor and Justice Departments to help 600,000 people who

leave prison each year make the transition to society. No appropriations bill,

including the final Act, provides funding to these proposals.

For a more detailed discussion of the HUD budget, see CRS Report RL32443,

The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2005 Budget.

CRS-14

Title III: Independent Agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Table 7. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations,

FY2000 to FY2004

(budget authority in $ billions)

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

$7.83

$8.08

$8.08

$8.37

$8.09

Source: Amounts for FY2001-FY2004 are from reports of the Appropriations Committees

accompanying the appropriations bills for the following years. The amount for FY2005 is from

funding tables in H.Rept. 108-792 and does not include an across-the-board rescission of 0.80% that

is to be applied to all discretionary accounts. Actual final spending levels for any fiscal year include

all supplemental appropriations or rescissions. Final totals remain uncertain until all program

experience has been recorded, a process that may not be completed for several months after the end

of the fiscal year.

Agency Mission. The Nixon Administration established the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 in order to consolidate federal pollution control

responsibilities that had been divided among several agencies. Since that time,

EPA’s responsibilities have grown as Congress has enacted an increasing number of

environmental laws, as well as major amendments to these statutes, over three

decades.

Annual appropriations provide the funds necessary for EPA to carry out its

responsibilities under these laws. Among its primary responsibilities are the

regulation of air quality and water quality, pesticides and toxic substances, the

management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, and the cleanup of

environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist state and local areas

in controlling pollution.

EPA’s funding trends generally reflect an increase in overall appropriations to

fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities, as Congress has enacted more

environmental laws over time. Historically, the agency’s appropriation has risen

from $1.0 billion when the agency was established in FY1970 to $8.4 billion in

FY2004.

CRS-15

Table 8. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency,

FY2004 to FY2005

(budget authority in $ billions)

FY2004

enacted

FY2005

request

FY2005

House

Comm.

FY2005

Senate

Comm.

FY2005

Conf.a

Science & Technology

(total)

$0.826

$0.725

$0.765

$0.794

$0.786

direct appropriations

0.782

0.689

0.729

0.758

0.750

transfer in from Superfund

0.044

0.036

0.036

0.036

0.036

Environmental Programs

and Management

2.280

2.317

2.241

2.310

2.313

Office of Inspector General

(total)

0.050

0.051

0.050

0.051

0.051

direct appropriations

0.037

0.038

0.037

0.038

0.038

transfer in from Superfund

0.013

0.013

0.013

0.013

0.013

Buildings and facilities

0.040

0.043

0.039

0.040

0.039

Hazardous substance

Superfund (net, after

transfers)

1.200

1.332

1.208

1.332

1.208

direct appropriations

1.258

1.381

1.258

1.381

1.258

transfers out from

Superfund

-0.058

-0.049

-0.049

-0.049

-0.049

Leaking underground

storage tank program

0.076

0.073

0.074

0.070

0.070

Oil spill response

0.016

0.016

0.016

0.016

0.016

Pesticide registration fund b

—

0.019

0.019

0.019

0.019

Pesticide registration fees b

—

-0.019

-0.019

-0.019

-0.019

State and tribal assistance

grants (total)

3.878

3.232

3.359

3.887

3.604

State and tribal assistance

2.706

1.980

2.197

2.724

2.458

Omnibus appropriations

(P.L. 108-199, Sec. 167)

0.004

—

—

—

—

Categorical grants

1.168

1.252

1.162

1.163

1.146

Total

$8.366

$7.789 c

$7.753

$8.500

$8.088

Program

Sources: H.Rept. 108-674, H.R. 5041, S.Rept. 108-393, S. 2825, H.Rept. 108-792, H.R. 4818.

CRS-16

a. The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) requires a rescission equal to 0.80%

of all discretionary accounts.

b. The Pesticide Registration Fund is a revenue fund rather than an appropriations account. The

amount indicated for it reflects EPA’s estimate of anticipated collection of pesticide registration

service fees as authorized in FY2004 appropriations. In including this fund in the budget tables,

the committee treated the amount as an offset, as it represents revenue collections rather than

new appropriations that EPA has requested. No reference is made regarding any other EPA

estimates for existing or proposed FY2005 “user-fee” revenues, including expected $27 million

in revenues from related “pesticide maintenance fees” also authorized in FY2004

appropriations.

c. In EPA’s budget justification document, the Administration has proposed a $30 million offset,

resulting in $7.76 billion for the FY2005 request, reflecting anticipated revenues from two

“user-fee” proposals: $4 million from an increase to existing fee levels for Premanufacture

Notices (PMNs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act, and $26 million to implement

Pesticide Registration Fee authority promulgated in 1988 but prohibited by Congress. These

fees would be deposited into a special fund in the U.S. Treasury, available to EPA but subject

to appropriation. The Administration’s total for EPA does not appear to distinguish an offset

for other user-fee revenue estimates.

Key Funding Issues. As passed by the House and Senate, the conference

agreement on H.R. 4818 (H.Rept. 108-792) provides $8.09 billion for EPA in

FY2005, subject to an across-the-board rescission of 0.80%. Prior to conference,

H.R. 5041 (H.Rept. 108-674) had proposed $7.75 billion for EPA, and S. 2825

(S.Rept. 108-353) had proposed $8.50 billion. The Administration requested $7.79

billion for FY2005, and Congress appropriated $8.37 billion for FY2004. Although

there have been varying levels of interest in proposed funding for specific activities,

prominent issues in the FY2005 debate included differences in funding for water

infrastructure, scientific research, and the cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the

Superfund program. A discussion of funding for these activities in the conference

agreement on H.R. 4818 is provided below. Amounts are line-items identified in the

bill and do not reflect the across-the-board rescission of 0.80% noted above.

Water Infrastructure. The conference agreement provides $1.10 billion for

the clean water State Revolving Fund (SRF). S. 2825 had proposed to continue

funding at the FY2004 level of nearly $1.35 billion. H.R. 5041 had proposed $850

million, as the Administration requested. The conference agreement provides

another $850 million for the safe drinking water SRF, the same as the Administration

requested and as S. 2825 had proposed. H.R. 5041 had proposed $845 million, the

same as the FY2004 appropriation.

The above funds provide seed monies for state loans to communities for

wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. The reduction relative to

FY2004 for wastewater infrastructure in the conference agreement has been

contentious, as there is disagreement over the adequacy of funding to meet these

needs. Although the conference agreement would provide nearly the same amount

as in FY2004 for drinking water infrastructure, some have advocated that higher

funding is needed to meet local needs.

In addition to funding the SRFs, the conference agreement provides $310

million in earmarked funding for special project grants to specific communities for

drinking water, wastewater, and storm water infrastructure projects. H.R. 5041 had

proposed to continue funding at the FY2004 level of $323 million, and S. 2825 had

CRS-17

proposed $117 million. As in recent fiscal year budget requests, the Administration

did not request any funding for these projects for FY2005.

Although the non-earmarked funding for these types of projects is provided for

the clean water and drinking water SRFs from which loans are given to communities,

earmarked funding is provided as grants that require matching funds but no

repayment. As the trend in the amount of funding earmarked for water infrastructure

projects has risen, the extent to which these needs should be met with SRF loan

monies or grant assistance has become controversial.

Scientific Research. The conference agreement provides $750 million (prior

to transfers) for the Science and Technology account. H.R. 5041 had proposed $729

million, and S. 2825 had proposed $758 million. All three amounts are more than the

Administration’s request of $689 million, but are less than the FY2004 appropriation

of $782 million.

Numerous scientific organizations, such as the American Association for the

Advancement of Science, expressed opposition to reducing funding for this account,

arguing that critical areas of knowledge needed for public policy decisions would be

compromised. Such critics argue that reducing funding for EPA’s scientific research

activities could result in a poorer understanding of the effects of pollution on human

health and make it more difficult to assess the level of protection provided by

existing regulatory standards or intended for future ones.

In requesting a decrease for FY2005, the Administration countered that it would

maintain research activities in numerous key areas, and that its proposed cut in

funding was due primarily to cost-savings that it expected to realize from

consolidating and realigning certain research areas to improve the efficiency and

effectiveness of these efforts.

Superfund. Another prominent issue is the adequacy of funding for the

Superfund program to clean up the nation’s most hazardous waste sites. The

conference agreement would provide $1.26 billion (prior to transfers) for the

Superfund program in FY2005, the same as proposed in H.R. 5041 and as Congress

appropriated for FY2004. S. 2825 had proposed to increase funding to $1.38 billion,

as the Administration requested.

According to EPA’s budget justification, the increase in funding would have

been for selecting and constructing final cleanup remedies, and completing the

assessment of contamination at additional sites. Some Members of Congress assert

that the steady funding level in the conference agreement is adequate to meet cleanup

needs. Other Members, states, and environmental organizations argue that more

funds are necessary to speed up the pace of remediating contamination at these sites,

in order to ensure that human health and the environment are protected.

The source of funding for the Superfund program has been an ongoing issue as

well. Three dedicated taxes (on petroleum, chemical feedstocks, and corporate

income) historically provided the majority of funding for the Superfund program.

The authority to collect the taxes expired at the end of 1995, and the remaining

revenues were essentially obligated for cleanup by the end of FY2003. Congress

CRS-18

funded the program entirely with general Treasury revenues for the first time in

FY2004.

Some Members advocate reinstating the Superfund taxes and argue that the use

of general U.S. Treasury revenues undermines the “polluter pays” principle. Other

Members and the Administration counter that viable parties are still required to pay

for the cleanup of contamination and that polluters are therefore not escaping their

responsibility. According to EPA, responsible parties pay for the cleanup at more

than 70% of Superfund sites.

Cost recoveries from responsible parties continue to contribute some revenues

to the Superfund Trust Fund, as well as accruing interest on obligated balances that

have not yet been expended. The conference agreement authorizes the use of general

Treasury revenues to entirely support the $1.26 billion funding level, if sufficient

funds are not available in the Trust Fund.

For more details on the EPA budget, see CRS Report RL32441, Environmental

Protection Agency: Appropriations for FY2005.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Table 9. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appropriations, FY2000 to FY2004

(budget authority in $ billions)

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

$14.29

$14.90

$15.30

$15.38

$16.20

Source: Amounts for FY2001-FY2004 are from reports of the Appropriations Committees

accompanying the appropriations bills for the following years. The amount for FY2005 is from

funding tables in H.Rept. 108-792 and does not include an across-the-board rescission of 0.80% that

is to be applied to all discretionary accounts. Actual final spending levels for any fiscal year include

all supplemental appropriations or rescissions. Final totals remain uncertain until all program

experience has been recorded, a process that may not be completed for several months after the end

of the fiscal year.

Agency Mission. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) was created by the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act (P.L. 85-568)

to conduct civilian space and aeronautics activities. NASA opened its doors on

October 1, 1958, almost exactly one year after the Soviet Union ushered in the Space

Age with the launch of the world’s first satellite, Sputnik, on October 4, 1957. In the

more than 45 years that have elapsed, NASA has conducted far-reaching programs

in human and robotic spaceflight, space and aeronautical technology development,

and scientific research.

The agency is managed from NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. It has

nine major field centers: Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA; Dryden Flight

Research Center, Edwards, CA; Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH;

Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD; Johnson Space Center, Houston,

TX; Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, FL: Langley Research Center,

CRS-19

Hampton, VA; Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL; Stennis Space

Center, in Mississippi, near Slidell, LA. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory,

Pasadena, CA (often counted as a tenth NASA center), is a federally funded research

and development center operated for NASA by the California Institute of

Technology. NASA employs approximately 19,000 civil servants (full-time

equivalents), and 40,000 contractors and grantees working at or near NASA centers.

Table 10. Appropriations: National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, FY2004 to FY2005

(budget authority in $ billions)

Program

FY2004

enacted

FY2005

request

FY2005

House

Comm.

FY2005

Senate

Comm.

FY2005

Conf.a

Space flight capabilities

$7.468

$8.456

$7.497

$7.811

$8.426

emergency appropriations

—

—

—

0.600

—

Sci., aeronaut., exploration

7.883

7.760

7.621

7.737

7.743

emergency appropriations

—

—

—

0.200

—

Inspector General

0.027

0.028

0.031

0.032

0.032

Subtotal (NASA)

$15.378

$16.244

$15.149

$16.379

$16.200

Sources: H.Rept. 108-674, H.R. 5041, S.Rept. 108-393, S. 2825, H.Rept. 108-792, H.R. 4818.

a. The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) requires a rescission equal to 0.80%

of all discretionary accounts.

Key Budget Issues. NASA requested $16.244 billion for FY2005, a 5.6%

increase over its FY2004 appropriations. Congress appropriated $16.200 billion, or

$16.070 billion when adjusted for the across-the-board rescission. The $16.070

billion is a 4.5% increase over FY2004.

Those figures by themselves may not sufficiently convey the controversy that

surrounded NASA’s budget, and may be somewhat misleading because more than

$1 billion of the funding must go for activities that were not included in the budget

request. First, as noted, the $16.200 billion is subject to the 0.80% across-the-board

rescission, making the actual total $130 million less. Second, while Congress was

considering the FY2005 request, NASA concluded that it needed an additional $762

million in FY2005 to return the shuttle to flight status. Also, Congress directed

NASA to spend $291 million on a servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope

(see CRS Report RS21767), and added at least $200 million in other congressionally

directed spending. Consequently, the amount of money available to cover the content

of the FY2005 request is approximately $14.8 billion. Thus, even though it might

appear that NASA got what it requested for FY2005, difficult choices will have to

be made about what programs to fund.

CRS-20

Congress gave NASA “unrestrained transfer authority” in FY2005 to shift

funding among its programs, except for a few that are specified in the conference

report. A House Appropriations Committee press release called the transfer authority

“unprecedented.” NASA must notify Congress of its plans for spending the money.

Until that notification is submitted, it is not possible to identify in this report how

much will be spent on most NASA programs.

Separately, NASA received $126 million in a FY2005 emergency supplemental

(P.L. 108-324) for hurricane relief.

Debate over NASA’s FY2005 budget took place as NASA responded to the

announcement of new goals for the U.S. space program by President Bush in January

2004, and continued to recover from the February 2003 space shuttle Columbia

tragedy. NASA hopes the space shuttle will return to flight in 2005, at which time

assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) can resume. Returning the shuttle

to flight and completing construction of ISS are the first steps in President Bush’s

“Vision for Space Exploration” in which NASA will focus its activities on returning

humans to the Moon by 2020 and someday sending them to Mars and “worlds

beyond”(see CRS Report RS21720). The Vision involves human spaceflights, as

well as using robotic spacecraft as trailblazers for human missions and to investigate

whether life may exist elsewhere in the universe. President Bush emphasized that

achieving these goals is a “journey, not a race.” White House and NASA officials

stress that the Vision will take many years to accomplish, spanning multiple

Congresses and presidential administrations.

The House and Senate committee markups of the VA-HUD-IA appropriations

bill indicated that NASA’s request for Vision-related activities would be cut

substantially. In conference, NASA’s situation improved, with the agency ultimately

receiving a budget level similar to what it requested. (Media reports widely credit

House Majority Leader DeLay as being instrumental in adding $300 million to

NASA’s funding level at the last minute. An initial version of the funding table that

accompanied the VA-HUD-IA portion of the Consolidated Appropriations bill,

published in the November 19, 2004 version of the Congressional Record on p.

H10880, did not reflect this late addition. A corrected table was printed in the

November 20 edition of the Record on p. H10183.) Thus, supporters of the Vision

hailed the final FY2005 appropriations level as an endorsement of the President’s

plan. The conferees offered a cautionary view, however:

The conferees have included substantial funding for the space exploration

initiative, but to date there has been no substantive congressional action

endorsing the initiative. The conferees note that the initiative is a very long-term

endeavor and will require tens of billions of dollars over the next two decades.

As such, the initiative deserves and requires the deliberative benefit of the

Congress. To this end, the conferees call upon the appropriate committees of

jurisdiction of the House and Senate for action to specifically endorse the

initiative and provide authorization and guidance.5

5

Congressional Record, daily ed., Nov. 19, 2004, p. H10860.

CRS-21

As noted, until NASA notifies Congress of how it plans to spend its FY2005

funding, it is not possible to determine how much will be allocated to Vision-related

activities. Only two of the new programs associated with the Vision were addressed

in the conference report. A request for $70 million to build a robotic spacecraft to

orbit the Moon to study potential landing sites was cut to $10 million. A request for

$20 million to begin a program of “Centennial Challenges,” through which prizes

will be offered for developing innovative technologies, was cut to $10 million.

Funding levels for the major programs — to build a Crew Exploration Vehicle to

send astronauts to the Moon, and Project Prometheus, which is developing space

nuclear power and propulsion systems — were not specified.

NASA’s administrator, Sean O’Keefe, resigned in December 2004. He agreed

to remain at the agency until a successor is named. That successor will face a

number of issues with significant budget ramifications. First is coping with the

steadily increasing costs for returning the space shuttle to flight status. NASA

requested, and Congress appropriated, $4.3 billion for FY2005 for the shuttle

program. But after the request was submitted, the cost estimate for Return to Flight

(RTF) grew from $1.1 billion to $2.2 billion through FY2009. For FY2005 alone,

the estimate grew by $762 million. Conferees on the appropriations bill said that

NASA could transfer funds from other NASA activities to cover those costs, or

submit a supplemental appropriations request.

Second will be deciding on the fate of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble

is designed to be repaired by crews aboard the space shuttle, and a servicing mission

was scheduled for 2004. Mr. O’Keefe decided after the Columbia tragedy not to send

the shuttle to Hubble for a variety of reasons, one of which was crew safety. He

argued that sending the shuttle on missions to the space station would be acceptable

because the station could serve as a “safe haven” if something went wrong on the

shuttle, but no safe haven existed for Hubble missions. The decision was extremely

controversial (see CRS Report RS21767). NASA and others are assessing whether

Hubble could be serviced robotically instead of with the shuttle. A December 2004

report from the National Research Council endorsed reinstating a shuttle servicing

mission as the best option for ensuring the telescope can continue to operate.

Congress directed NASA to spend $291 million in FY2005 on a Hubble servicing

mission, without specifying how to accomplish the task. Either way, the costs are

significant. Mr. O’Keefe estimates the cost of a robotic mission at $1 billion to $1.6

billion. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that NASA’s

estimate of the cost of a shuttle servicing mission is $1.7 billion to $2.4 billion,

though it questioned that estimate (GAO-05-34).

In addition to the shuttle Return to Flight and Hubble servicing issues, NASA’s

new administrator must determine how to accommodate all of NASA’s other

activities, including those needed to implement President Bush’s Vision, within the

agency’s remaining budget. For more information on NASA’s FY2005 budget, see

CRS Report RL32676, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s

FY2005 Budget Request: Description, Analysis, and Issues for Congress.

CRS-22

National Science Foundation

Table 11. National Science Foundation Appropriations,

FY2000 to FY2004

(budget authority in $ billions)

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

$4.79

$4.81

$5.30

$5.58

$5.52

Source: Amounts for FY2001-FY2004 are from reports of the Appropriations Committees

accompanying the appropriations bills for the following years. The amount for FY2005 is from

funding tables in H.Rept. 108-792 and does not include an across-the-board rescission of 0.80% that

is to be applied to all discretionary accounts. Actual final spending levels for any fiscal year include

all supplemental appropriations or rescissions. Final totals remain uncertain until all program

experience has been recorded, a process that may not be completed for several months after the end

of the fiscal year.

Agency Mission. The National Science Foundation (NSF) was created by the

National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (P.L. 81-507). The NSF has

the broad mission of supporting science and engineering in general and funding basic

research across many disciplines. The majority of the research supported by the NSF

is conducted at U.S. colleges and universities. In addition to ensuring the nation’s

supply of scientific and engineering personnel, the NSF promotes academic basic

research and science and engineering education across many disciplines. Also, NSF

provides almost 30% of the total federal support for science and mathematics

education. Support is provided to academic institutions, industrial laboratories,

private research firms, and major research facilities and centers. While the NSF does

not operate any laboratories, it does support Antarctic research stations, selected

oceanographic vessels, and national research centers. Additionally, the NSF supports

university-industry relationships and U.S. participation in international scientific

ventures.

The NSF is an independent agency in the executive branch and under the

leadership of a presidentially appointed director and a National Science Board (NSB)

composed of 24 scientists, engineers, and university and industry officials involved

in research and education. The NSB and the director make policy for the NSF.

CRS-23

Table 12. National Science Foundation Appropriations,

FY2004 to FY2005

(budget authority in $ billions)

Program

FY2004

enacted

FY2005

request

FY2005

House

Comm.

FY2005

Senate

Comm.

FY2005

Conf.a

Research, related activities

$4.184

$4.384

$4.084

$4.336

$4.255

Defense function

0.068

0.068

0.068

0.068

0.068

Major research equipment

0.155

0.213

0.208

0.130

0.175

Education, human resources

0.939

0.771

0.843

0.929

0.848

Salaries and expenses

0.219

0.294

0.250

0.269

0.225

National Science Board

0.004

0.004

0.004

0.004

0.004

Office of Inspector General

0.010

0.010

0.010

0.010

0.010

Total

$5.578

$5.745

$5.467

$5.747

$5.517

Sources: H.Rept. 108-674, H.R. 5041, S.Rept. 108-393, S. 2825, H.Rept. 108-792, H.R. 4818.

a. The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) requires a rescission equal to 0.80%

of all discretionary accounts.

Key Budget Issues.

Overview of the FY2005 Budget Request. The NSF has enjoyed

considerable growth during a period of constrained research budgets. When

measured in current dollars, its total appropriation increased more than 70.6% in 10

years — FY1995, $3.3 billion; FY1999, $3.4 billion; and FY2004, $5.6 billion.

Even when inflation is taken into account, its growth increased (in constant FY2003

dollars) by 46.6% during this 10-year period. The FY2005 request for the NSF was

$5.7 billion, a 2.9% ($167 million) increase over the FY2004 level of $5.6 billion.

The FY2005 request provided for support of several interdependent priority areas:

biocomplexity in the environment ($100 million), human and social dynamics ($23

million), mathematical sciences ($89 million), nanoscale science and engineering

($305 million), and strengthening the workforce ($20 million). NSF maintains that

researchers need access to cutting-edge tools to pursue their research and funding to

develop and design the tools critical to 21st century research and education.

Approximately 26% of the FY2005 request ($1.5 billion) represents an investment

in infrastructure of all types. Increasing grant size and duration has been a long-term

priority for NSF. The FY2005 request devoted $40 million to increase the annual

award size to an annual average of $142,000, a $3,000 increase over the FY2004

level. The request provided $80 million for the President’s Math and Science

Partnerships program (MSP). Additional highlights of the FY2005 budget request

included plant genome research ($89 million), climate change research ($25 million),

and international collaborations in science and engineering ($34 million).

CRS-24

Policy Issues. There has been considerable debate in the academic and

scientific community and in Congress about the management and oversight of major

projects selected for construction and the need for prioritization of potential projects

funded in the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)

account. In September 2001, NSF released a plan that was an outgrowth of the

directive received from the Bush Administration to improve its oversight of large

projects. While the implementation plan included anticipated dates for the

development of comprehensive guidelines and project oversight review, questions

remained. One continuing question focused on the selection process for including

major projects in the upcoming budget cycle. The selection process has been

described as “ad hoc and subjective.” In June 2002, Congress requested the National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review NSF’s management of its large facility

projects, including the construction and operation phases. In January 2004, the NAS

released the congressionally mandated study of the process for prioritization and

oversight of projects in the MREFC account, Setting Priorities for Large Research

Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Currently, the NSF

is reviewing the findings and recommendations of the report in an effort to better

fund and manage the most meritorious research projects.

On February 2, 2004, the NSB released a report that was mandated by Section

22 of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002. The report, Fulfilling the Promise, A

Report to Congress on the Budgetary and Programmatic Expansion of the National

Science Foundation, was to address all of the unmet needs of the agency and

determine what infrastructure was needed to support NSF’s programmatic expansion

through FY2007. The recommendations provided in the report are based on the

budget levels contained in the authorization. The NSB recommended a total

investment of $19 billion for the NSF to sustain its position in science and

technology. Rather than spread funding across all programs and activities, the report

suggested that a more productive use was to focus on key strategic areas — $1.2

billion for advanced tools and cyber infrastructure, $1 billion to improve research

productivity and student opportunities, $1 billion for exploration and research and

education, $700 million toward building a competitive workforce, $200 million for

maintaining management excellence, and $200 million to increase the number and

diversity of institutions receiving awards. It is the position of the NSB that

increasing the size and length of research awards should be one of the highest

priorities of the agency.

The FY2005 appropriations for the NSF are contained in the Consolidated

Appropriations Act of FY2005, P.L. 108-447. The omnibus legislation funds the

NSF in FY2005 at $5.517 billion, $228 million (4.0%) below the request and $61

million below the FY2004 estimate. (This does not include the across-the-board

rescission of 0.80%). The funding cuts impact the two major accounts, R&RA and

the EHR. The R&RA is funded at $4.255 million, $197 million (4.4%) below the

request and $3 million above the FY2004 level. After the rescission, this will be the

first time since 1986 that support for the R&RA has declined.

CRS-25

Other Independent Agencies

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

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

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

HUD, and Independent Agencies for the fiscal year that began October 1, 2004.

Table 13 lists appropriations for FY2004 and proposed levels for FY2005 for these

agencies.

Table 13. Other Independent Agencies Appropriations,

FY2004 to FY2005

(budget authority in $ billions)

FY2004

enacted

FY2005

request

FY2005

House

Comm.

FY2005

Senate

Comm.

FY2005

Conf.a

CDC, toxic substances and

disease registry and NIH,

environmental health science

$0.151

$0.157

$0.157

$0.157

$0.157

American Battle Monuments

Commission

0.041

0.041

0.050

0.046

0.053

Chemical Safety and Hazard

Investigations Board

0.009

0.010

0.010

0.009

0.010

Cemetery expenses, Army

0.029

0.030

0.030

0.030

0.030

Community Development

Financial Institutions

0.061

0.048

0.061

0.055

0.056

Consumer Product Safety

Commission

0.060

0.063

0.063

0.063

0.063

Corporation for National and

Community Service

0.581

0.642

0.572

0.590

0.578

Office, Science &

Technology Council,

Environmental Quality;

Office, Environmental

Quality

0.010

0.010

0.010

0.010

0.010

Court of Appeals, Veterans

Claims

0.016

0.018

0.017

0.018

0.017

Federal Citizen Information

Center

0.014

0.015

0.015

0.015

0.015

Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (transfer)

(0.030)

(0.030)

(0.030)

(0.031)

(0.030)

Interagency Council on the

Homeless

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

Program

CRS-26

FY2004

enacted

FY2005

request

FY2005

House

Comm.

FY2005

Senate

Comm.

FY2005

Conf.a

National Credit Union

Administration (CDRLF)

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

Neighborhood Reinvestment

Corporation

0.114

0.115

0.115

0.115

0.115

Selective Service System

0.026

0.026

0.026

0.026

0.026

Commission on National

Moment of Remembrance

(b)

(b)

(b)

—

(b)

$1.115

$1.178

$1.128

$1.136

$1.131

Program

Total

Sources: H.Rept. 108-674, H.R. 5041, S.Rept. 108-393, S. 2825, H.Rept. 108-792, H.R. 4818.

a. The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) requires a rescission equal to 0.80%

of all discretionary accounts.

b. Less than $500,000.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. This agency,

which is placed in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 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.

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 cemetery memorials and 31

memorializations in 15 foreign countries, as well as six memorials in the United

States.

Cemeterial Expenses, Army. Arlington National Cemetery and the

Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery are administered by the U.S. Army.

By the end of FY2003, 302,054 persons were interred/inurned in these cemeteries.

In addition to 6,700 interments and inurnments estimated for FY2004, Arlington is

the site of approximately 3,100 other ceremonies and has about 4 million visitors

annually.

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.

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund. The

CDFI Fund was created by P.L. 103-325. The purpose of the fund is to provide

credit, investment capital, and technical assistance to distressed urban and rural areas

by investing in and supporting community-based organizations. The fund’s programs

CRS-27

also encourage banks and thrifts to expand their activities in distressed communities.

In addition, the fund administers the New Market Tax Credit program created by P.L.

106-554. Through this program the fund allocates tax credits as part of an effort to

expand incentives for business investment in low-income communities. P.L. 104-19

gave the Department of the Treasury the authority to manage the CDFI Fund,

although the fund’s programs continue to be funded through the VA/HUD bill. For

FY2005, the recommendation of both the House and Senate Appropriations

Committees to designate $4 million for financial and technical assistance for Native

American, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native communities was included in the

conference report.

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The 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.

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). The

Corporation administers programs authorized under the National and Community

Service Act of 1990 (NCSA) and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973

(DVSA). The DVSA programs — e.g., Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)

and the Senior Volunteer Service Corps — are funded under the Labor/HHS

Appropriation bill. Authorization for CNCS, and programs and activities authorized

by NCSA, expired at the end of FY1996. Since then, continued program authority

has occurred through the appropriations process.

The FY2004 appropriation and the FY2005 request for the NCSA programs

administered by the Corporation include funds for the National Service Trust and for

the AmeriCorps grants program. The National Service Trust is a special account in

the U.S. Treasury from which funds are used primarily to provide educational awards

to participants in AmeriCorps grants, the National Civilian Community Corps

(NCC), and VISTA. The Corporation estimated that 75,000 individuals would

participate in these programs in each year, up from an estimated 50,000 participants

in FY2003. The FY2004 appropriation for the Trust is $129.2 million and for

AmeriCorps grants is $312.1 million for a total of $441.3 million and a total

appropriation of $581 million. The FY2005 request for the Trust was $160.3 million

and for AmeriCorps grants was $291.9 million for a total of $452.1 million of the

overall request of $642.2 million..

The House Appropriations Committee bill would have provided $144.0 million

for the Trust and $290.0 million for AmeriCorps grants for a total of $434.0 million

and a total appropriation of $572.0 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee

bill would have provided $150.5 million for the Trust and $291.9 million for

AmeriCorps grants for a total of $442.4 million and a total appropriation of $590.1

million. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $144.0 million for the Trust

and $290.0 million for AmeriCorps grants for a total of $434.0 million and a total

appropriation of $577.9 million. The conference report states that the total funding

level for AmeriCorps grants and the Trust will support 70,000 new volunteers.

Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental

Quality. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has the statutory

CRS-28

responsibility for environmental oversight of all federal agencies and is to lead

interagency decision-making on all environmental matters. The Office of

Environmental Quality provides professional and administrative staff for the CEQ.

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

Veterans Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of

Veterans’ Appeals, and has the authority to decide relevant conflicts in the

interpretation of law by VA and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The court’s

decisions constitute precedent to guide subsequent decisions by that board.

Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC). The center, administered

through the General Services Administration (GSA), helps federal agencies distribute

consumer information and promotes public awareness of existing federal publications

through publication of the quarterly Consumer Information Catalog, and the

Consumer Action Handbook. The center also operates a nationwide toll-free

telephone assistance program as well as the FirstGov.gov website.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC’s Office of

the Inspector General is funded from deposit insurance funds, the IG has no direct

support from federal taxpayers. Before FY1998, the amount was approved by the

FDIC Board of Directors; the amount is now directly appropriated to ensure the

independence of the IG office.

Interagency Council on the Homeless. The Interagency Council on the

Homeless (ICH) is an independent agency established by the McKinney-Vento

Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, to oversee the efforts of federal agencies and

others involved in addressing the issues of homelessness.

National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). The NCUA is an

independent federal agency that charters, insures, and regulates credit unions. It is

funded entirely by those institutions. The Community Development Revolving Loan

Fund (CDRLF) is administered by the National Credit Union Administration and

funded by Congress through this bill. The fund makes low-interest loans and

technical assistance grants to low-income credit unions.

The Central Liquidity Facility (CLF) is a mixed ownership government

corporation managed by the National Credit Union Administration. The CLF was

established to improve the general financial stability of credit unions by serving as

a lender of last resort to credit unions experiencing unusual or unexpected liquidity

shortfalls. The CLF can finance loans using its assets, and it can also borrow from

the Federal Financing Bank to meet liquidity demands. The borrowing limit is

specified by language in the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Congress also determines

the level of CLF operating expenses, which are not funded through appropriations but

by earned income.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. This Institute is

within the National Institutes of Health, administered by the Department of Health

and Human Services (HHS).

CRS-29

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC). The NRC leverages

funds for reinvestment in older neighborhoods through community-based

organizations often called Neighborhood Housing Services. Together they form the

NeighborWorks network. Among projects supported by NRC financing are lending

activities for home ownership by low-income families. Nationwide, there are 226 of

these organizations, serving over 2,300 communities in 49 states, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico, with 70% of the people served living in very low and

low-income brackets.

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

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

The office provides scientific and technological information, analysis and advice to

the President and the executive branch, and reviews and participates in the

formulation of national policies affecting those areas.

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

manpower to the U.S. Armed Forces during time of national emergency. Although

the Armed Forces have recruited personnel through voluntary enlistment incentives

since 1973, the SSS remains the primary vehicle for conscription should it become

necessary. In 1987, the SSS was given the task of developing a post-mobilization

health care system that would assist with providing the Armed Forces with health

care personnel in time of emergency.

Commission on National Moment of Remembrance. The White House

Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance was created by P.L. 106-579

to enhance the commemoration of Memorial Day and to encourage acts of

remembrance throughout the year. The $250,000 requested in the budget submission

was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act.

Selected Websites

Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC)

[http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov] and [http://www.info.gov/]

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

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

Corporation for National and Community Service

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

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

[http://www.hud.gov]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

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

National Science Foundation (NSF)

[http://www.nsf.gov]

CRS-30

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/]

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

[http://www.va.gov]

Additional Reading

CRS Report RL31804, Appropriations for FY2004: VA, HUD and Independent

Agencies, by Richard Bourdon and Paul Graney.

HUD

CRS Report RL32062, Housing Issues in the 108th Congress, by E. Richard Bourdon.

CRS Report RL30486, Housing the Poor: Federal Programs for Low-Income

Families, by Morton J. Schussheim.

CRS Report RL31930, The Housing Choice Voucher Program: Background,

Funding, and Issues in the 108th Congress, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RS20704, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), by

(name redacted).

CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Recent Statistics, Targeted Federal

Programs, and Recent Legislation, by M. Ann Wolfe; updated by (name

redacted) and Christopher E. Carter.

EPA

CRS Issue Brief IB10114, Brownfields and Superfund Issues in the 108th Congress,

by (name redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB10108, Clean Water Act Issues in the 108th Congress, by (name r

edacted).

NSF

CRS Report 95-307, U.S. National Science Foundation: An Overview, by (name red

acted).

CRS Report RS21267, U.S. National Science Foundation: Major Research

Equipment and Facility Construction, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30930, U.S. National Science Foundation: Experimental Program

to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), by (name redacted).

CRS-31

CNCS

CRS Report RS20420, AmeriCorps and Other Service Programs: Description and

Funding Levels, by Ann M. Lordeman.

CRS Report RL30186, Community Service: A Description of AmeriCorps, Foster

Grandparents, and Other Federally Funded Programs, by Ann M. Lordeman

and Alice D. Butler

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

copyright on any CRS report we have republished.