APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY2000: VA, HUD, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2000: VA, HUD,
and Independent Agencies
Updated December 7, 1999
Dennis W. Snook, Coordinator
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
governed by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Subcommittees on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations. It summarizes the
current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and
related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House or Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html].
Appropriations for FY2000:
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Summary
P.L. 106-74 (H.R. 2684). On October 20, 1999, the President signed H.R.
2684, FY2000 funding for the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), and several independent agencies, including the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), and the Corporation for National and Community
Service (CNS). The bill provides $99.5 billion in FY2000 appropriations for
programs covered under the Act, compared to $99.6 billion requested. As requested,
the bill incorporated $4.2 billion in advance FY2001 funding, and $2.08 billion in
rescissions of funds appropriated in previous years. (Given the discretion granted to
agencies, the effect on any particular program of the across-the-board rescission of
P.L. 106-74 added $1.7 billion to the FY2000 VA medical care request, bringing
the total to $19 billion, plus $608 million in estimated collections from health plans
sharing coverage of veterans (total funding for VA is $44.3 billion). After including
rescissions and advance funding, the net HUD appropriation of $26 billion is $2 billion
above FY1999, or about $2 billion less than the Administration requested. Conferees
also attached House provisions that seek to improve affordable housing opportunities
for seniors. Conferees added funds that brought EPA to $385 million above the
requested level, $270 million above the Senate funding, and $284 million above the
House amount. Conferees also added funds to approved amounts for NASA ($1
billion above the House, $74 million above the Senate), accepted the Administration’s
request of $2.5 billion in emergency funding for FEMA (not included in either
House’s bill), and provided $354.5 for CNS programs (up $11 million from the
Senate level; the House provided nothing). The final bill dropped a House provision
to save $3 billion by limiting borrowing authority for the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA).
Preliminary House and Senate Action. In action leading to final passage, the
House had approved $92 billion, the Senate had approved $97.8 billion. Most of the
differences between the bills were in NASA, CNS, and HUD. The Senate approved
$1 billion more than the House for NASA, funded CNS at $343.5 million (the House
provided no CNS program funding), and incorporated the proposal for HUD to
receive $4.2 billion in advance FY2001 funding, a proposal rejected by the House.
The Administration’s FY2000 Budget. The Administration requested $42.5
billion for VA, including $17.3 billion for medical care, plus $608 million from funds
mostly collected from health plans with joint coverage of veterans. The
Administration proposed consolidating HUD’s housing subsidy programs, with
FY2000 spending approximating FY1999 levels. Also requested were a 5% reduction
to EPA spending; a 7% increase in funds for NSF, and a small reduction to funds for
NASA. In spite of continued resistance in Congress to its programs (mostly
AmeriCorps), the Administration again proposed expansion of CNS by adding $110
million to FY1999 levels of $438.5 million.
Key Policy Staff
NameArea of ExpertiseCRS DivisionTel.
Keith BeaEmergency ManagementG&F7-8672
Richard BourdonHousingDSP7-7806
Eugene BoydCommunity DevelopmentG&F7-8689
Bruce FooteHousingDSP7-7805
Martin LeeEnvironmental PolicyRSI7-7260
Ann LordemanNational and Community ServiceDSP7-2323
Christine MatthewsNational Science FoundationRSI7-7055
Bruce MulockConsumer AffairsG&F7-7775
Pauline SmaleBankingG&F7-7832
Dick RowbergNational Aeronautics and Space Admin.RSI7-7040
Dennis SnookVeterans AffairsDSP7-7314
Susan VanhorenbeckHousingDSP7-7808
Division abbreviations: DSP=Domestic Social Policy; G&F=Government and Finance; RSI=Resources, Science and Industry.
Contents
Most Recent Developments........................................1
Status ........................................................ 1
Total Appropriations for FY2000 for VA HUD, and Independent Agencies....2
Key Policy Issues................................................3
Department of Veterans Affairs.................................3
VA Cash Benefits........................................3
Veterans Housing Benefits.................................4
Medical Care...........................................4
VA Construction........................................6
Program Administration...................................6
Capital Asset Fund (proposed legislation)......................8
Department of Housing and Urban Development....................8
Housing Certificate Fund..................................9
Public Housing Programs.................................13
Lead-based Paint Reduction...............................14
Housing for the Elderly and Disabled........................14
Homeless Assistance Grants...............................15
Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)...................16
The HOME Investment Partnership Program..................16
Native American Block Grants.............................17
Rural Housing and Economic Development...................17
Fair Housing..........................................18
Community Development Block Grant.......................18
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA)...................22
Environmental Protection Agency..............................23
Federal Emergency Management Agency.........................26
National Aeronautics and Space Administration....................27
National Science Foundation..................................30
Other Independent Agencies..................................32
American Battle Monuments Commission....................32
Cemeterial Expenses, Army...............................32
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board...............33
Community Development Financial Institution Fund.............33
Consumer Information Center (CIC)........................34
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)................34
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNS).........34
Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Environmental Quality.35
Court of Veterans Appeals................................37
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation......................37
National Credit Union Administration........................37
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC)...............37
Office of Science and Technology Policy.....................37
Selective Service System (SSS)............................38
Selected World Wide Web Sites................................38
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2000 ................................................... 1
Table 2. Summary of VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations...2
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY1995 to FY1999..3
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2000.........7
Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,
FY1995 to FY1999..........................................9
Table 6. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development, FY2000.......19
Table 7. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations, FY1995
to FY1999................................................23
Table 8. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency, FY2000.......24
Table 9. Appropriations: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2000.26
Table 10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Appropriations,
FY1995 to FY1999.........................................28
Table 11. Appropriations: National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
FY2000 .................................................. 29
Table 12. National Science Foundation Appropriations, FY1995 to FY1999..31
Table 13. Appropriations: National Science Foundation, FY2000.........32
Table 14. Appropriations: Other Independent Agencies, FY2000..........36
Appropriations for FY2000: VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies
Most Recent Developments
President Signs H.R. 2684. On October 20, 1999, H.R. 2684 became P.L. 106-
74, with $99.453 billion in FY2000 VA-HUD appropriations, including $4.2 billion
in advance FY2001 funding; $2.08 billion in previous years’ funding was rescinded.
Conferees reported October 7; the House adopted the conference report (House
Rept. 106-379) October 14, and the Senate, October 15.
Continuing Resolution H.J.Res. 68. On September 28, 1999, Congress passed
a resolution to continue spending at FY1999 levels, thereby providing 3 additional
weeks to complete appropriations actions, including appropriations for VA-HUD.
Previous action on H.R. 2684. The House approved $91.98 billion (H.Rept.
substituting the language of S. 1596 (S.Rept. 106-161) for the House bill.
Discretionary Spending Allocations. The 1997 balanced-budget law (P.L. 105-
33) caps discretionary spending; the latest “302 (b)” allocation for the VA-HUD bill
is $68.632 billion for the House, and $69.632 billion for the Senate.
Congressional Budget Resolution for FY2000 (H.Con.Res. 68). On April 14,
Congress approved its version of an FY2000 budget guideline, assuming $1.7 billion
more in VA medical care funding than the Administration requested.
FY2000 Budget Requests. The President requested $99.6 billion for FY2000
VA-HUD appropriations, including $4.2 billion in advance FY2001 appropriations
and proposed $2.08 billion in rescissions of previous years’ funding. The request
proposed $21.3 billion in FY2000 appropriations for mandatory spending, and $72.1
billion in discretionary funds (totals are rounded).
Status
Table 1. Status of VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2000
Subcommittee Conference
markupHousePassed SenatePassedConferencereport approvalPublic
reportHousereportSenatereportLaw HouseSenateHouseSenate
Total Appropriations for FY2000 for VA HUD, and
Independent Agencies
P.L. 106-74. The appropriations act for VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
(P.L. 106-74) provides $99.453 billion in FY2000 appropriations for the federal
functions funded by the bill (VA, HUD, and NASA comprise 84% of the total). After
adjusting for $4.2 billion in advance FY2001 appropriations, and subtracting $2.080
billion in rescissions of prior year funding (and $10 million in other offsets), the net
effect on federal taxpayers of P.L. 106-74 during FY2000 is projected to be $93.163
billion.
Table 2. Summary of VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY2000
Admin. FY2000 FY2000 FY2000
Program FY1999 Request House Senate Confer.
Veterans Affairs42.62542.53844.15644.35144.335
Housing; Urban Development24.07928.04826.06727.17025.951
Environmental Protection
Agency 7.5907.2077.3087.3227.592
Federal Emergency
Management Agency2.8703.4020.8810.8553.351
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration 13.665 13.578 12.654 13.578 13.653
National Science Foundation3.6713.9213.6373.9213.912
Other Independent Agencies0.7630.9090.2770.6310.673
Tennessee Valley Authority——-3.000——
Preservation of Affordable Hsg.————-0.014
Total Appropriations 95.26399.60391.98097.82899.453
Scorekeeping adjustments-3.146-6.290-2.090-6.290-6.290
Adjustments; rescissions(-1.070)(-2.090)(-2.090)(-2.090)(-2.090)
Advance approp. FY2001—(-4.200)—(-4.200)(-4.200)
Emergency funding(-2.076)————
Total, after adjustments:*92.11793.31389.89091.53893.163
(Mandatory, adjusted)*22.31321.25821.25821.30721.307
(Discretionary) 69.805 72.055 68.632 70.232 71.856
*Adjustments may include various supplementals, rescissions, advance appropriations, accounting
changes, and reestimates of program experience. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Source: H.Rept. 106-379.
Key Policy Issues
Department of Veterans Affairs
Congress provided $44.335 billion for programs of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) during FY2000, an increase of $1.71 billion above FY1999, and $1.8
billion above the Administration’s request. During action leading to completion of the
bill, the House approved appropriations of $44.156 billion for FY2000, while the
Senate approved $44.351 billion. The Administration’s FY2000 budget requested
$42.538 billion. While the number of veterans is declining, VA entitlement spending
will rise by $18 million in FY2000, to $23.397 billion. Much of this increase results
from liberalizations during FY1999 to the Montgomery GI Bill, the primary education
program. Also, the enacted bill includes estimated funding for a new homeless
program under VA’s entitlement authority for veterans’ housing assistance.
Appropriations for medical care increased by $1.7 billion.
Congress approved $42.625 billion in appropriations for VA for FY1999, up
from $40.98 billion for FY1998 (after incorporating supplemental appropriations, and
various reestimates of mandatory spending for that year). The Administration had
requested $42.15 billion for FY1999.
FY2000 Congressional Budget Resolution. The House approved an amendment
to its version of the FY2000 budget resolution that called for an increase of $1.1
billion over the amount that the Administration requested for medical care; the Senate
approved an amendment calling for $3 billion more for those programs. Final passage
of the Budget Resolution contained language calling for $1.7 billion more in medical
care funding.
For additional information on VA programs, see CRS Report RL30099,
Veterans Issues in the 106th Congress, by Dennis Snook.
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations,
FY1995 to FY1999
(budget authority in billions of current $)
FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999
$37.23 $38.11 $40.33 $42.41 $42.63
Source: Budget levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, and any
supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been taken into consideration; thus, FY1995-98
figures are from budget submissions of subsequent years. Estimates of FY1999 spending are from
H.Rept. 106-379, the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2684 to final passage.
VA Cash Benefits. Spending for VA cash benefit programs is mandatory, and
amounts requested by the budget are based on projected caseloads. Definitions of
eligibility and benefit levels are in law. For FY2000, CBO projects that $23.4 billion
will be required for these entitlements, mostly service-connected compensation,
means-tested pensions, and Montgomery GI-Bill education payments. For the most
part, declining caseloads for pensions and education benefits have been decreasing
program obligations from year-to-year. For FY2000, however, this lower trend for
education programs will be largely offset because P.L. 105-178 increased
Montgomery GI-Bill benefits by 20%. For FY1999, Congress appropriated $23.4
billion for VA entitlement programs. VA appropriations for FY1998 included $22.1
billion for VA entitlements.
Veterans Housing Benefits. Historically, the opportunity for veterans to have
home loans guaranteed by the federal government was a significant contribution to the
national goal of increasing the number of families who owned their own homes.
Because of the guarantees, lenders are protected against losses up to the amount of
the guarantee, thereby permitting veterans to obtain mortgages with little or no down
payment, and with competitive interest rates. These guarantees, and certain direct
loans to specific categories of veterans were obligations of the federal government
that constituted mandatory spending; administrative expenses are discretionary
appropriations transferred from the home loan programs to the General Operating
Expenses account.
Guaranteed Transitional Housing Loans for Homeless Veterans Program
Account. P.L. 105-368, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 established
a pilot project to expand the supply of transitional housing for homeless veterans.
The program was authorized to guarantee up to 15 loans with a maximum aggregate
value of $100 million, with no more than 5 loans guaranteed during the first 3 years.
These housing plans must enforce sobriety standards, as well as provide various
supportive services, such as substance abuse counseling and job readiness skills
workshops. Residents would pay a reasonable fee to reside in the project homes.
P.L. 106-74 includes an estimate that $48.25 million for program costs for the
program will be required during FY2000, based on the loan limitation of $100 million.
Medical Care. House and Senate bills both passed their respective chambers
after a total of $1.7 billion was added to the Administration’s request of $17.3 billion
for VA medical care for FY2000. (In the Senate, $600 million of the additional
appropriation was deemed to be emergency spending, thereby excluding that amount
from “302(b)” spending cap limitations for the bill.) The Administration had
requested the same amount as had been appropriated for FY1999, a freeze in part
intended to force efficiencies within the VA medical system. In addition, the
Administration assumed that $749 million more medical care funding would be
provided in FY2000 from the Medical Care Cost Recovery (MCCF) fund; the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this amount to be $608 million. The
MCCF collects payments from insurance companies with joint coverage of veterans
receiving care in VA facilities, and from veterans obligated for cost-sharing of their
VA medical care (CBO estimates MCCF collections for FY1999 to be $583 million).
Congress appropriated $17.057 billion in funds for VA medical care for FY1998.
Increasing patient load and expanding access. For several years, VA has been
expanding access to medical services by transferring medical personnel slots from
inpatient settings to more efficient outpatient care venues. As a result, the unique
patient count has increased by one-third in 3 fiscal years. Yet, VA estimates that it
will eliminate another 7,000 to 8,000 positions in the medical care system during
FY2000. The House committee’s report (H.Rept. 106-286) expresses concern that
too many additional veterans are being promised services without adequate personnel
to serve them, and calls for careful review to determine if it is premature to permit
enrollment to all veterans who apply to VA health care plans.
The report recommended passage of a proposal to coordinate VA services with
Medicare (Medicare “subvention”) to help alleviate this problem, saying that the “VA
has repeatedly demonstrated a capacity to treat patents at a lower cost than most
Medicare providers while producing better health outcomes.” The report also called
for continuing to expand community-based outpatient access, so that the number of
patients that could be served within resource limitations will be maximized, and will
occur closer to where veterans live.
The Senate report (S.Rept. 106-161) generally agreed with the House position,
and notes that “VA’s budget was not predicated on a detailed assessment of
requirements, and no analysis of the specific reductions which would occur were
conducted....” The report cited the Administration’s budget estimated reduction of
6,949 personnel slots in FY2000, yet pointed out that VA’s own studies indicate that
the reduction would be nearer to 13,000 slots, which the report suggested is an
unacceptable level given the tremendous growth in the number of veterans being
served in VA outpatient clinics.
In the conference report (H.Rept. 106-379), conferees also addressed one of the
issues driving interest in Medicare subvention: access to needed care for veterans in
remote areas. While subvention proposals vary in their method for addressing the
needs of veterans living substantial distances from VA facilities, many advocates of
coordination between VA and Medicare envision a system in which veterans could get
needed care from providers nearer to where they live, with the contracted costs paid
directly by VA, or indirectly by Medicare when appropriate. VA health plans would
determine the circumstances in which such care could be more efficiently and
effectively provided by contracting outside VA with local medical services.
The conference report directs VA to study (and report to Congress by February
1, 2000) whether veterans in rural areas experience access and transportation
difficulties, and whether such difficulties “serve as a barrier” to their health care. The
requested study must examine whether VA’s current resource allocation system
contributes to the problem of rural access, as the relatively few rural veterans may be
experiencing lower quality care as VA searches to find efficiency savings. The report
also requests a proposal for dealing with the problems of rural access.
Response to Hepatitis C (HCV). Evidence suggests that veterans have a
substantially higher infection rate for this dangerous communicable disease, and
veterans groups and some health care professionals advocate a more aggressive stance
by VA to combat the threat. No specific dollar amount is appropriated under H.R.
2684, but the House urged VA to establish “a vigorous program of testing and
treatment...broadly available to veterans, and to use all available therapies in the most
clinically appropriate and cost effective manner.” The Senate estimated that $350
million would be needed to treat veterans “suffering from hepatitis C with a new and
costly therapy.” Conferees “urge the VA to make testing and treatment for hepatitis
C broadly available to all veterans.”
Medical research. The House approved $326 million for medical and prosthetic
research in FY2000, up $10 million from FY1999. About one-half of the additional
funds would be used for the purpose of establishing a public/private partnership to
improve diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer, “one of the most common
diseases of American veterans.” The Senate report emphasized the need to “intensify
research efforts on the relationship between acid reflux and lower esophageal/upper
stomach cancer,” a rise which has the committee concerned. Both reports also
encouraged VA to use research funds to further research into the treatment of HCV.
The Administration had proposed a freeze on research funds at $316 million, and the
Senate bill endorsed that level. Conferees compromised the differences, providing
$321 million for medical research.
For additional information on VA medical care, see CRS Report 97-786,
Veterans Medical Care: Major Changes Underway, by Dennis Snook.
VA Construction. Conferees approved $65 million for major construction, and
$160 million for minor construction (projects with an estimated cost under $4
million). The House bill had approved $137 million for major and minor construction
projects, comprised of $35 million for major construction, and $102 million for minor
construction. The Senate bill included $70 million for major projects, and $175
million for minor construction, a total of $245 million. The Administration requested
$235 million for new construction projects, comprised of $60 million for major
construction and $175 million for minor construction. Many of the minor
construction projects will continue VA’s overall strategy of expanding outpatient
access.
Most of the larger proposed projects will improve existing facilities: $13 million
recommended by the Administration for a surgical suite to be added to the Kansas
City facility was rejected by the House, but endorsed by the Senate, and accepted by
conferees; $17.5 million proposed by the Administration for spinal cord injury
treatment and rehabilitation capabilities at the Tampa, Florida hospital was included
in both bills. The Senate added $10 million to facilitate additional planning for the
disposition of underutilized hospital space or otherwise superfluous capital assets;
conferees accepted the Senate’s proposal.
For FY1999, Congress provided $317 million in new construction project
funding. For FY1998, Congress appropriated $353 million for new construction, and
redirected to outpatient access projects, $32.1 million that had been previously
authorized and appropriated for a new hospital in California.
Program Administration. The House bill had proposed $886 million to fund
the General Operating Expenses (GOE) account for administering VA benefit
programs during FY2000, and approved the Administration’s request of $61 million
for administering the medical programs. The Administration requested $912 million
for GOE. After accepting certain minor accounting changes requested by the
Administration, the Senate essentially approved the VA request for administrative
expenses for medical and benefit programs. Conferees adopted the Senate’s proposed
levels for GOE, and trimmed $1 million from its proposed level for medical
administration. Congress provided $856 million for GOE, and $63 million for medical
care administration, for FY1999. For FY1998, Congress appropriated $786 million
for GOE, and $60 million for medical administration.
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2000
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY2000
Admin. FY2000 FY2000 FY2000
Program FY1999 Request House Senate Confer.
Comp., pension, burial21.857 21.56821.56821.56821.568
Insurance/indemnities 0.046 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029
Housing programs0.3000.2820.2820.2820.282
Readjustment benefits1.1751.4691.4691.4691.469
Guar. Transitional Hsg.
Loans, Homeless Vets.———0.0480.048
Subtotal: Mandatory
(entitlement) 23.379 23.348 23.348 23.397 23.397
Medical carea17.30617.30619.00619.00619.006
Med.-prosthetic research0.3160.3160.3260.3160.321
Construction, major0.1420.0600.0350.0700.065
Construction, minor0.1750.1750.1020.1750.160
Grants; state facilities0.0900.0400.0870.0900.090
State veteran cemeteries0.0100.0110.0110.0250.025
Nat’l Cemetery Admin.0.0920.0970.0970.0970.097
General operating exp.0.8560.9120.8860.9130.913
Admin. expense (hsng.)0.1600.1580.1580.1580.158
Inspector General0.0360.0430.0390.0430.043
Medical Administration0.0630.0610.0610.0610.060
Capital asset fund—0.0100.0000.0000.000
Subtotal: Discretionary19.24619.19020.80820.95420.938
Subtotal: (Veterans42.62542.538a44.15644.351a44.335
Affairs)
Note: Rounding may cause discrepancies in subtotals.
Source: H.Rept. 106-379.
a Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) receipts are added to the Medical Care account; $583
million in additional funds from this source are estimated for FY1999; $608 million for FY2000, in
the Administration request, and in H.R. 2684 and S. 1596.
VA employment estimates. The Administration projected overall VA
employment will average 197,909 in FY2000, down from an estimated average of
205,413 in FY1999, and 207,066 in FY1998. Most of the decline will be in medical
staff: VA estimated 176,000 medical care slots for FY2000, down from an estimated
182,000 in FY1999, and 185,000 in FY1998. Medical care staff positions will have
declined by 14% from a high of 204,000 at the end of FY1993, if these estimates are
matched with experience.
Capital Asset Fund (proposed legislation). The Administration included a
legislative proposal in its FY2000 budget, for the creation of a 5-year pilot Capital
Asset Fund (CAF) that would allow VA to “sell, transfer, or exchange excess and
underutilized properties,” collecting the proceeds in this asset fund for use in the
disposal or conversion to other uses of superfluous assets, primarily hospital facilities.
Ten percent of the CAF proceeds would be transferred to HUD to be used for
homeless assistance programs. VA estimated that the CAF would receive $18 million
annually from 2001 through 2004, and requested $10 million in start-up funds for
FY2000. Neither House included the proposed CAF, but conferees did accept the
Senate’s proposed $10 million for capital asset planning as an earmark in the major
construction account.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Administration requested $28.05 billion for the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) in FY2000. This amount is estimated by CBO to be
$3.97 billion more than the appropriation of $24.08 billion for HUD for FY1999. The
House approved $26.07 billion for HUD in FY2000, approximately a $2 billion
decrease from the FY2000 request, and a $2 billion increase above the FY1999
appropriation. The Senate approved $27.2 billion for HUD, using the
Administration’s recommendation that $4.2 billion be advance appropriations for
FY2001. Conferees settled on $28.2 billion in HUD appropriations for FY2000,
including $4.2 in advance FY2001 funding, and offset by $2.2 billion in rescissions
from spending appropriated for previous fiscal years.
The HUD total included in the House-passed bill appeared to signal a substantial
increase over the FY1999 appropriations level, but dissenters to the House
Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 106-286) claimed that “...reductions in
HUD programs below the prior year’s level are spread throughout the bill.”1 The
report’s dissenters claimed that the FY1999 fund level was “artificially held down” by
rescissions, and that the bill actually recommended $945 million below “a hard freeze.”
Supporters of the House position pointed out that the Administration’s FY2000 HUD
budget proposed an advance appropriation of $4.2 billion (unavailable for expenditure
before FY2001), a move the House refused to endorse. In part, the House bill
proposed to increase overall funding for the VA-HUD bill by limiting Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) borrowing for an estimated savings of $3 billion. Such an accounting
device may have been used to offset increased HUD spending without exceeding the
1 H.Rept. 106-286, p. 127.
For FY1999, President Clinton requested $24.8 billion for HUD; the House
approved $26.1 billion, and the Senate approved $24.1 billion. The House and Senate
differed in amounts appropriated for components of the Housing Certificate Fund, and
in their treatment of Federal Housing Authority (FHA) administrative expenses, as well
as in various earmarks and program subcategories. In conference, more funding than
was approved by either the House or the Senate for the Housing Certificate Fund was
adopted, in part because of reforms in federal housing programs contained in Title V
of the legislation. For FY1999, $10.3 billion was provided for the Housing Certificate
Fund, reduced by $2 billion in rescissions (including $350 million in rescissions enacted
as part of the offset to the costs of the supplemental appropriations bill, P.L. 106-31).
For additional information on housing issues, see CRS Report RS20045, Housing
Issues in the 106th Congress, by Richard Bourdon.
Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations, FY1995 to FY1999
(budget authority in billions of current $; net after rescissions)
FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999
$20.09 $19.13 $16.30 $21.44 $24.08
Source: Budget levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, and any
supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been taken into consideration; thus, FY1995-98
figures are from budget submissions of subsequent years. Estimates of FY1999 spending are from
H.Rept. 106-379, the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2684 to final passage.
Housing Certificate Fund. The Administration requested $11.5 billion in new
budget authority for the Housing Certificate Fund in FY2000, including $4.2 billion in
advanced appropriations for use beginning in October 2000. With $2.2 billion in
recaptured funds and carryovers from previous years, and $183 million transferred
from the Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing Account, if the Administration’s
funding request had been granted, $13.9 billion would have been available for the
Housing Certificate Fund in FY2000, of which $4.2 billion would actually first become
available for expenditure in FY2001.
The largest portion of the Administration’s request for new funding was for
Section 82 contract renewals, $6.4 billion in FY2000 and $4.2 billion to be used after
October 1, 2000. Of the remainder, $347 million was to be set aside for incremental
vouchers for Section 8 families and the homeless; $144 million for welfare-to-work
vouchers; $156 million for tenant protection assistance; $209 million for contract
administration; $6 million for administrative fees, and $20 million for regional
opportunity counseling.
2 Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 (as amended), provides subsidies for rental housing
for low-income families.
The House bill included $10.54 billion for the Housing Certificate Fund in
FY2000. Of this amount, $25 million could have been used for Section 8 tenant-based
rental assistance for disabled families who chose to move from public housing now
designated for elderly residents. Language in the House Committee’s report also
directed HUD to provide relocation vouchers for families being displaced due to the
demolition or revitalization of public housing under the HOPE VI program. HUD
estimated that this assistance would cost approximately $30 million, funded through
the Housing Certificate Fund. For the most part, however, the House bill and its
accompanying report did not specify how money in the HCF would be allocated, or
conversely, how various subclassifications dependent on the HCF for funding would
be expected to absorb the implied cut-backs.
The Senate bill provided $11.05 billion for the Housing Certificate Fund. The bill
included the Administration’s request that an advance appropriation of $4.2 billion be
provided “for the remainder costs of contracts renewed in [FY2000] for the months
requiring Section 8 assistance in [FY2001].” The Senate bill also included $100 million
to cover the costs of bringing below market rental contracts up to market. The bill
assumed that $2.05 billion in recaptures would be carried over from FY1999, and
become available for Section 8 renewals in FY2000.
Conferees approved $11.38 billion for the Housing Certificate Fund in FY2000.
This appropriation includes $10.83 billion for the renewal of Section 8 expiring
contracts; $156 million for tenant protection and $347 million for incremental vouchers
as requested by the President; and $40 million for vouchers for the disabled. The
Conferees did not provide appropriations to fund the President’s request for welfare-
to-work vouchers, regional opportunity counseling, or additional funds for Section 8
contract administration.
Expiring Rental Contracts. The Administration proposed $10.64 billion for the
renewal of all Section 8 contracts due to expire in FY2000. For FY1999, Congress
had approved $9.6 billion for Section 8 contract renewals. HUD identified
approximately $2.4 billion in recaptured and carryover monies from FY1999,
including $183 million transferred from the Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing
Account, which it assumed could also be used to renew Section 8 contracts in
FY2000, bringing the total available for renewals to $13 billion. HUD estimated that3
this amount would be sufficient to renew expiring contracts for 2,383,687 units.
However, the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-31)
rescinded $350 million of the Section 8 reserve fund. Congress said that it would
restore these funds to HUD when needed for the FY2000 Section 8 contract renewals.
HUD expected to continue to renew these contracts through the “mark-to-
market” restructuring program established in the VA-HUD 1998 Appropriations Act,
and estimates that millions of dollars will be saved that otherwise would be expended
on contracts inflated beyond market rates.
Given the aforementioned remark in H.Rept. 106-286, that $25 million of the
recommended $10.54 billion would be used for tenant-based assistance to the disabled,
3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Congressional Justifications for
it appeared that the House bill would have provided $10.29 billion for Section 8
contract renewals in FY2000. Thus, under the House bill, except for the one
recommendation, the various subclassifications administered by HUD through the HCF
would have been expected to absorb shortfalls according to a plan developed within
HUD, rather than by the Congress through language adopted during the appropriations
process.
The Senate bill allocated $10.855 billion for Section 8 contract renewals, and the
Senate report stated “HUD is authorized to provide sticky or enhanced vouchers which
permit current residents of such a project to be subsidized based on the market rent for
a dwelling unit in the project. Tenants shall remain eligible for sticky vouchers so long
as they continue to live in the same projects....” This upgrading of contracts entailed
a limit (30% of adjusted gross income) on how much of the new contracts tenants
would have to pay. HUD was urged to “make every effort to renew the expiring
Section 8 contracts which are attached to this assisted housing, especially those
projects located in low vacancy areas, including those in high cost urban areas and
rural areas, and especially those projects that serve the elderly and persons with
disabilities.”
The Conferees appropriated $10.83 billion for the renewal of Section 8 contracts
in FY2000. In an effort to encourage owners of projects to renew their contracts,
Conferees included a provision that permits mark-to-market contract renewals at
comparable market rate levels (or higher) for projects meeting certain criteria. (This
provision is discussed under the subsection Housing for the Elderly and Disabled.)
For more information on expiring contracts and the restructuring program, please
see the following: CRS Report 97-264, The Problem of Section 8 Expiring Contracts,
by Susan Vanhorenbeck, and CRS Report 97-1002, HUD Multifamily Reform:
Section 8 Restructuring, by Susan Vanhorenbeck.
Section 8 Contract Amendments. The perceived need for Section 8 contract
amendments resulted because funding was insufficient to maintain projects that
originated during the 1970's and 1980's, and which were built through long-term
project-based contracts (usually written for terms up to 40 years). The current practice
of providing contracts for a 1-year term could eliminate the need for amendments to
these contracts. However, some older contracts remain and in many cases, managers
cannot maintain their housing inventory without additional funds provided through
amendments to existing contracts.
The Administration did not request any additional funding for Section 8
amendments in FY2000, contending that recaptured Section 8 funds from previous
years will be sufficient to fund any necessary amendments to Section 8 contracts in
FY2000. Conferees agreed with this assessment and no funds were provided for
FY2000. In FY1999, the Administration requested $1.3 billion in funding for Section
8 amendments. Congress disagreed with the request, and funding was also not
provided for amendments to contracts in FY1999.
Section 8 Tenant-Protection Assistance. The Administration assumes that not all
owners of Section 8 assisted housing are willing to renew expiring contracts, and the
Housing Certificate Fund provides assistance to affected families when a contract
renewal does not take place. The Administration requested $134 million for housing
tenants’ protection in FY2000, which was to be used to subsidize tenants displaced
through opt-outs, termination of contracts, or property dispositions. The
Administration estimated that this amount would aid approximately 27,000 families.
Another $22 million was requested for Multifamily Enforcement, which provides
protection for tenants facing additional costs of revised policies in multifamily housing.
This funding was to be used for enhanced vouchers, relocation assistance, and similar
support, bringing the total FY2000 request for tenant protection in FY2000 to $156
million. In FY1999, $434 million was appropriated for this purpose.
The House bill did not provide funding for enhanced vouchers or tenant
relocation assistance; however, the House Committee’s report stated that $25 million
of the Housing Certificate Fund appropriation could be used to provide relocation
vouchers for disabled families who chose to move out of public housing now
designated for occupancy by the elderly. The House report also directed HUD to
provide relocation vouchers for families displaced by HOPE VI revitalization. The
Senate Committee’s report specified that $40 million was to be made available from
the HCF for these disabled families, in addition to the $156 million requested by the
Administration for tenant protection assistance.
Conferees agreed with the Senate bill, and provided $156 million in tenant
protection assistance, and $40 million for vouchers for the disabled.
Section 8 Vouchers. The Administration requested a total of $491 million to fund
85,000 incremental vouchers in FY2000, including $243 million for 42,000 Section 8
vouchers to help those renters in “worst case” need (defined as rent equal to more than
50% of tenants’ incomes, or conditions determined to be substandard); $144 million
for 25,000 Section 8 vouchers to help families make the transition from welfare-to-
work; and $104 million for 18,000 Section 8 vouchers to help homeless persons
making the transition from continuum of care facilities to permanent housing. In
FY1999, $283 million was provided for 50,000 housing vouchers. All of these were
used for the welfare-to-work initiative.
Neither version of H.R. 2684 provided funding for incremental vouchers or
welfare-to-work vouchers. However, conferees provided $347 million for
approximately 60,000 incremental vouchers, the amount requested by the President.
Contract Administration. The Administration requested $209 million to contract
out duties currently performed by HUD staff, including annual physical inspections of
properties, review of management, financial statements, and occupancy, and release
of replacement reserves. In recent years, the number of HUD personnel has been
declining, and the Administration would like to reserve remaining HUD staff for duties
which it believes should only be performed by federal employees.
The Administration also asked for $6 million for an anticipated administrative fee
increase for the Section 8 program. This increase was approved in the Quality
Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. Neither version of H.R. 2684 funded
this increase or the request for contract administration, and conferees did not provide
such funds.
Regional Opportunity Counseling. The President requested $20 million for the
Regional Opportunity Counseling (ROC) program in FY2000. The program, which
seeks to expand the housing opportunities of low-income families living in high poverty
neighborhoods, funds special counseling conducted by public housing agencies in
partnership with local non-profit agencies. In FY1999, $10 million was provided for
Regional Counseling.
Neither version of H.R. 2684 provided funding for regional opportunity
counseling, and there is no funding provision in the final conference agreement.
Public Housing Programs. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act
of 1998 consolidated all public housing capital programs (except HOPE VI) into one
Public Housing Capital Fund. The Act also directs HUD to develop a new formula to
allocate resources of the Public Housing Operating Fund for FY2000. In the event
that a new formula for that Fund has not been completed in time, FY2000 funds would
be distributed using the existing formula. For FY2000, the Administration requested
$3.003 billion for the Public Housing Operating Fund; $2.55 billion for the Public
Housing Capital Fund; $310 million for Drug Elimination Grants; and $625 million for
the HOPE VI program.
Both versions of the bill provided $2.555 billion for the Public Housing Capital
Fund. The House bill provided $2.818 billion for the Public Housing Operating Fund,
the Senate provided $2.9 billion; the House bill provided $290 million for the Drug
Elimination Grant program, the Senate bill funded the requested $310 million; and the
House bill provided $575 million for the HOPE VI program, the Senate bill $500
million.
The final bill appropriates $2.9 billion for the Public Housing Capital Fund and
$3.1 billion for the Public Housing Operating Fund. Both of these amounts exceed the
request of the President. The bill also provides $310 million for Drug Elimination
Grants and $575 million for the HOPE VI program.
The FY1999 appropriations provided $2.818 billion for the Public Housing
Operating Fund; $3 billion for Public Housing Capital Fund; $310 million for the Drug
Elimination Grant program; and $625 million for the HOPE VI program.
Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act. During House floor action on
the FY1999 VA-HUD appropriations bill, an amendment was adopted that attached
the essential language of the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act, a sweeping
reform of federal housing assistance programs that had passed both chambers but had
not been reported from a conference committee. Conferees on the FY1999 VA-HUD
appropriations bill deliberated issues in the two versions of the housing reform
language, and with participation of the Administration, completed work on this major
authorization of federal housing programs.
Under the new law, well-run public housing agencies have more freedom to
operate; poorly run agencies can be held more accountable; more working families
with higher incomes live in public housing that is now largely occupied by the poorest
of the poor; and some residents are required to perform 8 hours a month of community
service. In both public housing and Section 8 programs, it is now easier to evict
tenants who commit crimes and cause problems. A home rule flexible grant
demonstration program allows some local governments (rather than public housing
agencies) to receive federal housing funds to develop creative approaches for providing
affordable housing. A new Section 8 housing voucher program is more landlord-
friendly and more market-driven. Most provisions in the new law became effective
October 1, 1999.
For further information on this significant change in federal housing policy, see
CRS Report 98-860, Housing the Poor: Federal Housing Programs for Low-Income
Families, by Morton J. Schussheim; and CRS Report 98-868, Public Housing and
Section 8 Reforms: The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, by
Richard Bourdon.
Lead-based Paint Reduction. The Administration requested $80 million for the
Lead-based Paint Reduction program for FY2000, the same amount that was
appropriated for the program in FY1999. In FY1997 and 1998, this program was
funded as a set-aside of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund, and
earlier, it was funded under the Annual Contribution for Assisted Housing Account.
The FY2000 budget proposal requests that all lead hazard balances from these
accounts be transferred to the Lead Hazard Account.
The House version of H.R. 2684 provided $70 million for lead-based paint
reduction in FY2000, a decrease of $10 million from the FY1999 funding and the
Administration’s request for FY2000; the Senate version funded the Administration’s
request. In addition, the House bill would have funded the Healthy Homes Initiative
at $7.5 million, $2.5 million below the Administration request and the FY1999 level,
while the Senate bill approved the requested amount.
The enacted bill included $80 million for Lead-Based Paint Reduction for
FY2000, the same as requested by the Administration.
Housing for the Elderly and Disabled. The President requested $660 million
for housing assistance for the elderly in FY2000. The Administration proposed
combining new and existing HUD programs to help subsidize a full range of housing
options for the elderly. Of the $660 million requested for FY2000, $510 million would
be used for the Section 202 Supportive Housing program; $100 million for a new
initiative which would provide capital grants to convert projects to assisted living
facilities; and $50 million to expand the service coordinator program and provide
renewal money for congregate housing services. In FY1999, $660 million was
appropriated for housing for the elderly under the Section 202 Supportive Housing
program.
The budget also proposed $87 million in new mandatory spending to be used for
15,000 vouchers for the elderly. These vouchers were to be given to states to
subsidize units developed under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.4
The House bill included $660 million for the Section 202 program for FY2000,
the same level as the FY1999 appropriation. In its report, the House Committee
expressed a concern with the future crisis facing housing for the elderly, but it did not
4 For further information on low-income housing tax credits, see CRS Report RS20337, The
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: Current Issues and Proposed Legislation, by Richard
Bourdon.
recommend the funding of assisted living facilities through the Section 202 program.
The report endorsed the Continuum of Care approach of providing services to
residents of assisted housing to enable low-income and frail elderly to obtain decent
housing and the services they require. The Senate version of the bill added $50 million
to the requested amount, approving $710 million for the elderly under this program.
The Administration also requested $194 million for housing for the disabled
(Section 811) for FY2000, the same amount as provided for FY1999. To assure
flexibility and choice in housing for the disabled, no less than 25% (but no more than
50%) of the funding was to be used to provide the disabled with tenant-based
vouchers. The House bill included the requested $194 million for the Section 811
program in FY2000, although its report states concerns about HUD’s proposal to
expand the percentage of funding directed to tenant-based rental assistance. The
report directs HUD to use no more than 25 % of Section 811 funding for tenant-based
assistance in FY2000. The Senate approved $201 million for the disabled, after $7
million was added by a floor amendment.
The conference report added a new title (Title V) to the VA-HUD appropriations
bill which amends housing authorization laws. Title V authorizes funding of $911
million for housing for the elderly and disabled in FY2000. $710 million is authorized
for Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly, and $201 million is authorized for
Section 811 Supportive Housing for the Disabled. Title V also authorizes $50 million
to repair and convert housing projects for the elderly into assisted living facilities, and
$50 million to renew all grants made in previous years for service coordinators and
congregate services in public housing for FY2000. This $100 million is to be taken
from the $710 million appropriated for the Section 202 program.
Title V does much more than authorize appropriated funds for the elderly and the
disabled. It combines provisions of three bills: H.R. 202, H.R. 1336, and H.R. 1624,
and is consistent with a number of provisions in the Senate bill, S. 1319. These bills
all sought to secure affordable housing for the elderly, disabled, and low-incomest
families in the 21 century. Title V is intended to protect existing residents of
federally-assisted housing from being forced to move out of their homes in the face of
market rate rent increases; it provides for the development of affordable assisted living
facilities from Section 202, public housing and Section 236 projects; and it encourages
the preservation of affordable housing by renewing Section 8 contracts at market-rate
rent levels when necessary.
For more information on housing for the elderly, see CRS Report RL30247,th
Housing for the Elderly: Legislation in the 106 Congress, by Susan Vanhorenbeck.
Homeless Assistance Grants. The President’s budget requested $1.025 billion
for homeless assistance (including $5 million for a demonstration project). Except for
the $5 million project, these funds would be used for competitive Homeless Assistance
Grants and represent an increase of $45 million or 4.4% over that enacted for FY1999.
HUD estimated that with this proposed budget, there would be 150,000 transitional
beds funded by the end of 2000 in addition to 80,000 permanent beds, all linked to
supportive services.
The final bill provides $1.02 billion for homeless assistance grants, virtually the
same as the Administration’s request. This is the same as proposed by the Senate, but
$50 million more than the amount the House had recommended. Conferees require
that at least 30% of the appropriations be used for permanent housing, as proposed by
the Senate. In addition, a 25% match would be required by grantees for funding for
services, as proposed by the Senate. The final bill also accepts the Senate’s language
that directs HUD to review any previously obligated amounts of assistance that remain
unspent, and to deobligate the funds if the contracts are unlikely to be performed.
Under final language in the bill, HUD would merge all of the balances from
separate homeless assistance program accounts of past years (including Emergency
Shelter Grants, Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, Section 8 Moderate
Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy, Supplemental Assistance for Facilities to
Assist the Homeless, and Innovative Homeless Initiatives Demonstration accounts)
into one Homeless Assistance Grants account to more efficiently utilize recaptured
funds and streamline the Department. Up to 1% of appropriated funds could be used
for technical assistance to help grantees overcome a variety of problems. As proposed
by the Senate, the conferees direct HUD to ensure that state and local jurisdictions
pass on at least 50% of all administrative funds to the nonprofit organizations
administering the homeless assistance programs.
Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). The President requested $240
million for HOPWA in FY2000, $15 million more than provided for the program in
FY1999. HOPWA provides grants to states, localities and nonprofit organizations to
meet the housing need of individuals with HIV/AIDS and their families. The
Administration contends the funding increase is necessary to support the program in
several jurisdictions that become newly eligible in FY2000 for assistance under the
program formula. It estimates that $240 million would support approximately 43,990
housing units.
The House bill provided $225 million for HOPWA in FY2000; $15 million below
the Administration’s request, and level with the FY1999 appropriation. The Senate
version provided $232 million for HOPWA, including $7 million added by a Senate
floor amendment.
The HOME Investment Partnership Program. The HOME program makes
funds available to participating jurisdictions to increase the supply of housing and
homeownership for low-income families. P.L. 106-74 appropriates $1.6 billion for the
HOME program in FY2000, the same as enacted in FY1999 and the same as approved
by the Senate. The President’s budget requested a $10 million increase over the level
enacted for FY1999 while the House bill proposed an appropriation of $1.58 billion.
The appropriation includes $15 million for housing counseling. The
Administration and the Senate had proposed $20 million for housing counseling, while
the House had proposed $7.5 million. As in the FY1999 conference report, the
conferees directed HUD to develop a process for measuring the performance of
housing counseling agencies, urging HUD to include performance measurement
requirements into future Notices of Funding Availability for the housing counseling
program. Absent information on the use of funds and the performance of grantees, the
conferees noted that in future years the program may be subject to further funding
reductions.
The appropriation also included $5 million for management information systems
as proposed by the House. The Administration had requested $7 million and the Senate
did not include funding for this category.
The appropriation does include an earmark of $2 million for the National Housing
Development Corporation, to demonstrate innovative methods of preserving affordable
housing.
The Administration had requested $25 million for the creation of the Regional
Affordable Housing Initiative as a pilot program to address critical housing needs in
targeted regions. This proposal was not funded.
Native American Block Grants. Under the Native American Block Grant,
eligible Indian tribes or their Tribally Designated Housing Entities receive funds which
can be used for a variety of activities that would increase their supply of affordable
housing. The President requested, and both versions of H.R. 2684 approved $620
million for the Native American Housing Block Grants Program for FY2000, the same
as funded for FY1999. The Administration also requested (and both versions of H.R.
2684 approved) $6 million in credit subsidies to support $54.6 million in loan
guarantees.
For FY2000, the bill directs HUD to contract $2 million of the funds as technical
assistance and capacity building to be used by the National American Indian Housing
Council (NAIHC). Prior to receiving the grant, NAIHC is expected to provide a
business plan to HUD and to the Committees on Appropriation which explains how
NAIHC will expend the funds. An additional $4 million in funds may be used by HUD
for housing inspections, contract expertise, training, and technical assistance in the
management and oversight of Indian housing assistance.
Rural Housing and Economic Development. The FY1999 HUD
Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-276) established an Office of Rural Housing and
Economic Development within HUD to support housing and economic development
in rural areas. For FY2000, P.L. 106-74 appropriates $25 million for HUD’s rural
housing and economic development program. This is the same level as enacted in
FY1999 and as proposed by the Senate for FY2000. The Administration had requested
$20 million for the program, and the House bill recommended that the program be
funded at $10 million as a set-aside within HUD’s Community Development Block
Grant account.
The bill directs HUD to use $3 million of the funds to maintain a clearinghouse
of ideas and innovative strategies that promote rural economic development and
increases in rural housing. The conference report repeats the FY1999 report’s
expectation that HUD will cooperate with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), review the requirements of USDA’s rural housing and development
programs, and incorporate USDA’s definitions and requirements into the HUD rural
program where appropriate.
For more information on rural housing issues, see CRS Report 98-915, Rural
Housing Programs: FY1999 Appropriations and Amendments, by Bruce E. Foote.
Fair Housing. Two programs comprise the HUD fair housing function: the Fair
Housing Assistance Program, and the Fair Housing Initiatives Program. The
Administration requested $47 million for the two programs, up $7 million over
FY1999. The House bill contained $37.5 million, the Senate bill $40 million for the
two programs. P.L. 106-74 provides $44 million for the programs.
The bill approved the Administration’s FY2000 request of $20 million for the Fair
Housing Assistance Program, an increase of $3.5 million over the FY1999
appropriation. The increase will be used to fund a Fair Housing Partnership between
state and local government fair housing agencies and private fair housing groups. The
Partnership will focus on underserved populations in an effort to ensure full protection
of the Fair Housing Act to those who face language, cultural, or other barriers. The
House version of H.R. 2684 included almost $19 million for these Fair Housing
programs; the Senate version, $25 million.
The bill includes $24 million for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program. The
Administration proposed $27 million in FY2000 for that program, an increase of $3.5
million over the FY1999 appropriation. The increase was to be paired with the Fair
Housing Partnership mentioned above, and used to further homeownership among
under-served groups. The House version of H.R. 2684 also included nearly $19
million for the Initiatives, with a $2 million set-aside for a nationwide audit to
determine the extent of discrimination in the sale and rental of houses. The Senate
version provided $15 million for the initiatives.
Community Development Block Grant. P.L. 106-74 appropriates $4.8 billion
for the CDBG program and its set asides. This is $25 million more than requested by
the Administration and $50 million more than appropriated in FYY1999.
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is the largest source
of federal assistance to state and local governments for housing rehabilitation,
economic development, and neighborhood revitalization. P.L. 105-276 appropriated
$4.750 billion in CDBG assistance for FY1999. For FY2000, the Administration
requested $4.775 billion for CDBG, including $425 million for set-aside activities,
$101 million less than the $526 million appropriated for FY1999. These proposed set-
asides were to provide funding for Indian tribes, empowerment zone related technical
assistance, Economic Development Initiative projects, homeownership zones, and the
Youthbuild program. The Administration’s budget request for FY2000 also included
$350 million in CDBG-related assistance, including funding for urban and regional
empowerment zones, brownfield development, the redevelopment of abandoned
buildings, and support of so-called “smart growth” initiatives under the
Administration’s Regional Connections proposal.
P.L. 106-74 does not include funding for any of the Administration’s new
community development initiatives. It continues to fund a number of set asides under
the CDBG program. These include:
!$67 million for Indian tribes;
!$3 million for the Housing Assistance Council;
!$2.2 million for National American Indian Housing Council;
!$41.5 million for special project grants, including $2 million for Alaskan Native
and native Hawaiian serving institutions;
!$20 million for the Self Help Housing Opportunity Program;
!$23 million for capacity building activities, including an earmark of $20 million
for Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing
to be carried out by the Local Initiative Support Corporation and (LISC) and
the Enterprise Foundation, including $4 million for rural areas and, $3.75
million for Habitat for Humanity International;
!$55 million for supportive services;
!$60 million for neighborhood initiatives for distressed and blighted communities
with $23 million earmarked for specific projects;
!$42.5 million for Youthbuild activities, including $2.5 million for capacity
building activities; and
!$275 million for Economic Development Initiative grants, including $240
million for specific earmarked projects identified in the conference report
accompanying H.R. 2684.
Increasingly, entitlement communities and states have complained about the
proliferation of narrowly targeted categorical programs funded as set-asides under the
block grant program.
Table 6. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development, FY2000
(budget authority in billions of $)
Admin. FY2000 FY2000 FY2000
Program FY1999 Request House Senate Confer.
Housing certificate fund 10.32711.52210.54011.05111.377
Appropriation 10.327 7.322 10.540 6.851 7.177
(By transfer)0(0.183)(0.183)(0.183)(0.183)
Advance approp. FY200104.20004.2004.200
Housing set-asides:
Expiring Section 8 contracts(9.600)(10.640)(10.540)b(10.855)(10.834)
Sect. 8 tenant protection(0.434)(0.156)0(0.156)(0.156)
Region. opportunity counsel.(0.010)(0.020)0—0
Welfare-to-work hsng. vouch.(0.283)(0.144)0—0
Contract administration0(0.209)0—0
Incremental vouchers0(0.347)0—(0.347)
Administrative fee change0(0.006)0—
Voucher for disabled(0.040)00(0.040)(0.040)
Subtotal: HCF set-asides10.32711.522a10.540b11.051a11.377a
Section 8 recapture (rescission)-2.000000-1.300
Section 8 carryover (rescission)0000-0.943
Public housing capital fund3.0002.5552.5552.5552.900
Pub. housing operating fund2.8183.0032.8182.9003.138
Drug elimination grants0.3100.3100.2900.3100.310
Admin. FY2000 FY2000 FY2000
Program FY1999 Request House Senate Confer.
Distressed pub. hous. (HOPE)0.6250.6250.5750.5000.575
Indian hsng. block grants0.6200.6200.6200.6200.620
Indian hsng. loan guar.0.0060.0060.0060.0060.006
Rural Hsng.; Econ. Develop.0.0250.02000.0250.025
Housing, persons with AIDS0.225c0.2400.2250.2320.232
Community Devel. Blk. Grant4.7504.7754.5004.8004.800
(CDBG emergency funding)0.0200000
Homeless Assistance Grants0.9751.025d0.9701.0201.020
HOME Invest. Partnerships1.6001.6101.5801.6001.600
Brownfields Initiative0.0250.0500.0200.0250.025
Regional connections00.050000
Urban Empowerment Zones0.0450000.055
Rural Empowerment Zones00000.015
Regional emp’rment zones 00.050000
Sec.108 loan guar.; subsidy0.0300.0300.0260.0300.030
America priv. invest.; subsidy0 0.037000.020
Redevelopment of aband. bldg.00.050000
Office of lead hazard control0.0800.0800.0700.0800.080
Housing, elderly and disabled0.8540.8540.8540.9110.911
Federal Housing Admin. (net)f-0.0330.6350.3180.6350.635
Research and technology0.0480.0500.0430.0350.045
GNMA (net)f-0.361-0.407-0.413-0.407-0.413
Fair housing activities0.0400.0470.0380.0400.044
Inspector General 0.0500.0380.0400.0640.051
Salaries and expenses0.4560.5020.4570.4570.477
Y2K convers’n (emerg. funds) 0.0120000
Admin. provisions (net)e-0.468-0.329-0.064-0.319-0.383
Subtotal (HUD) 24.07928.04826.06727.17025.951
(rounded, may not add)
Source: H.Rept. 106-379.
a Includes $4.2 billion funded and expected to be spent in FY2001.
b H.R. 2684 does not identify set-asides, except H.Rept. 106-286 indicates that $25 million of the HCF
appropriation is to be provided for section 8 tenant-based rental assistance for disabled families
moving from public housing designated for the elderly.c
Includes additional $10 million provided by P.L. 105-277.d
Includes $5 million for homeless assistance demonstration project.e
Net, interagency transfers and offsetting receipts against appropriations of the current year.
Regional Connections. This was a new initiative of the Clinton Administration
designed to promote comprehensive and coordinated regional development strategies.
The Administration requested $50 million in Regional Connections grants to be
awarded to state and local governments. The Administration unsuccessfully sought
$100 million in funding for this proposal in its FY1999 budget submission. The
proposal also failed to win approval during consideration of HUD’s FY2000
appropriations.
Brownfield Redevelopment. For FY2000, the Administration sought an
appropriation of $50 million in support of brownfield redevelopment, an increase of
$25 million over FY1999. These are environmentally contaminated sites in urban and
rural communities that the Administration sought to return to useful economic life
through a process of environmental remediation and reuse. Funds were to be used to
support Section 108 loan guarantees to help pay for cleanup activities and to assist in
financing job-generating economic development projects.
P.L. 106-74 appropriates $25 million in support of brownfield redevelopment
projects consistent with the Senate version of H.R. 2684. This is significantly less than
the $50 million requested. The House version of H.R. 2684 included $20 million for
brownfield redevelopment projects.
Regional Empowerment Zones. This was a new Administration proposal and part
of its “New Markets Initiative” intended to promote economic activities in distressed
urban and rural communities. The Regional Empowerment Zone proposal sought to
increase youth employment opportunities by linking urban empowerment zone
strategies to broader metropolitan area employment opportunities. The Administration
requested $50 million for this proposal. The final version of H.R. 2684 did not include
funding for this initiative.
Urban and Rural Empowerment Zones. Empowerment zones provide tax credits
to eligible private businesses and to state and local governments to be used to
encourage economic activity in selected communities. Estimates accompanying P.L.
106-74 show that for FY1999, funding for urban empowerment zones will total $45
million. This assistance was provided under an omnibus appropriation measure, P.L.
105-277. The Administration’s FY2000 budget request for HUD did not include
funding for empowerment zones and enterprise communities. P.L. 106-74 appropriates
$55 million for urban empowerment zones, including $3.666 million for each zone
designated in Round II. The Act also includes $15 million for Round II rural
empowerment zones and enterprise communities. For additional information on
empowerment zones see CRS Report RS20380 Empowerment Zone/Enterprise
Communities Program: Information on Round II, by Bruce K. Mulock, and CRS
Report 97-257 Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities Program:
Implementation and Developments, by Bruce K. Mulock.
America’s Private Investment Companies. Another component of the
Administration’s “New Markets Initiative,” the America’s Private Investment
Companies (APIC) proposal is intended to increase the flow of private equity capital
investment into distressed urban and rural communities. The Administration estimates
that this credit subsidy could leverage $1 billion in private capital. The Administration
requested $37 million in APIC subsidy for FY2000.
P.L. 106-74, appropriated $20 million for APIC activities contingent upon the the
enactment of authorizing legislation before June 30, 2000.
Redevelopment of Abandoned Buildings. This is a component of the
Administration’s “New Markets Initiative” designed to increase economic activity in
distressed urban and rural areas. The Administration requested $50 million to assist
communities raze abandoned blighted buildings and redevelop the sites for commercial
or residential use. P.,L. 106-74 does not include funds for this initiative.
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Subsidy. The Administration requested $30 million
in subsidies to support a loan guarantee commitment of $1.3 billion for FY2000.
CDBG Section 108 loan guarantees allow selected local and state governments to
borrow up to five times their annual CDBG allocation to finance large scale economic
development projects. For FY1999, $30 million in subsidies were authorized to
support $1.3 billion in loan guarantee commitments. The House version of H.R. 2684
recommended a subsidy of $26 million to support $1.087 billion in loan guarantees for
FY2000, the Senate version provided $30 million. P.L. 106-74 provides $29 million
in support of $1.261 billion in loan guarantee commitments.
Youthbuild. The Youthbuild program, which provides supervised education and
job training to teenaged residents in public housing, was funded as a $42.5 million
CDBG set-aside program in FY1999. This includes $2.5 million for capacity building
activities. For FY2000, the Administration requested $75 million in CDBG funds be
set-aside for Youthbuild activities. P.L. 106-74 includes $42.5 million for Youthbuild
activities for FY2000, as a CDBG set-aside (see previous page). This includes $2.5
million for capacity building activities.
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA). P.L. 106-74 includes a House
proposal that limits insurance commitments for the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance
fund to $140 billion, a $30 billion increase over the FY1999 level. The Administration
and the Senate proposed a $120 billion level. A higher level of FHA loan activity is
expected because of the increase in the FHA loan limit enacted in the FY1999 HUD
Appropriations Act. The increased commitment limit is intended to avoid the need for
supplemental appropriations if the demand for FHA insurance exceeds the projected
level.
As proposed by the Senate, obligations for direct loans are limited to $100 million
during FY2000. The Administration and the House proposed a direct loan limitation
of $50 million, a 50% decrease from the FY1999 appropriation.
The FY2000 Budget and both versions of H.R. 2684 requested $18.1 billion in
loan commitments for FHA’s General and Special Risk Insurance funds, the same level
as enacted in FY1999. These funds support specialized mortgage finance needs such
as hospitals, assisted living and nursing homes, apartment buildings, and home
rehabilitation.
For more information on FHA mortgage limits, see CRS Report 98-421, Raising
the FHA Mortgage Limit: Issues and Options, by Bruce E. Foote.
Environmental Protection Agency
The President’s FY2000 request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
was $7.2 billion in spending authority or 5% less than the $7.6 billion appropriated for
FY1999. The FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L. 105-277, added $30 million
to the EPA budget for FY1999; the FY1999 Emergency Supplemental, P.L. 106-31,
decreased EPA’s FY1999 funds by $10 million. Both versions of H.R. 2684 included
$7.3 billion for EPA (the Senate was approximately $15 million higher). The conferees
added funds, bringing the enacted total to $7.6 billion in P.L. 106-74.
Three prime issues were the adequacy of funds to capitalize wastewater and
drinking water needs; increased funding and EPA’s authority to conduct climate
change activities; and the Agency’s progress in cleaning up toxic waste sites under the
Superfund program.
The Administration’s proposed FY2000 levels in the State and Tribal Assistance
Grants would have provided one-third less for capitalizing state and local wastewater
needs, thereby prompting considerable controversy during hearings before EPA’s
appropriators this year. Two factors drove this interest: the program’s widespread
popularity among all states and many localities, and major remaining capital needs.
EPA estimates these remaining needs to be in the $100 billion to $200 billion range;
the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies judges the needs to be roughly
$300 billion.
The controversy did not extend to the other major activity, capitalizing state
drinking water funds, which would have increased under the proposal from $775
million to $825 million. Funding for special Mexican Border water quality and
drinking water projects would have doubled to $100 million, and grants for state
administration of environmental programs would rise 6% to $825 million, under the
proposal. The budget also proposed a new $200 million Clean Air Partnership
program to fund innovative state and local activities aimed at reducing air pollutants.
Table 7. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations,
FY1995 to FY1999
(budget authority in billions of current $)
FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999
$6.7 $6.5 $6.8 $7.4 $7.6
Source: Budget levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, and any
supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been taken into consideration; thus, FY1995-98
figures are from budget submissions of subsequent years. Estimates of FY1999 spending are from
H.Rept. 106-379, the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2684 to final passage.
The House added $325 million to the President’s request for waste water needs
for a total of $1.175 billion, and approved $775 million for state drinking water funds,
$50 million less than requested. The House approved the entire $885 million requested
for state programs, and $41.4 million of the $200 million requested for the Clean Air
Partnership. The Senate bill and the conference agreement restored waste water state
revolving funds to the FY1999 level of $1.35 billion, and as did the House, funded
state programs at the $885 million requested. The final appropriation for drinking
water funds was $820 million, $5 million less than requested. Conferees included $332
million for special purpose water grants, $304 million more than requested by the
Administration. Unlike the House, the Senate and the conferees did not include funding
for the Clean Air Partnership. In addition, the Senate included an amendment restoring
$12 million for the Montreal Protocol Fund; conferees funded the change by an across-
the-board reduction equal to the $12 million.
EPA’s climate change activities continue to be controversial. The Administration
supports the yet-to-be ratified Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases as an
international response to global warming. Congress approved no additional research
funds for FY1999, denied most of the requested increase of roughly $80 million for
climate change activities, and included bill language prohibiting EPA from spending
funds on activities that would implement the Protocol. In action near the end of theth
105 Congress, the Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277), added $10 million
to the existing appropriation for global climate activities; early in the 106th Congress,
the FY1999 Emergency Supplemental (P.L. 106-31) rescinded $10 million from that
same account.
Table 8. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency, FY2000
(budget authority in billions of $)
Admin. FY2000 FY2000 FY2000
Program FY1999 Request House Senate Confer.
Science and Technology
(including transfers from0.700a0.6800.6800.6800.683
Superfund)
Environmental programs,1.8482.0471.8501.8971.900
compliance (management)
Office of Inspector General0.0430.0400.0360.0430.043
Buildings and facilities0.0570.0630.0630.0260.063
Superfund (net, after1.4481.4521.4041.3511.351
transfers)
Leaking Underground0.0730.0720.0600.0720.070
Storage Tank Trust Fund
Oil spill response0.0150.0160.0150.0150.015
State and tribal assistance3.407b2.8383.2003.2503.467
grants
Across-the-board reduction: ———-0.0120
Offset for Montreal Protocol
Subtotal (EPA) 7.5907.2087.3087.3347.592
(rounded, may not add)
Source: H.Rept. 106-286; S.Rept. 106-161.
a Also includes $10 million added for FY1999 by P.L. 105-277.
b Also includes $20 million added for FY1999 by P.L. 105-277.
Climate change programs are funded through the Science and Technology, and
the Environmental Compliance accounts. The Administration’s FY2000 request of
$239 million for EPA’s climate change activities would have been a 90% increase if
it had been adopted. About 30% of this amount was to have been for science and
technology activities, and the remaining 70% for activities to encourage voluntary
reduction of greenhouse gases. Some Members assert that EPA does not have legal
authority to act to reduce carbon emissions, a primary cause of such gases. CRS’
Climate Change Briefing Book [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.html]
discusses many aspects of the climate change issue.
The House approved $115 million for the Climate Change Technology Initiative,
$111 million less than requested. It funded Climate Change Research at $18 million,
$1 million more than the amount provided for FY1999. The House bill also included
language restricting funds for preparing, publishing, or issuing an assessment required
under Section 106 of the Global Climate Change Research Act, unless these
assessments were developed according to specifications spelled out in the bill. Also
denying most of the proposed increase for climate change funding, the Senate bill
included report language requesting justification for EPA’s climate change programs.
Conferees approved $115 million for Climate Change Technology Initiative,
denying almost all of the proposed increase. It funded Climate Change Research at
$20.8 million, $2 million less than requested. Conferees included report language
restricting FY2000 funds from preparing, publishing or issuing an assessment required
under the Global Climate Change Research Act, and other report language prohibiting
EPA from using FY2000 funds for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation
for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol.
The Superfund for cleaning up toxic waste sites, remains an issue. Unlike the last
three fiscal years, the FY2000 budget did not seek a major increase in the program; the
$1.5 billion requested was the same as appropriated in FY1999. In addition to that
appropriation, P.L. 105-276 authorized an additional $650 million if the fund had been
reauthorized by August 1, 1999, which did not occur. The House bill included $1.45
billion for Superfund, $50 million less than requested; the Senate bill and the
conference committee provided $100 million less than requested for an FY2000
appropriation of $1.35 billion. Both bills and the final enactment included nearly all
of the $92 million requested for the popular Brownfield program designed to remedy
low level contaminated sites which have economic development potential.
Committee oversight of the Superfund focuses on improving the efficiency of the
program’s administration and the progress EPA is making in cleaning up all major
hazardous waste sites. The General Accounting Office (GAO) continues to place this
program on its list of troubled federal programs and there are ongoing efforts in both
the House and Senate to legislatively reform this program.
For more detailed information on the Superfund, see: CRS Issue Brief IB10011,
Superfund Reauthorization Issues in the 106th Congress, by Mark Reisch. For
information on wastewater treatment issues, see CRS Report 98-323, Wastewater
Treatment: Overview and Background, by Claudia Copeland; for clean air issues, see
CRS Issue Brief IB10004, Clean Air Act Issues in the 106th Congress, by James
McCarthy. For additional detail on clean air issues, see: CRS Report 97-8, Air
Quality: EPA’s Proposed New Ozone and Particulate Matter Standards, by John
Blodgett and James McCarthy. For more detailed information on EPA and its budget,
see: CRS Issue Brief IB10038, Environmental Protection Agency: Analysis of Key
FY2000 Budget Issues, by Martin Lee.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) helps states and localities
prepare for and cope with catastrophic disasters. FEMA administers policies related
to emergency management and planning, disaster relief, fire prevention, earthquake
hazard reduction, emergency broadcasting services, flood insurance, mitigation
programs, and dam safety. Citations to and summary information on basic authorities
from FEMA can be found in: CRS Report RS20272, FEMA’s Mission: Policy
Directives for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by Keith Bea.
Table 9. Appropriations: Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FY2000
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY2000
Admin. FY2000 FY2000 FY2000
Program FY1999 Request House Senate Confer.
Disaster relief 0.3080.3000.3000.3000.300
Emergency funding2.0362.480002.480
Pre-disaster mitigation00.030000
Disaster loan subsidy0.0020.0020.0020.0020.002
Salaries and expenses0.1710.1900.1780.1800.180
Inspector General0.0050.0080.0070.0080.008
Emergency management,aaa
planning assistance0.2410.2510.2810.2560.267
Emergency food, shelter0.1000.1250.1100.1100.110
Flood map modernize. 00.0050.00500.005
Flood mitigation fund00.012000
Radiological emerg.
preparedness (net)0-0.001-0.001-0.001-0.001
Y2K conversion0.0070000
Subtotal (FEMA)2.8703.4020.8810.8553.351
(rounded, may not add)
Source: H.Rept. 106-379.
a The House and Senate approved $25 million for pre-disaster mitigation in the emergency
management planning and assistance account.
Disaster relief is authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act. The Act authorizes the President to declare major
disasters or emergencies (the latter provide considerably less federal assistance than the
former), sets out eligibility criteria, and specifies types of assistance that may be
authorized. Funding varies from year-to-year by the severity and frequency of declared
catastrophes. In recent years, billions have been appropriated to help communities
recover from tornados, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and other incidents. For
further budgetary information on FEMA, see: CRS Report RS20094, FEMA Funding
Overview: Current and Historical Data for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, by Keith Bea.
To reduce future losses from disasters, FEMA has sought increased funding for
mitigation activities. Members of Congress have voiced general support for the
Administration’s emphasis on disaster mitigation, but disagree on specifics. For
example, instead of agreeing to the request for separate funding for the Project Impact
mitigation efforts, for FY1999, Congress set aside roughly half the amount requested
in the existing account that funds state and local emergency preparedness activities
(“emergency management, planning and assistance,” or EMPA).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) receives
appropriations within 4 broad program categories: the International Space Station
(ISS); human space flight; science, aeronautics and technology; and, mission support.
The ISS includes construction of the station and cooperative activities with Russian
space programs. The space shuttle includes shuttle operations, maintenance,
performance, and safety upgrades. Science, aeronautics and technology programs
include research and development contracts and academic activities within space
science; life and microgravity science; earth sciences; advanced concepts in aeronautics
and technology; and launch services. The fourth category, mission support, includes
salaries and expenses for operations of NASA. Within each of the 4 broad categories
are appropriation earmarks for specific program functions. There is also a separate
appropriation line for the Office of Inspector General.
For FY2000, the Administration requested $13.578 billion for NASA, compared
to an appropriation of $13.665 billion for FY1999.
NASA projects eight Space Shuttle flights in FY2000 including seven for the ISS.
The reliability of Russian commitments to the ISS is a critical issue for FY2000, as it
could affect ISS construction costs. Assuming successful launch of the Russian
Service Module before the end of 1999, NASA expects 10 ISS missions in FY2000,
to continue construction and outfitting of the ISS, and to install the first ISS crew.
Continued consolidation of Space Shuttle contract operations under the Space Flight
Operations Contract is also expected in FY2000.
For FY2000, NASA requested $2.986 billion for Space Shuttle operations,
compared to $3.028 billion approved in FY1999. The House reduced the requested
amount for shuttle operations by $150 million. The Senate approved the full request
for space shuttle operations. The final appropriations bill provides an increase of $25
million above the request. The additional funds are for safety upgrades of the shuttle.
The Administration’s request for the ISS was $2.483 billion compared to $2.270
billion appropriated in FY1999. The House reduced the ISS request by $100 million;
the Senate approved the full request. The final appropriation bill provides $2.331
billion, $152 million below the request.
Table 10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Appropriations, FY1995 to FY1999
(budget authority in billions of current $)
FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999
$14.00 $13.88 $13.71 $13.65 $13.67
Source: Budget levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, and any
supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been taken into consideration; thus, FY1995-98
figures are from budget submissions of subsequent years. Estimates of FY1999 spending are from
H.Rept. 106-379, the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2684 to final passage.
The request for additional ISS funding during FY2000 assumes some of the
additional costs would be offset by savings in the Aero-Space Technology programs.
The Office of Aero-Space Technology plans to terminate two major aeronautics
research programs in FY2000, high speed research and advanced subsonic engine
technology. In addition, with the end of NASA’s share of contract costs, funding for
the X-33 project, a joint effort with Lockheed Martin to develop technology for a
reusable launch vehicle, will decline. NASA requested $1.006 billion for the Office of
Aero-Space Technology, 24.8% below the FY1999 appropriation. The House reduced
that request by $43.5 million while the Senate increased the request by $100 million.
The latter would be applied to advanced space transportation research. The final
appropriations provides $1.159 billion, $152.3 million above the request. The
additional funds are for Ultra Efficient Engine technology and aircraft noise reduction
research and the Space Liner 100 project.
The Office of Space Science intends to develop small Mars exploration missions,
including the use of robotic aircraft. Two major missions and an upgrade of the
Hubble Space Telescope are also expected in FY2000, along with four launches in the
Explorer program. The next two satellites in Earth Science’s Earth Observing System
(EOS) program are scheduled to be launched in FY2000, assuming successful launch
of the Terra (formerly the EOS AM-1) mission in FY1999. For FY2000 the
Administration requested $2.197 billion for Space Science and $1.459 billion for Earth
Science. The House appropriated $1.956 billion for Space Science and $1.174 billion
for Earth Science. The reductions approved by the House include cancellation of the
Contour, TRIANA, LightSAR, and Earth System Science Pathfinder missions, and
substantial reductions in the Space Science supporting research and technology and the
EOS programs. The Senate included an appropriation of $2.077 billion for Space
Science and the full request for Earth Science. No specific recommendations were
made for the reduction in the Space Science request. The final appropriations provides
$2.198 billion for Space Science and $1.455 billion for Earth Science. Within those
totals, Congress reduced funding for some programs and increased those of others
from the requested amounts.
The Administration requested $2.495 billion for the mission support programs for
FY2000, down $16 million from the appropriation for FY1999 ($2.511 billion). The
House approved $2.269 billion for FY2000, while the Senate endorsed the full request.
The final appropriation provides $2.515 billion for these activities.
In the report accompanying its appropriation, the House noted NASA’s progress
in assembling the ISS. It expressed concern, however, about the growing costs of the
ISS and NASA’s apparent lack of progress in expanding commercial participation in
the ISS program. The House also stated that additional funding for shuttle upgrades
was not available at this time. The House stated that while the reduction from the
request for Space and Earth Science activities was substantial it was less significant
than might appear. The House argued that most of the reduction was being taken from
projects that were in the early stages of development or were from future planning or
technology development activities. The House noted that the latter budgets had grown
substantially in recent years.
The report accompanying the Senate bill expresses concern about the continuing
cost escalation of the ISS and the reliability of Russia in meeting its commitments. The
report acknowledges the termination of the high-speed research and advanced subsonic
technology programs, but directs NASA to ensure that knowledge gained from that
research to date would not be lost. The report also directs the Office of Science and
Technology Policy to determine whether NASA is making effective use of the data
collected by the Space and Earth Science programs. The bill would add funds to the
advanced space transportation program and the report directs NASA to accelerate
development of technology to enable lower cost access to space.
Table 11. Appropriations: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, FY2000
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY2000
Admin. FY2000 FY2000 FY2000
Program FY1999 Request House Senate Confer.
Human space flight5.4805.6385.3885.6395.511
Science, aeronaut., tech.5.6545.4254.9765.4255.607
Mission support2.5112.4952.2692.4952.515
Inspector General0.0200.0210.0210.0200.020
Subtotal (NASA)13.66513.57912.65413.57813.653
(rounded, may not add)
Source: H.Rept.106-379.
In the conference report, NASA was directed to accelerate commercialization
efforts on the ISS. A provision was added to the bill that would establish
demonstration programs for commercial ventures on the station in order to evaluate
ways of using the ISS for economic development of low-earth orbit. The conference
report also directed NASA to report quarterly on the status of station assembly.
Congress directed NASA to contract with the National Research Council to study the
“availability and usefulness” of data collected from NASA Space and Earth Science
missions. Reports on the status of all Earth and Space Science missions are to be
reported quarterly to Congress. Congress directed NASA to examine the possibility
of extending CSOC to those telecommunications and mission operations not now
covered by the contract.
The House has approved a NASA authorization bill (H.R. 1654) that would
authorize $13.626 billion for FY2000, specifying $2.482 billion for the ISS, $3.173
billion for Launch Vehicles and Payload Operations, $5.453 billion for Science,
Aeronautics, and Technology, and $2.495 billion for Mission Support. The Senate
Commerce Committee approved a NASA authorization bill (S. 342) that would
authorize $13.378 billion for FY2000, specifying $2.283 billion for the ISS, $3.155
billion for Launch Vehicles and Payload Operations, $5.425 billion for Science,
Aeronautics, and Technology, and $2.495 billion for Mission Support.
For a more detailed discussion of NASA and its FY2000 request, see: CRS
Report RL30154, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s FY2000
Budget: Description and Analysis, by Richard Rowberg. For more discussion on the
ISS, see: CRS Issue Brief IB93017, Space Stations, by Marcia S. Smith.
National Science Foundation
The FY2000 appropriation for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is $3.9
billion, a 6.6% ($241 million) increase over the FY1999 estimate of $3.7 billion. The
FY2000 appropriation is part of the Administration’s commitment to basic research,
as outlined in the “21st Century Research Fund.” The support provides significant
investments in several priority areas, including biocomplexity in the environment ($50
million) and in new and comprehensive approaches to education and workforce
development ($475 million). At the suggestion of the President’s Information
Technology Advisory Committee, the NSF has been designated as the lead agency for
an initiative on information technology that involves six federal agencies. NSF’s
FY2000 appropriation provides $126 million for Information Technology Research
(ITR). (ITR supersedes the Information for the Twenty-First Century Initiative, IT2).
The investment will support research in areas such as software systems, high-end
computing, and terascale computing systems.
Included in the FY2000 appropriation is $2.97 billion for Research and Related
Activities (R&RA), a 7.1% increase ($196 million) above the FY1999 level of $2.77
billion. R&RA funds research projects, research facilities, and education and training
activities. NSF has placed increased emphasis on funding rates for new investigators
and on efforts to address grant size and duration. The R&RA includes support for
Integrative Activities (IA), created in FY1999. The IA, funded at $129 million in
FY2000, provides support for major research instrumentation, intellectual
infrastructure, cross-disciplinary research, and the Science and Technology Policy
Institute (STPI). The STPI, formerly the Critical Technologies Institute, is funded at
the requested level of $4 million. The Opportunity Fund within the IA did not receive
funding. Conferees included language in the report that limits NSF support for internet
domain registration which is consistent with the established policy of the National
Science Board.
The Major Research Equipment (MRE) account is funded at $95 million in
FY2000, a 5.6% increase ($5 million) over the FY1999 level. The MRE supports the
construction of major research facilities that are at the “cutting edge of science and
engineering.” All projects are funded at the levels requested by the Administration,
and include terascale computing systems ($36 million), construction funds for the
Large Hadron Collider ($15.9 million), completion of the design and development
phase of the Millimeter Array ($8 million), initial investments in the Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation ($7.7 million), modernization of the South Pole
Station ($5.4 million), and funding for the reconfiguration of the Polar Support
Aircraft ($12 million). Funding of $10 million above the MRE request is directed at
the acquisition of a high altitude research aircraft, the High-Performance Instrumented
Airborne Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER). When completed, the
HIAPER will be available to support atmospheric science research opportunities for
the next 30 years.
The FY2000 appropriation for the Education and Human Resources Directorate
(EHR) is $697 million, 5.2% increase ($35 million) above the FY1999 estimate.
Support at the precollege level includes investments in two new activities, the National
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education Digital Library
(NSDL) and the NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education. The NSDL is
intended improve the quality, quantity, and comprehensiveness of internet-based
educational resources. The Teaching Fellows program will support graduate and
undergraduate science and mathematics majors as content resources for teachers in K-
12 classrooms. The EHR includes support ($55 million) for the Experimental Program
to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) and a new Office of Innovation
Partnerships ($10 million). Conference language directs that support for these two
activities be combined into a single program office.
Table 12. National Science Foundation Appropriations,
FY1995 to FY1999
(budget authority in billions of current $)
FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999
$3.23 $3.22 $3.27 $3.43 $3.67
Source: Budget levels remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, and any
supplemental appropriations or rescissions have been taken into consideration; thus, FY1995-98
figures are from budget submissions of subsequent years. Estimates of FY1999 spending are from
H.Rept. 106-379, the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2684 to final passage.
In addition, the new office is directed to assist non-EPSCoR institutions receiving
the least federal research support in their efforts to expand their research infrastructure
and competitiveness. The conference agreement also provides $10 million for
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) through the underrepresented
population undergraduate reform initiative. The EHR will provide $8 million for the
HBCUs, and the R&RA will provide the additional $2 million in support. Informal
Science Education (ISE), funded at the requested level of $46 million, will continue
its involvement in the professional development of science teachers. ISE will also
expand its efforts to bring learning opportunities to inner cities and rural areas that
have had limited exposure to science and technology.
For additional information on NSF, see: CRS Report 95-307, U.S. National
Science Foundation: An Overview, both by Christine M. Matthews.
Table 13. Appropriations: National Science Foundation, FY2000
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY2000
Admin. FY2000 FY2000 FY2000
Program FY1999 Request House Senate Confer.
Research, related2.7703.0042.7693.0072.966
activities
Education, human0.6620.6780.6600.6890.697
resources
Major research0.0900.0850.0570.0700.095
equipment
Salaries and expenses0.1440.1490.1470.1500.149
Office of Inspector0.0050.0050.0050.0060.005
General
Subtotal (NSF)
(rounded, may not3.6713.9213.6373.9213.912
add)
Source: H.Rept. 106-379.
Other Independent Agencies
In addition to funding for VA, HUD, EPA, FEMA, NASA and NSF, several other
smaller “sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices”
will receive their funding through the bill providing appropriations for VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1999.
American Battle Monuments Commission. This Commission is responsible
for the construction and maintenance of memorials honoring Armed Forces battle
achievements since 1917. Included among the Commission’s functions are the
maintenance of 24 American military cemeteries and 31 memorializations in 15 foreign
countries. The Administration requested $26 million for FY2000, an amount only a
few thousand dollars above the amounts appropriated for FY1999.
The House bill adds $2 million to the requested amounts, as “the third increment
provided the Commission to reduce the maintenance backlog” noted during the
FY1998 appropriations process. The Senate bill accepted the Administration request;
conferees accepted the Senate amount.
Cemeterial Expenses, Army. Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers’
and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery are under the administration of the U.S. Army.
At the close of FY1998, 272,195 persons were interred/inurned in these cemeteries.
In addition to almost 6,000 interments and inurnments each year, Arlington is the site
of approximately 2,700 other ceremonies, and 4 million visitors, annually.
For FY2000, conferees (as did both versions of the bill) provided $12.473 million,
as the Administration requested, up from the appropriation of $11.666 million in
FY1999 (rounded to the nearest $1 million shows both the FY1999 appropriation and
the recommendations for FY2000 to be $12 million).
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. The Administration
requested $7.5 million for the Board for FY2000, which originated in the FY1998 bill,
with $4 million appropriated to meet start-up operations costs. The Board, which was
authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, investigates hazardous
substance spills or releases. Congress appropriated $6.5 million for FY1999.
The House bill includes $7 million for the Board, or $.5 million less than the
Administration requested. The Senate bill freezes the appropriation at the FY1999
level of $6.5 million. The Senate report suggests that the Board is focusing too much
of its resources on internal activities, when it should be conducting the investigations
for which it was established. Conferees agreed with the Senate assessment.
Nevertheless, the conference approved $8 million for the Board, but limited the
number of Senior Executive Service positions to 3, and directed the Board to submit
a business plan to Congress by December 31, 1999.
Community Development Financial Institution Fund. The Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI) was created by P.L. 103-325. The
CDFI is an Administration initiative to provide credit and investment capital to
distressed urban and rural areas. The program also provides training and technical
assistance to qualifying financial institutions. The program has survived despite
attempts to eliminate it.
P.L. 104-19 modified the original Act by giving the Department of the Treasury
the authority to manage the CDFI program, although the CDFI continues to be funded
through the VA/HUD bill. After attempts to end funds for the CDFI were defeated,
Congress appropriated $80 million for FY1998, but included a requirement that GAO
audit the CDFI to “review” its effectiveness.
The Administration’s FY2000 budget requested $125 million for CDFI, the same
amount requested by the Administration’s last 2 budgets. Congress appropriated $80
million in the FY1999 VA-HUD bill (P.L. 105-276) for CDFI, and added $15 million
more in the Transportation appropriations act (P.L. 105-277).
Although its report remarks that the “Committee is very pleased with the CDFI
Strategic Plan, and the goals, objectives, and strategies it contains,” the House bill
recommends an appropriation for FY2000 of $70 million, which is $55 million less
than requested, and $25 million less than the current fiscal year. The Senate approved
$80 million, and its report expresses concern that CDFI “does not provide capital in
low-population states....” The report “directs the CDFI Fund to improve its efforts in
making funding available to entities in states with populations of less than 2 million
people.”
Conferees provided $95 million for CDFI, and recommended that the agency
develop a “Small and Emerging CDFI Access Program” to facilitate a balance between
established and emerging CDFIs.
For further information on CDFI, see: CRS Report 97-819, Community
Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, by Pauline Smale.
Consumer Information Center (CIC). Conferees funded the CIC equal to the
Administration’s FY2000 request of $2.622 million, as both versions of the bill
recommended. The Center, administered through the General Services Administration
(GSA), helps federal agencies distribute consumer information and promotes public
awareness of existing federal publications. Congress appropriated $2.619 million for
the Center for FY1999; $300,000 of which was for functions of the Office of
Consumer Affairs, an entity previously administered through the Department of Health
and Human Services. That federal entity received no appropriations for FY1999.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). This Commission is an
independent regulatory agency charged with protecting the public from unreasonable
product risk and to research and develop uniform safety standards for consumer
products. The Administration requested $51 million for FY2000, up $3.5 million over
FY1999 appropriations. Congress included language in its FY1999 appropriation for
CPSC, that requires the Commission to contract with the National Academy of
Sciences for a study of the potential toxicologic risks of fire-retardant chemicals that
the Commission has proposed be required in residential upholstered furniture, and in
children’s sleepwear.
The House Appropriations Committee expressed a concern (H.Rept. 106-286)
that according the Commission’s own Annual Report (a finding validated by two GAO
reports), data on deaths and injuries are not adequate to properly evaluate risks of
consumer products, especially those concerned with children’s sleepwear. The House
bill would fund the CPSC in FY2000 at the same level ($47 million) as for FY1999,
rejecting the Administration’s recommendation that the Commission establish a new
research program. The Senate bill approved $49.5 million, and left it to “the agency’s
discretion, subject to normal reprogramming guidelines” to determine how the
reduction below the request is distributed. Conferees approved $49 million.
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNS). The Corporation
administers programs authorized under the National and Community Service Act of
Appropriations for the NCSA programs, the largest of which is AmeriCorps, are
included in the VA-HUD bill.
The key issue concerning the Corporation and the NCSA programs, which are
strongly supported by President Clinton, has been budgetary survival. Some Members
have expressed concerns about partisan activities, program costs, financial
management, and federally funding a “paid volunteer” program. (The DVSA
programs, — e.g., Foster Grandparents Program and Senior Companion Program —
are funded under the Labor/HHS Appropriation bill and have been non-controversial.)
Authorization for CNS, and programs and activities authorized by NCSA, expired at
the end of FY1996. Since then, continued program authority has occurred through the
appropriations process.
The Administration’s FY2000 budget requested $545.5 million for the NCSA
programs (plus a $3 million request for the CNS Office of the Inspector General
(OIG). For FY1999, Congress provided $425.5 million (plus $3 million for the OIG)
for these programs. It then added $10 million for AmeriCorps in the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277). Total funding
for AmeriCorps for FY1999 was $237 million; the President requested $302 million
for FY2000.
For FY2000, the House bill recommended no appropriations for national and
community service programs. The bill did contain the $3 million recommended for
activities of the OIG. The Senate approved $423.5 million in funds for the
Corporation, specifying that $70 million was for educational awards in the National
Service Trust account; $224.5 million for AmeriCorps; $7.5 million for Points of Light
Foundation; $18 million for the Civilian Community Corps; $43 million for learning
programs; $28.5 million for “quality and innovation activities”; $27 million for
administration; and $5 million for audits and evaluations. The bill also included $5
million for the OIG.
Conferees provided appropriations of $434.5 million for the Corporation,
specifying $70 million for educational awards; $234 million for AmeriCorps grants;
$7.5 million for Points of Light Foundation; $18 million for the Civilian Community
Corps; $43 million for learning programs; $28.5 million for “quality and innovation
activities”; $28.5 million for administration; and $5 million for audits and evaluations.
The final bill also includes $4 million for the OIG.
The Senate report had expressed concern about the Corporation’s “inability to
operate its activities with adequate responsibility and accountability,” especially with
regard to $31 million in expenditures that neither the Corporation nor its auditors
could explain. Furthermore, the OIG had identified a surplus of $100 million in the
National Service Trust account. Bill language was included in the Senate bill which
rescinded $80 million from that account, and scored the savings as an offset to FY2000
appropriations for the Corporation, making the net Senate CNS appropriation $348.5
million (including $5 million for the OIG). Conferees accepted the proposed
rescission, but added $11 million for CNS programs, thereby making net
appropriations for CNS (including $4 million for the OIG) $358.5 million.
For further information on the Corporation and its programs see: CRS Report
RL30186, Community Service: A Description of AmeriCorps, Foster Grandparents,
and Other Federally Funded Programs, by Ann Lordeman and Alice D. Butler.
Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Environmental Quality.
These two entities are within the Executive Office of the President. The Council
oversees and coordinates interagency decisions in matters affecting the environment;
the Office provides the professional and administrative staff for the Council. Congress
appropriated $2.675 million for these functions in FY1999; the President has requested
$3.02 million for FY2000. The House bill approves $2.827 million for FY2000; the
Senate bill freezes the appropriation at FY1999 levels. Conferees accepted the higher
amount recommended by the House.
Table 14. Appropriations: Other Independent Agencies, FY2000
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY2000
Admin. FY2000 FY2000 FY2000
Program FY1999 Request House Senate Confer.
American Battle
Monuments Commission0.0260.0260.0280.0260.028
Chem. Safety and Hazard0.0070.0080.0070.0070.008
Investigations Board
Cemetery Exp., Army0.0120.0120.0120.0120.012
Community Developmenta
Financial Institutions 0.0950.1250.0700.0800.095
Consumer Inform. Center0.0030.0030.0030.0030.003
Consumer Product Safety
Commission 0.047 0.051 0.047 0.050 0.049
Corporation for Nationalb
and Community Service0.4390.5490.0030.3490.359
Council on Environ.
Quality; Office of Environ.0.0030.0030.0030.0030.003
Quality
Court of Veterans Appeals0.0100.0110.0110.0110.011
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (transfer)(0.035(0.034)(0.034)(0.035)(0.034)
Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation0.0900.0900.0800.0600.075
National Credit Union0.0020.0000.00100.001
Administration
Office, Science &Tech. 0.0050.0050.0050.0050.005
Selective Service System0.0240.0250.0070.0250.024
Subtotal:
(rounded, may not add)0.7980.9090.2770.6310.673
Source: H.Rept. 106-379.
a Includes $15 million in additional funds provided by P.L. 105-277
b Includes $10 million in additional funds provided by P.L. 105-277 for FY1999; also includes funds
for CNS Office of the Inspector General ($3 million for FY1999, and for the request and the
House bill; the Senate bill included $5 million, and the enacted bill included $4 million.
Court of Veterans Appeals. The Court of Veterans Appeals has exclusive
jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and has the
authority to decide relevant conflicts in the interpretation of law by VA and the Board
of Veterans’ Appeals, and its decisions constitute precedent to guide subsequent
decisions by that Board. Congress provided $10.2 million for operations for the Court
in FY1999; the President has requested $11.45 million for FY2000. Both versions of
H.R. 2684 concur with the President’s request, and the conferees approved the
requested level.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC’s Office of the Inspector
General is funded from deposit insurance funds, and has no direct support from federal
taxpayers. Before FY1998, the amount was approved by the FDIC Board of
Directors; the amount is now directly appropriated to ensure the independence of the
IG office. For FY2000, the amount requested was $33.7 million; Congress approved
$34.7 million for FY1999. The House bill concurred with the Administration request;
the Senate version matched the FY1999 level; conferees approved the lower level
approved by the House.
National Credit Union Administration. The purpose of this administrative
office, created under the National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (P.L. 95-
630), is to improve the general financial stability of credit unions. Subscribing credit
unions may borrow from the agency to meet short-term requirements. The
Administration proposed a limitation on administrative expenses, which are financed
from the revolving fund, of $257,000 for FY2000. For FY1999, the Administration
proposed a limitation of $176,000 for the agency’s functions; Congress accepted that
amount, and approved a House proposal for a revolving loan program for credit union
risk pooling, with a subsidy of $2 million. The Administration did not request
appropriations for the pooling fund for FY2000, and the Senate bill does not provide
such funds; the House bill provides $1 million for the risk pool; conferees accepted the
House funding level.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC). The NRC leverages
funds for reinvestment in older neighborhoods through community-based organizations
called NeighborWorks. Among projects supported by the financing activities of the
NRC are lending activities for home ownership of low-income families. Nationwide,
there are 184 of these organizations, serving 825 communities in 45 states, with 70%
of the people served living in very low and low-income brackets. The President
requested $90 million for FY2000, the same amount as Congress provided for
FY1999. Although H.Rept. 106-286 notes that the Corporation
“consistently...performs beyond its goals and the Committee’s expectations,” the
House bill approves $80 million for FY2000, a reduction of $10 million. The Senate
bill provides $60 million, and its report remarks that the appropriation “...matches the
Corporation’s fiscal year 1998 level prior to the initiation of two demonstration
programs that were to be completed by the end of fiscal year 1999.” The conference
approved $75 million for the NRC.
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 executive branch, and reviews and participates in formulation of national
policies affecting those areas. The President requested $5.2 million for FY2000;
Congress appropriated $5.03 million for FY1999. The House bill approved $5.108
million for FY2000; the Senate bill approved the requested amount; conferees accepted
the House proposed level.
Selective Service System (SSS). The SSS was created to supply manpower
to the U.S. Armed Forces during time of national emergency. Although since 1973,
the Armed Forces have been on voluntary recruitment and incentives, the SSS remains
the primary vehicle for conscription should it become necessary. In 1987, the SSS was
given the task of developing a postmobilization health care system that would assist
with providing the Armed Forces with health care personnel in time of emergency.
Congress appropriated $24.4 million for this office for FY1999; the President
requested $25.3 million for FY2000.
The House bill proposed that the activities of the SSS be terminated in
FY2000, and provided $7 million for that purpose, and no funds were provided for
continuing registration for a potential draft. The Senate bill matched the requested
increase over FY1999 funding, and its report comments favorably on the Selective
Service’s accomplishment of an automated system “capable of handling mass
registration and inductions...” should the need arise, as well as the development of a
“postmobilization health care personnel delivery system capable of providing the
necessary critically skilled health care personnel to the Armed Forces in time of
emergency.” Conferees approved $24 million for the Selective Service.
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Summary and Justification of Budget.
[http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage]
Corporation for National and Community Service
[http://www.cns.gov/]
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
[http://www.hud.gov]
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
[http://www.fema.gov]
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
[http://www.hq.nasa.gov]
National Science Foundation (NSF).
[http://www.nsf.gov]
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html]
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
[http://www.va.gov]