Order Code RL32304
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2005: VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies
July 6, 2004
Richard Bourdon and Paul Graney, Coordinators
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress


The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and
supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also
encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit
legislation, other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the
operation of programs and the spending of appropriated funds are subject to
constraints established in authorizing statutes. Congressional action on the budget
for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission of the President’s budget at
the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing the consideration
of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the Constitution, the
standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress
considers each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the
House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on the Department of Veterans
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies. It summarizes
the status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related congressional
activity, and is updated as events warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant
to the issues covered and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].


Appropriations for FY2005: VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies
Summary
On February 2, 2004, the Administration presented its proposed FY2005 budget
to Congress for the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), and several Independent Agencies, including the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The $130.6
billion request is $7.1 billion or 5.75% above the FY2004 appropriations of $123.5
billion, and includes $92.0 billion in discretionary funds and $38.6 in mandatory
spending for VA cash benefits (entitlements).
The request for VA is for $68.1 billion, $6.3 billion more than provided in
FY2004, and includes $27.1 billion for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA),
an increase of $289 million over the FY2004 level. The Administration is proposing
several changes for the Medical Care program including a $250 user fee and higher
pharmaceutical copayments for certain veterans. These were also proposed but not
approved by Congress in FY2004.
The budget requests $31.5 billion for HUD for FY2005, an increase of about
$300 million above the $31.2 billion enacted for FY2004. While the Administration
continues to emphasize homeownership opportunities for lower-income families,
most of the proposed budget continues to support rental housing assistance. HUD’s
largest program, the Housing Certificate Fund that contains the Section 8 voucher
program, would receive $18.5 billion, a reduction of $790 million from last year’s
level. Central to HUD’s proposed FY2005 budget is a controversial initiative, the
Flexible Voucher Program (FVP), which is intended to control spending under the
existing Section 8 voucher program. No funding is proposed for the HOPE VI public
housing rehabilitation program. A Zero Downpayment Initiative (H.R. 3755) is
proposed to help 150,000 first-time buyers a year purchase homes with no money
down and financing for all settlement costs.
The request for EPA is $7.8 billion, a reduction of almost $600 million from the
FY2004 funding level of $8.4 billion. Prominent issues include a proposed decrease
in funding for wastewater infrastructure, a proposed cut in funding for scientific
research, and the adequacy and source of funding to clean up hazardous waste sites
under the Superfund program. A stand — alone bill (H.R. 4421) would provide $8.8
billion for EPA in FY2005.
NASA is requesting $16.2 billion, a 5.6% increase or $800 million over its
FY2004 appropriations. The increase is primarily associated with new space goals
announced by President Bush in January 2004 that call for NASA to reorient its
activities towards returning humans to the Moon by 2020 and someday sending them
to Mars and “worlds beyond.” The FY2005 request of $5.7 billion for the National
Science Foundation, up by about $167 million, provides support for several
interdependent priority areas including biocomplexity in the environment ($99.8
million), mathematical sciences ($89.1 million), and nanoscale science and
engineering ($305.1 million). This report will be updated.

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Name
Area of expertise
Division
Telephone and E-Mail
Environmental
7-2390
David Bearden
RSI
Policy
dbearden@crs.loc.gov
7-7806
Richard Bourdon
Housing
DSP
rbourdon@crs.loc.gov
Community
7-8689
Eugene Boyd
G&F
Development
eboyd@crs.loc.gov
Environmental
7-7236
Robert Esworthy
RSI
Policy
resworthy@crs.loc.gov
7-7805
Bruce Foote
Housing
DSP
bfoote@crs.loc.gov
Veterans Benefits
7-2290
Paul Graney
DSP
Administration
pgraney@crs.loc.gov
National and
7-2323
Ann Lordeman
DSP
Community Service
alordeman@crs.loc.gov
National Science
7-7055
Christine Matthews
RSI
Foundation
cmatthews@crs.loc.gov
7-2163
Maggie McCarty
Housing
DSP
mmccarty@crs.loc.gov
Consumer
7-7775
Bruce Mulock
G&F
Affairs
bmulock@crs.loc.gov
Veterans Health
7-0623
Sidath Panangala
DSP
Administration
spanangala@crs.loc.gov
7-7832
Pauline Smale
Banking
G&F
psmale@crs.loc.gov
National Aeronautics
7-7076
Marcia Smith
and Space
RSI
mssmith@crs.loc.gov
Administration
Division abbreviations: DSP=Domestic Social Policy; G&F=Government and Finance;
RSI=Resources, Science and Industry.

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Budget Resolution Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Administration Submits Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Total Appropriations Enacted for FY2004 and Requested for FY2005 for VA, HUD,
and Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Title I: Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Key Budget Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
VA Cash Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Medical Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Key Budget Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Budget Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Section 8 Vouchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Flexible Voucher Program (FVP) Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
HOPE VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Zero Downpayment Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Payment Incentives Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Title III: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Key Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Water Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Scientific Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Superfund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Key Budget Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Key Budget Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Overview of the FY2005 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Other Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
American Battle Monuments Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Cemeterial Expenses, Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund . . . . . . 21
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) . . . . . . . . 21

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Interagency Council on the Homeless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Office of Science and Technology Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Selective Service System (SSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Selected World Wide Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
HUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
NSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
CNCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. Summary of VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2000 to FY2004 . . 3
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,
FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,
FY2000 to FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 6. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,
FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 7. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations,
FY2000 to FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 8. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 9. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Appropriations,
FY2000 to FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 10. Appropriations: National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 11. National Science Foundation Appropriations, FY2000 to FY2004 . . 17
Table 12. Appropriations: National Science Foundation,
FY2004 to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 13. Appropriations: Other Independent Agencies, FY2004 to FY2005 . 20


Appropriations for FY2005: VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies
Most Recent Developments
Budget Resolution Reported. The conference agreement on the FY2005
budget resolution was reported on May 19, 2004. The House agreed to the resolution
on May 19 but the Senate has not yet voted.
Based on the House-passed conference
agreement, the House Appropriations Committee Chairman announced subcommittee
allocations on June 2, including $92.9 billion of discretionary spending for the HUD-
Veterans Affairs (VA) Appropriations Subcommittee. This amount is $2.1 billion
above the FY2004 enacted level and $801 million higher than the President’s request.
In announcing these allocations, Chairman Young noted, “The austere funding levels
for the [non-defense] subcommittees will make it challenging to move bills through
the legislative process.”1
Administration Submits Budget. On February 2, 2004, the President
submitted the Administration’s FY2005 budget to Congress, requesting $130.6
billion for VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies.
Status
Table 1 will be updated to reflect developments in the legislative process on the
FY2005 appropriations bill.
Table 1. Status of VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations, FY2005
Subcommittee
Conference report
markup
Committee Passed Committee Passed Conference
Signed
markup
House
markup
Senate
reported
House Senate
House
Senate
1U.S. Congress, Committee on Appropriations, Chairman Young Releases Subcommittee
Allocations, June 2, 2004.

CRS-2
Total Appropriations Enacted for FY2004 and
Requested for FY2005 for VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies
Table 2. Summary of VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2005
(budget authority in billions)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
Department or Agency
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf
Department of Veterans
$61.8
$68.1
Affairs
Department of Housing and
31.2
31.5
Urban Development
Environmental Protection
8.4
7.8
Agency
National Aeronautics and
15.4
16.2
Space Administration
National Science Foundation
5.6
5.7
Other Independent Agencies
1.1
1.2
mandatory
32.7
38.6
discretionary
90.8
92.0
Total: VA, HUD, and
$123.5
$130.6
Independent Agencies (net)
Source: VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
budget estimate tables. FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission in most
discretionary accounts, as called for in P.L. 108-199.

CRS-3
Title I: Department of Veterans Affairs
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations,
FY2000 to FY2004
(budget authority in billions)
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
VA
$44.26
$47.95
$52.38
$58.10
$61.84
Source: Amounts for FY2000-FY2003 are from reports of the Appropriations Committees
accompanying the appropriations bills for the following years. The amount for FY2004 is an estimate
from the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.
Actual final spending levels for any fiscal year include all supplemental appropriations or rescissions.
Final totals remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, a process that may not
be completed for several months after the end of the fiscal year.
Agency Mission
Federal policy toward veterans recognizes the importance of their service to the
nation and the effect that service may have on their subsequent civilian lives. The
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers, directly or in conjunction with
other federal agencies, programs that provide benefits and other services to veterans
and their dependents and beneficiaries. The three primary organizations in VA that
work together to accomplish this mission are the Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and the National Cemetery
Administration (NCA). The benefits provided include compensation for disabilities
sustained or worsened as a result of active duty military service; pensions for totally
disabled, poor war veterans; cash payments for certain categories of dependents
and/or survivors; education, training, rehabilitation, and job placement services to
assist veterans upon their return to civilian life; loan guarantees to help them obtain
homes; free medical care for conditions sustained during military service as well as
medical care for other conditions, much of which is provided free to low-income
veterans; life insurance to enhance financial security for their dependents; and burial
assistance, flags, grave sites, and headstones when they die.

CRS-4
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,
FY2004 to FY2005
(budget authority in billions)
Program
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf
Compensation, pension,
burial
$29.845
$35.699
Readjustment benefits
2.530
2.852
Insurance/indemnities
0.029
0.039
Housing program (net,
indefinite)
0.306
-0.144
Subtotal: Mandatory
32.710
38.446
Medical services
17.762

Medical administration
4.971

Medical facilities
3.976

Medical prosthetic research
0.406
0.770
Medical care
0.000
24.968
Two year funding
0.000
1.396
Rescission
-0.270

Medical care cost collect.a
(offsetting receipts)
-1.555
-2.002
(appropriations indefinite)
1.555
2.002
Subtotal: Medical
programs and
administration

26.844
27.133
(appropriations)
General administration
expenses (total)
1.276
1.325
National Cemetery
Administration
0.143
0.181
Inspector General
0.062
0.065
Construction
0.522
0.690
Grants; state facilities
0.101
0.105
State veteran cemeteries
0.032

Housing program admin.
0.154
0.154

CRS-5
Program
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf
Other loan funds
0.001
0.001
Subtotal: Discretionary
(including Medical
programs and
administration)

29.135
29.654
Total
$61.845
$68.101
Source: VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
estimate tables. FY2004 amounts include effects of the .59% across-the-board reduction in most
discretionary accounts, as called for in P.L. 108-199.
a. Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) receipts are restored to the VHA as an indefinite budget
authority equal to the revenue collected, estimated to be $2 billion in FY2005.
Key Budget Issues
The budget submitted by the Administration in February 2004 called for funding
VA at a level of $68.1 billion for FY2005. This would be an increase of $6.3 billion
or 10.1% over FY2004. Most of the increase would be in entitlement or mandatory
spending with $0.5 billion more in discretionary appropriations for a 1.8% increase.
VA Cash Benefits. Spending for the VA cash benefit programs is mandatory,
and the amounts requested in the budget are based on projected caseloads. Eligibility
requirements and benefit levels are specified in law. While the number of veterans
is declining, VA entitlement spending, mostly service-connected compensation,
pensions, and readjustment (primarily education) payments, reached $28.4 billion in
FY2002, $31.6 billion in FY2003, $32.7 billion in FY2004, and is projected to reach
$38.4 billion in FY2005. Much of the projected increase in recent years results from
cost-of-living adjustments for compensation benefits and from liberalizations to the
Montgomery GI Bill, the primary education program.
Medical Care. In FY2004 the Administration requested approximately $25.7
billion for VHA. Congress appropriated approximately $26.8 billion for VHA to be
spent through an account structure comprised of four new accounts: medical services,
medical administration, medical facilities, and medical and prosthetic research.
For FY2005, the Administration has submitted its budget request to Congress
using a new account structure — consolidating several accounts into two business
lines: medical care, and medical and prosthetic research. The Administration is
requesting approximately $27.1 billion for VHA for FY2005.
The Administration is also proposing several legislative and regulatory changes.
VA believes that these changes would allow it to focus resources and better serve the
highest priority core veterans — those veterans with low incomes, service- connected
conditions, and those with special health care needs. These veterans generally fall
into categories known as Priority Groups 1 to 6. Among the Administration’s
proposals are: increasing the veteran’s share of pharmaceutical copayments from $7

CRS-6
to $15 for each 30-day prescription for all enrolled veterans in Priority Groups 7 and
8; increasing the veteran’s share of copayments for outpatient primary care from $15
to $20 for each appointment for all enrolled veterans in Priority Groups 7 and 8;
establishing an annual user fee of $250 for all enrolled veterans in Priority Groups
7 and 8; ending pharmacy copayments for veterans in Priority Groups 2 through 5
with incomes between $9,894 and $16,509; ending long-term care copayments for
former prisoners of war; paying for emergency room care or urgent care in non-VA
medical facilities for all enrolled veterans; and ending hospice copayments. The user
fee and higher pharmaceutical copayments were proposed in the FY2004 budget
request but were not approved by Congress.
Title II: Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations, FY2000 to FY2004
(net budget authority in billions)
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
HUD
$25.92 $28.48 $30.15 $31.01 $31.20
Source: Amounts for FY2000-FY2003 are from reports of the Appropriations Committees
accompanying the appropriations bills for the following years. The amount for FY2004 is an estimate
from the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.
Actual final spending levels for any fiscal year include all supplemental appropriations or rescissions.
Final totals remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, a process that may not
be completed for several months after the end of the fiscal year.
Agency Mission
Most of the appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) are designed to address housing problems faced by households
with very low incomes (for example, the typical recipient of a housing voucher has
an income of about $12,000) or other special housing needs. These include programs
of rental assistance for the poor, elderly or disabled, housing assistance for persons
with AIDS, and shelter for those who are homeless. The two large HUD block grant
programs, HOME and Community Development Block Grants, also help
communities finance a variety of activities to address housing needs of disadvantaged
populations. In recent years, HUD has focused more attention on efforts to increase
the homeownership rates for lower-income and minority households. (At the end of
the first quarter of 2004, the national homeownership rate stood at a record 68.6%,
while the rates for Black and Hispanic households stood at 49.3% and 47.3%
respectively.) HUD’s Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insures mortgages
made by lenders to lower income homebuyers, and to developers of multifamily
rental buildings containing relatively affordable units.

CRS-7
Table 6. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development,
FY2004 to FY2005
(budget authority in billions)
Program
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf
Housing Certificate Fund
(HCF) includes advance
appropriations
$19.257
$18.466
Public housing capital fund
2.696
2.674
Public housing operating
fund
3.579
3.573
HOPE VI
0.149
0.000
Native American housing
block grants
0.650
0.647
Native Hawaiian Block
Grant
0.000
0.010
Housing, persons with AIDS
(HOPWA)
0.295
0.295
Rural Housing Economic
Development
0.025
0.000
Empowerment zones;
enterprise communities
0.015
0.000
Community Development
Block Grant (including
supplemental)
4.934
4.618
Brownfields redevelopment
0.025
0.000
HOME Investment
Partnerships
2.006
2.084
Homeless Assistance Grants
1.260
1.282
Samaritan Initiative
0.000
0.050
Housing for the elderly
0.774
0.773
Housing for the disabled
0.249
0.249
Housing Counseling
Assistance
0.000
0.045
Research and technology
0.047
0.047
Fair housing activities
0.048
0.048
Office, lead hazard control
0.174
0.139

CRS-8
Program
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf
Salaries and expenses
0.544
0.592
Working capital fund
0.234
0.234
Inspector General
0.077
0.077
Loan Guarantees
0.014
0.002
Subtotal:
Appropriations

37.049
35.904
Section 8 recaptures
(rescission)
-2.844
-1.557
Rental housing assistance
(rescission)
-0.303
-0.675
Other rescissions
-0.030
-0.059
Subtotal: Rescissions
-3.177
-2.291
Federal Housing
Administration (net)
-2.364
-1.737
GNMA (net)
-0.305
-0.357
Subtotal: Offsets
-2.669
-2.094
Total
$31.202
$31.519
Source: VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
budget estimate tables. FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission in most
discretionary accounts, as called for in P.L. 108-199.
Key Budget Issues
Budget Level. The Administration has proposed a budget for FY2005 of
$31.52 billion, an increase of $317 million or about 1% above the FY2004 enacted
budget of $31.20 billion.2 This follows an increase of about $224 million or 0.7%
from FY2003 to FY2004. Affordable housing advocates who argue for larger
increases in the HUD budget point to the 2003 report, The State of the Nation’s
Housing
, by Harvard’s Joint Center For Housing Studies, which found that “A
staggering three in ten U.S. households have affordability problems” and that
“Progress in tackling the nation’s housing challenges has stalled.” HUD Deputy
Secretary Roy Bernardi acknowledged in a recent interview that “there is not enough
money right now in the country to provide housing for all the people who need it,”
2 Budget figures in this report are from the House Appropriations Committee as of May 25,
2004 and from HUD’s Congressional Justifications for 2005 Estimates.

CRS-9
but he cited current budget constraints caused by the demands of homeland security,
combating terrorism, and national defense.3
Section 8 Vouchers. HUD’s FY2005 budget proposes to eliminate the
Section 8 voucher program (which is the largest component of the Housing
Certificate Fund) and replace it with a new grant program called the Flexible
Voucher Program (see details below). The funding requested for this new program
is about $1 billion less than the voucher program received last year and it has been
estimated by advocates to be more than $1 billion less than what would be needed
to maintain the voucher program at its current level if the FVP proposal is not
adopted.4
Flexible Voucher Program (FVP) Initiative. According to HUD, the FVP
proposal would provide an incentive for Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to
control the rapidly rising costs of housing vouchers. Under FVP, PHAs would
receive a fixed budget and would be subject to fewer regulations compared to the
current program under which PHAs are reimbursed based on their actual costs and
are subject to a number of federal rules and regulations. The Administration expects
this to save $1.6 billion in FY2005. A similar initiative was rejected by Congress in
FY2004.
HOPE VI. No funding is proposed for HOPE VI, a public housing
rehabilitation program that received $149 million in FY2004 and $570 million in
FY2003. The Administration points to more than $2 billion of unspent funds in the
pipeline that will keep the program going for years and complete its goals.
Advocates for the program, including many Members of Congress, contend that this
program has been very successful in replacing some of the most dilapidated housing
projects with new mixed-income housing, and that it needs to be continued.
Zero Downpayment Program. A new Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) Zero Down Payment Program (H.R. 3755) is proposed to help an estimated
150,000 first-time homebuyers annually purchase with no money down and finance
all settlement costs. On June 3, 2004, the House Financial Services Committee
passed an amended H.R. 3755. The Administration says homeownership for low-
income and minority families helps create a stable living environment for children,
and allows these families to accumulate wealth. Critics contend that the
Administration’s focus on homeownership is unbalanced and political; that too many
lower income families are being enticed to purchase a home with little or no savings,
with little or no financial knowledge about budgets or home repair contracts, and that
they are especially vulnerable to layoffs and a variety of financial, and mortgage and
housing — related scams. They point to very high FHA mortgage delinquency rates
— currently above 12%.
3 Interview with Roy Bernardi. The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY), June 20, 2004.
4See Barbara Sard and Will Fischer, Administration Seeks Deep Cuts in Housing Vouchers
and Conversion of Program to a Block Grant
, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May
24, 2004.

CRS-10
Payment Incentives Program. A new FHA sub-prime mortgage insurance
product is proposed to help 60,000 families a year reduce unnecessarily high interest
rates after making timely mortgage payments for a period of time. Many of these
families must now rely on high-cost sub-prime loans due to poor credit records,
although evidence shows many are unfairly being charged these rates (predatory
lending). Housing advocacy groups generally applaud this effort but say that much
more anti-predatory lending protections are needed.
For a more detailed discussion of the HUD budget, see CRS Report RL32443,
The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2005 Budget.
Title III: Independent Agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Table 7. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations,
FY2000 to FY2004
(budget authority in billions)
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
$7.59
$7.83 $8.08 $8.08 $8.37
Source: Amounts for FY2000 to FY2003 are from reports of the Appropriations Committees
accompanying the appropriations bills for the following years. The amount for FY2004 is an estimate
from the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.
Actual final spending levels for any fiscal year include all supplemental appropriations or rescissions.
Final totals remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, a process that may not
be completed for several months after the end of the fiscal year.
Agency Mission
The Nixon Administration established the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in 1970 in order to consolidate federal pollution control responsibilities that
had been divided among several agencies. Since that time, EPA’s responsibilities
have grown as Congress has enacted an increasing number of environmental laws,
as well as major amendments to these statutes, over three decades. Annual
appropriations provide the funds necessary for EPA to carry out its responsibilities
under these laws. Among its primary responsibilities are the regulation of air quality
and water quality, pesticides and toxic substances, the management and disposal of
solid and hazardous wastes, and the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA
also awards grants to assist state and local areas in controlling pollution. EPA’s
funding trends generally reflect an increase in overall appropriations to fulfill a rising
number of statutory responsibilities, as Congress has enacted more environmental
laws over time. Historically, the agency’s appropriation has risen from $1.0 billion
when the agency was established in FY1970 to $8.4 billion in FY2004.

CRS-11
Table 8. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2004 to FY2005
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
Program
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf
Science & Technology (total)
0.826
0.725
direct appropriation
0.782
0.689
transfer in from Superfund
0.044
0.036
Environmental Programs
and Management
2.280
2.317
Office of Inspector General
(total)
0.050
0.051
direct appropriations
0.037
0.038
transfer in from Superfund
0.013
0.013
Buildings and facilities
0.040
0.043
Hazardous substance
Superfund (net, after
transfers)
1.200
1.332
direct appropriations
1.258
1.381
transfers out from
Superfund

-0.058
-0.049
Leaking underground storage
tank program
0.076
0.073
Oil spill response
0.016
0.016
Pesticide registration fund a

0.019
Pesticide registration fees a

-0.019
State and tribal assistance
grants (total)
3.878
3.232
State and tribal assistance
2.706
1.980
Omnibus appropriations
(P.L. 108-199, Section 167)

0.004

Categorical grants
1.168
1.252
Total
8.366
7.789 b
Source: VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
budget estimate tables. FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission in most
discretionary accounts, as called for in P.L. 108-199.

CRS-12
a. The Pesticide Registration Fund is a revenue fund rather than an appropriations account. The
amount indicated for it reflects EPA’s estimate of anticipated collection of pesticide registration
service fees as authorized in FY2004 appropriations. In including this fund in the budget tables,
the committee treated the amount as an offset, as it represents revenue collections rather than
new appropriations that EPA has requested. No reference is made regarding any other EPA
estimates for existing or proposed FY2005 “user-fee” revenues, including expected $27 million
in revenues from related “pesticide maintenance fees” also authorized in FY2004
appropriations.
b. In EPA’s budget justification document, the Administration has proposed a $30 million offset,
resulting in $7.76 billion for the FY2005 request, reflecting anticipated revenues from two
“user-fee” proposals: $4 million from an increase to existing fee levels for Premanufacture
Notices (PMNs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act, and $26 million to implement
Pesticide Registration Fee authority promulgated in 1988 but prohibited by Congress. These
fees would be deposited into a special fund in the U.S. Treasury, available to EPA but subject
to appropriation. The Administration’s total for EPA does not appear to distinguish an offset
for other user-fee revenue estimates.
Key Funding Issues
The President’s budget would provide $7.8 billion for EPA, nearly $600 million
less than the FY2004 funding level of $8.4 billion. The total reductions that the
President has proposed for EPA are greater than this amount. However, increases
requested for certain activities offset a portion of these cuts to yield the $600 million
reduction overall. While there are varying levels of interest in proposed funding for
specific activities, prominent issues include a proposed decrease in funding for water
infrastructure and the earmarking of funding for such projects, a proposed cut in
funding for scientific research, and the adequacy and source of funding to clean up
hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program.
At the time of this writing, committee action has not occurred on the VA-HUD
appropriations bill for FY2005, which traditionally includes funding for EPA.
Representative Obey, Ranking Minority Member of the House Appropriations
Committee, introduced H.R. 4421 on May 20, 2004. It would fund EPA in FY2005
as a stand-alone measure, rather than in a VA-HUD bill. The bill has been referred
to the House Appropriations Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.
It would provide $8.8 billion for EPA in FY2005, about $1.0 billion more than
requested. The proposed increase would be allocated primarily to wastewater
infrastructure projects and science and technology activities. Further discussion of
the President’s FY2005 budget is provided below.
Water Infrastructure. The President’s budget would cut funding for the
clean water State Revolving Fund (SRF) by about $500 million, from $1.3 billion in
FY2004 to $850 million in FY2005. This fund provides seed monies for state loans
to local communities for wastewater infrastructure projects. The proposed decrease
has been contentious, as there is disagreement over the adequacy of funding to meet
these needs. This issue was addressed in floor debate of the Senate FY2005 budget
resolution (S.Con.Res. 95). An amendment increased budget authority for the
Natural Resource and Environment Function by $3 billion for the clean water and
drinking water SRFs that EPA administers. As passed by the House, this provision
was not adopted in the conference agreement on S.Con.Res. 95 (H.Rept. 108-498).
Even if the provision had been adopted in conference, whether that amount would
have been provided is uncertain, as the budget resolution is a guidance and policy

CRS-13
document and does not provide actual funding. Rather, actual funding is determined
in the appropriations process.
The President’s proposed decrease for water infrastructure also reflects funding
not being requested to continue projects for which Congress earmarked funding for
FY2004. Congress allocated the majority of EPA’s FY2004 earmarked funding
within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account, $325 million, to
specific communities for drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure
projects. While the non-earmarked funding for these types of projects is provided for
clean water and drinking water SRFs from which loans are given to local
communities, earmarked funding is provided as grants that do not require repayment.
As the trend in the amount of funding earmarked for water infrastructure projects has
risen, the extent to which these needs should be met with SRF loan monies or grant
assistance has become controversial.
Scientific Research. The Administration’s requested decrease of $100
million for the Science and Technology Account has also received attention. The
proposed reduction is a part of a larger decrease for non-defense scientific research
among several federal agencies, including EPA. Numerous scientific organizations,
such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have expressed
opposition to the proposed funding cuts, arguing that critical areas of knowledge
needed for public policy decisions would be compromised. Such critics argue that
reducing funding for EPA’s scientific research activities could result in a poorer
understanding of the effects of pollution on human health and make it more difficult
to assess the level of protection provided by existing regulatory standards or intended
for future ones. The Administration counters that it would maintain research
activities in numerous key areas, and that the proposed cut in funding is due primarily
to cost-savings that it expects to realize from consolidating and realigning certain
research areas to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these efforts.
Superfund. Another prominent issue is the adequacy of funding for the
Superfund program to clean up the nation’s most hazardous waste sites. Some have
argued that more funds than have been appropriated are necessary to speed the pace
of remediating contamination at these sites. The President’s budget would provide
$1.38 billion (prior to transfers) for the Superfund program in FY2005, about $120
million more than the appropriation of $1.26 billion for FY2004. The Administration
would devote the increase to selecting and constructing final cleanup remedies, and
completing the assessment of contamination, at additional sites. Some Members,
states, and environmental organizations argue that even more funding is needed to
speed the pace of cleanup beyond what the Administration has proposed, in order to
ensure that human health and the environment are protected.
The source of funding for the Superfund program has been an ongoing issue as
well. The President’s proposed funding level for the program would be provided
entirely from general U.S. Treasury revenues. Three dedicated taxes (on petroleum,
chemical feedstocks, and corporate income) historically provided the majority of
funding for the Superfund program. However, the taxes expired at the end of 1995,
and the remaining revenues were essentially expended by the end of FY2003.
Congress funded the program entirely with general Treasury revenues for the first
time in FY2004. Some Members advocate reinstating the Superfund taxes and argue

CRS-14
that the use of general U.S. Treasury revenues undermines the “polluter pays
principle.” Other Members and the Administration counter that viable parties are
still required to pay for the cleanup of contamination and that polluters are therefore
not escaping their responsibility. According to EPA, responsible parties pay for the
cleanup at more than 70% of Superfund sites.
An amendment to the Senate FY2005 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 95)
proposed to reinstate the Superfund taxes, but it was not adopted. As passed by the
House, the conference agreement on S.Con.Res. 95 (H.Rept. 108-498) assumes “full
funding” of the Superfund program, which presumably means the Administration’s
request of $1.38 billion, without the reinstatement of the taxes. As discussed above,
it is uncertain whether a funding assumption in the budget resolution will be adhered
to in the appropriations process.
For more details on the EPA budget, see CRS Report RL32441, Environmental
Protection Agency: Appropriations for FY2005.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Table 9. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Appropriations, FY2000 to FY2004
(budget authority in billions)
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
$13.60 $14.29 $14.90 $15.30 $15.38
Source: VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
budget estimate tables. FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission in most
discretionary accounts, as called for in P.L. 108-199.
Agency Mission
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created by the
1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act (P.L. 85-568) to conduct civilian space and
aeronautics activities. NASA opened its doors on October 1, 1958, almost exactly
one year after the Soviet Union ushered in the Space Age with the launch of the
world’s first satellite, Sputnik, on October 4, 1957. In the more than 45 years that
have elapsed, NASA has conducted far reaching programs in human and robotic
spaceflight, technology development, and scientific research.
The agency is managed from NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. It has
nine major field centers: Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA; Dryden Flight
Research Center
, Edwards, CA; Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH;
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD; Johnson Space Center, Houston,
TX; Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, FL: Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA; Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL; Stennis Space
Center
, in Mississippi, near Slidell, LA. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Pasadena, CA (often counted as a 10th NASA center), is a federally funded research
and development center operated for NASA by the California Institute of

CRS-15
Technology. NASA employs approximately 19,000 civil servants (full time
equivalents), and 40,000 contractors and grantees working at or near NASA centers.
Table 10. Appropriations: National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, FY2004 to FY2005
(budget authority in billions)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
Program
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf
Space flight capabilities
7.468
8.456
Science aeronautics
exploration
7.883
7.760
Inspector General
0.027
0.028
Subtotal (NASA)
15.378
16.244
Source: VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
estimate tables.
Key Budget Issues
NASA is requesting $16.2 billion for FY2005, a 5.6% increase over its FY2004
appropriations. The increase is primarily associated with new space goals announced
by President Bush in January 2004 that call for NASA to reorient its activities
towards returning humans to the Moon by 2020 and someday sending them to Mars
and “worlds beyond” (see CRS Report RS21720, Space Exploration: Overview of
President Bush’s New Exploration Initiative for NASA, and Key Issues for
Congress
). A projected NASA funding chart for FY2004-2020 that accompanied the
President’s speech shows NASA’s budget increasing by approximately 5% in
FY2005 and FY2006, by approximately 1% for FY2007-2009 (less than the projected
rate of inflation), and remain level with inflation (projected at 2%) for the remaining
years.
The President’s exploration initiative involves both human and robotic
spacecraft. Of the $16.2 billion FY2005 request, NASA identifies $4.5 billion as
“exploration specific,” including funds for robotic solar system exploration probes
and other space science projects, development of a Crew Exploration Vehicle to take
astronauts to the Moon, and development of space nuclear power and propulsion
systems. The “exploration specific” category does not include $6.7 billion in
FY2005 for the space shuttle and International Space Station (ISS), although both are
needed for early steps in the exploration initiative. The shuttle is needed to complete
construction of the space station. NASA states that the space station is needed as a
research facility to study the effects of long durations in weightlessness.
For the five-year period FY2005-2009, NASA reports that $12.6 billion would
be “added” to its budget to begin achieving the new goals, although most of that
($11.6 billion) is redirected from other NASA activities; only $1 billion is new
money. The “addition” is to a hypothetical budget level that is lower than what
NASA projected in last year’s budget, leading some to question whether it should be
characterized as an addition. Because the President envisions little added funding for
NASA, concerns that the initiative would increase the deficit or detract from other

CRS-16
national priorities may be mitigated, but issues arise about the impact on other NASA
activities and whether the level of funding is adequate to achieve the goals.
Returning the space shuttle to flight status is a key step in the President’s
initiative, although he also called for terminating the shuttle program in 2010.
Today, the space shuttle system is grounded because of the February 2003 space
shuttle Columbia tragedy (see CRS Report RS21408, NASA’s Space Shuttle
Columbia: Quick Facts and Issues for Congress
). NASA hopes to resume shuttle
launches in March and April 2005. The shuttle is needed to complete construction
of ISS, which is being assembled in orbit. Between 20 and 30 more shuttle flights
are required to complete construction. The ISS program is a partnership among the
United States, Russia, 10 European countries, Canada, and Japan (see CRS Issue
Brief IB93017, Space Stations). The President called for ISS construction to be
completed, and the space shuttle terminated, in 2010, but he also said the United
States would fulfill its obligations to the other partners. How that would be
accomplished without the shuttle during the station’s operational phase is not clear.
One concern is whether schedule pressure to return the shuttle to flight status and
finish ISS construction by 2010 could affect shuttle safety. ISS-related schedule
pressure was cited as a factor in the Columbia tragedy. NASA is requesting $4.3
billion for the shuttle program in FY2005, compared with $4 billion appropriated in
FY2004.
Under the President’s initiative, NASA would redirect its research aboard the
space station specifically to support the goals of human exploration of space, instead
of the broadly-based research program that was planned, and NASA would complete
its use of the space station by FY2017. Between 2010, when the shuttle is retired,
and at least 2014, when the new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is expected to be
available for taking crews to Earth orbit, NASA would have to rely on Russia to
provide crew access to the space station. (CEV is being designed to take astronauts
to the Moon. The extent to which it might be used to take crews to and from ISS is
not clear.) Russia is providing U.S. astronauts access to the space station now, while
the shuttle is grounded, under an agreement that will expire in 2006. From 2006-
2010, when the shuttle presumably will be operating, U.S. crews could be aboard at
least when the shuttle is docked. For them to remain for extended stays, as they do
now, another agreement would have to be reached with Russia so that U.S. astronauts
could use Russia’s “lifeboat,” a Soyuz spacecraft, in an emergency. (NASA canceled
its program to build a U.S. lifeboat so Soyuz is the only option.) After 2010, when
the shuttle is retired, only Russia would be able to transport crews to and from ISS
for either long or short visits. An agreement for U.S. astronauts to be transported by
Russia in that time period has not been negotiated. Questions that arise include the
pros and cons of giving Russia control over who can visit the space station and when,
not only because the United States has provided most of the funding for ISS (more
than $30 billion since FY1985), but because ISS-based research ostensibly is needed
before exposing humans to long duration space voyages. The FY2005 request for the
space station is $2.4 billion ($1.863 billion for construction and operation, plus $549
million for research), compared to $2.3 billion in FY2004.
Funding for NASA’s other science and technology activities would increase or
decrease largely depending on whether they are part of the exploration initiative or
not. Robotic probes to explore the solar system as “trailblazers” for astronauts, and

CRS-17
other space science activities under NASA’s “Origins” program to understand the
universe, are included in the exploration initiative. The FY2005 budget request
includes $70 million for a new lunar probes program. Funding for NASA’s on-going
robotic Mars exploration program would increase by almost $100 million in FY2005,
to $691 million. Space-based astronomy would rise about $170 million, to $1
billion, as NASA continues development of the James Webb Space Telescope, which
some consider to be a follow on to the Hubble Space Telescope. Space science
activities not considered part of the exploration initiative (Structure and Evolution
of the Universe, and Sun-Earth Connections) would receive reduced funding,
however. Funding for Earth sciences and for aeronautics would decrease. Funding
for biological research (related to long term human presence in space) would
increase, while that for physical sciences research would decrease. Stakeholders
whose programs are targeted for cuts are expected to argue for increased funding.
For more information on NASA’s FY2005 budget request, see CRS Report
RS21744, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Overview, FY2005
Budget in Brief, and Key Issues for Congress
.
National Science Foundation
Table 11. National Science Foundation Appropriations,
FY2000 to FY2004
(budget authority in billions)
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
$4.43 $4.79 $4.81 $5.30 $5.58
Source: Amounts for FY2000-FY2003 are from reports of the Appropriations Committees
accompanying the appropriations bills for the following years. The amount for FY2004 is an estimate
from the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.
Actual final spending levels for any fiscal year include all supplemental appropriations or rescissions.
Final totals remain uncertain until all program experience has been recorded, a process that may not
be completed for several months after the end of the fiscal year.
Agency Mission
The National Science Foundation (NSF) was created by the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (P.L. 81-507). The NSF has the broad mission
of supporting science and engineering in general and funding basic research across
many disciplines. The majority of the research supported by the NSF is conducted
at U.S. colleges and universities. In addition to ensuring the nation’s supply of
scientific and engineering personnel, the NSF promotes academic basic research and
science and engineering education across many disciplines. Also, NSF provides
almost 30% of the total federal support for science and mathematics education.
Support is provided to academic institutions, industrial laboratories, private research
firms, and major research facilities and centers. While the NSF does not operate any
laboratories, it does support Antarctic research stations, selected oceanographic
vessels, and national research centers. Additionally, the NSF supports university-
industry relationships and U.S. participation in international scientific ventures.

CRS-18
The NSF is an independent agency in the executive branch and under the
leadership of a presidentially appointed Director and a National Science Board (NSB)
composed of 24 scientists, engineers, and university and industry officials involved
in research and education. The NSB and the Director make policy for the NSF.
Table 12. Appropriations: National Science Foundation,
FY2004 to FY2005
(budget authority in billions)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
Program
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf
Research, related activities
$4.184
$4.384
Defense function
0.068
0.068
Major research equipment
0.155
0.213
Education, human resources
0.939
0.771
Salaries and expenses
0.219
0.294
National Science Board
0.004
0.004
Office of Inspector General
0.010
0.010
Total
$5.578
$5.745
Source: VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
budget estimate tables. FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission in most
discretionary accounts, as called for in P.L. 108-199.
Key Budget Issues
Overview of the FY2005 Budget Request. The NSF has enjoyed
considerable growth during a period of constrained research budgets. When
measured in current dollars, its total appropriation increased more than 70.6% in 10
years — FY1995, $3,270.3 million; FY1999; $3,425.7 million; and FY2004,
$5,577.8 million. Even when inflation is taken into account, its growth increased
(in constant FY2003 dollars) by 46.6% during this 10-year period. The FY2005
request for the NSF is $5,745 million, a 2.9% ($167.2 million) increase over the
FY2004 level of $5,577.8 million. The FY2005 request provides support for several
interdependent priority areas: biocomplexity in the environment ($99.8 million),
human and social dynamics ($23.3 million), mathematical sciences ($89.1 million),
nanoscale science and engineering ($305.1 million), and strengthening the workforce
($20 million). NSF maintains that researchers need access to cutting-edge tools to
pursue their research and funding to develop and design the tools critical to 21st
century research and education. Approximately 26% of the FY2005 request
($1,472.1 million) represents an investment in infrastructure of all types. Increasing
grant size and duration has been a long-term priority for NSF. The FY2005 request
devotes $40 million to increase the annual award size to an annual average of
$142,000, a $3,000 increase over the FY2004 level. The request provides $80 million

CRS-19
for the President’s Math and Science Partnerships program (MSP). Additional
FY2005 highlights include plant genome research ($89.5 million), climate change
research ($25 million), and international collaborations in science and engineering
($34 million).
Policy Issues. There has been considerable debate in the academic and
scientific community and in Congress about the management and oversight of major
projects selected for construction and the need for prioritization of potential projects
funded in the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC). In
September 2001, NSF released a plan that was an outgrowth of the directive received
from the Bush Administration to improve its oversight of large projects. While the
implementation plan included anticipated dates for the development of
comprehensive guidelines and project oversight review, questions remained. One
continuing question focused on the selection process for including major projects in
the upcoming budget cycle. The selection process has been described as “ad hoc and
subjective.” In June 2002, Congress requested the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) to review NSF’s management of its large facility projects, including the
construction and operation phases. In January 2004, the NAS released the
congressional mandated study of the process for prioritization and oversight of
projects in the MREFC, Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects
Supported by the National Science Foundation
. Currently, the NSF is reviewing the
findings and recommendations of the report in an effort to better fund and manage
the most meritorious research projects.
On February 2, 2004, the NSB released a report that was mandated by Section
22 of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002. The report, Fulfilling the Promise, A
Report to Congress on the Budgetary and Programmatic Expansion of the National
Science Foundation
, was to address all of the unmet needs of the agency and
determine what infrastructure was needed to support NSF’s programmatic expansion
through FY2007. The recommendations provided in the report are based on the
budget levels contained in the authorization. The NSB recommended a total
investment of $19 billion for the NSF to sustain its position in science and
technology. Rather than spread funding across all programs and activities, the report
suggested that a more productive use was to focus on key strategic areas — $1.2
billion for advanced tools and cyber infrastructure, $1 billion to improve research
productivity and student opportunities, $1 billion for exploration and research and
education, $700 million toward building a competitive workforce, $200 million for
maintaining management excellence, and $200 million to increase the number and
diversity of institutions receiving awards. It is the position of the NSB that
increasing the size and length of research awards should be one of the highest
priorities of the agency.
Other Independent Agencies
In addition to funding for VA, HUD, EPA, NASA and NSF, several other
smaller “sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and
offices” will receive their funding through the act providing appropriations for VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies for the fiscal year that begins October 1, 2005.
Table 13 lists appropriations for FY2004 and proposed levels for FY2005 for these
agencies.

CRS-20
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. This agency,
which is placed in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), manages
the Toxic Substances and Environmental Public Health program, which issues
toxicological profiles of possible toxic substances. The Agency conducts health
studies, evaluations, or other activities, using biomedical testing, clinical evaluations,
and medical monitoring.
American Battle Monuments Commission. The commission is
responsible for the construction and maintenance of memorials honoring Armed
Forces battle achievements since 1917. Included among the commission’s functions
are the maintenance of 24 American military cemeteries and 31 memorializations in
15 foreign countries, as well as five memorials in the United States.
Cemeterial Expenses, Army. Arlington National Cemetery and the
Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery are administered by the U.S. Army.
By the end of FY2002, 295,799 persons were interred/inurned in these cemeteries.
In addition to 6,700 interments and inurnments estimated for FY2004, Arlington is
the site of approximately 3,100 other ceremonies, and 4 million visitors, annually.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. The Board, which
was authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, investigates hazardous
substance spills or releases.
Table 13. Appropriations: Other Independent Agencies, FY2004
to FY2005
(budget authority in billions)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
Program
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf
Agency for toxic substances
and disease registry and NIH,
environmental health sciences
$0.151
$0.157
American Battle Monuments
Commission
0.041
0.041
Chemical safety and hazard
investigations board
0.009
0.010
Cemetery expenses, Army
0.029
0.030
Community development
financial institutions
0.061
0.048
Consumer product safety
community 0.060
0.063
Corporation for national and
community service
0.581
0.642
Office, science & technology
council, environmental
0.010
0.010

CRS-21
quality; office, environmental
quality
Court of appeals, veterans
claims
0.016
0.018
Federal consumer information
center
0.014
0.015
Federal deposit insurance
corporation (transfer)
0.030
0.030
Interagency council on
homeless
0.001
0.002
National credit union
administration 0.001
0.001
Neighborhood reinvestment
corporation
0.114
0.115
Selective service system
0.026
0.026
Total
$1.114
$1.178
Source: VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
budget estimate tables. FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission in most
discretionary accounts, as called for in P.L. 108-199.
Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund. The
CDFI Fund was created by P.L. 103-325. The purpose of the fund is to provide
credit, investment capital, and technical assistance to distressed urban and rural areas
by investing in and supporting community-based organizations. The fund’s programs
also encourage banks and thrifts to expand their activities in distressed communities.
In addition, the fund administers the New Market Tax Credit program created by P.L.
106-554. Through this program the fund allocates tax credits as part of an effort to
expand incentives for business investment in low-income communities. P.L. 104-19
gave the Department of the Treasury the authority to manage the CDFI Fund,
although the fund’s programs continue to be funded through the VA/HUD bill. The
CDFI Fund has survived despite attempts to eliminate it.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The Commission is
an independent regulatory agency charged with protecting the public from
unreasonable product risk and to research and develop uniform safety standards for
consumer products.
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). The
Corporation administers programs authorized under the National and Community
Service Act of 1990 (NCSA) and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973
(DVSA). The DVSA programs — e.g., Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)
and the Senior Volunteer Service Corps — are funded under the Labor/HHS
Appropriation bill. Authorization for CNCS, and programs and activities authorized

CRS-22
by NCSA, expired at the end of FY1996. Since then, continued program authority
has occurred through the appropriations process.
The FY2004 appropriation and the FY2005 request for the NCSA programs
administered by the Corporation include funds for the National Service Trust and for
the AmeriCorps grants program. The National Service Trust is a special account in
the U.S. Treasury from which funds are used to provide educational awards to
participants in AmeriCorps grants, the National Civilian Community Corps, and
VISTA. The Corporation estimates that 75,000 individuals will participate in these
programs in each year, up from an estimated 50,000 participants in FY2003. The
FY2004 appropriation for the Trust is $129.2 million and for AmeriCorps grants is
$312.1 million. The FY2005 request for the Trust is $160.3 million and for
AmeriCorps grants is $291.9 million.
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals, and has the authority to decide relevant conflicts in the
interpretation of law by VA and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The court’s
decisions constitute precedent to guide subsequent decisions by that board.
Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC). The center, administered
through the General Services Administration (GSA), helps federal agencies distribute
consumer information and promotes public awareness of existing federal publications
through publication of the quarterly Consumer Information Catalog, and the
Consumer Action Handbook. The center also operates a nationwide toll-free
telephone assistance program as well as the FirstGov.gov website.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC’s Office of
the Inspector General is funded from deposit insurance funds, the IG has no direct
support from federal taxpayers. Before FY1998, the amount was approved by the
FDIC Board of Directors; the amount is now directly appropriated to ensure the
independence of the IG office.
Interagency Council on the Homeless. The Interagency Council on the
Homeless (ICH) is an independent agency established by the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, to oversee the efforts of federal agencies and
others involved in addressing the issues of homelessness.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). The NCUA is an
independent federal agency that charters, insures, and regulates credit unions. It is
funded entirely by those institutions. The Community Development Revolving Loan
Fund (CDRLF) is administered by the National Credit Union Administration. The
fund makes low-interest loans and technical assistance grants to low-income credit
unions.
The Central Liquidity Facility (CLF) is a mixed ownership government
corporation managed by the National Credit Union Administration. The CLF was
established to improve the general financial stability of credit unions by serving as
a lender of last resort to credit unions experiencing unusual or unexpected liquidity
shortfalls. The CLF can finance loans using its assets, and it can also borrow from

CRS-23
the Federal Financing Bank to meet liquidity demands. The borrowing limit is
specified by language in the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Congress also determines
the level of CLF operating expenses, which are not funded through appropriations but
by earned income.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. This Institute is
within the National Institutes of Health, administered by the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC). The NRC leverages
funds for reinvestment in older neighborhoods through community-based
organizations often called Neighborhood Housing Services. Together they form the
NeighborWorks network. Among projects supported by NRC financing are lending
activities for home ownership by low-income families. Nationwide, there are 226 of
these organizations, serving over 2,300 communities in 49 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico, with 70% of the people served living in very low and
low-income brackets.
Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Office of Science and
Technology Policy coordinates science and technology policy for the White House.
The office provides scientific and technological information, analysis and advice to
the President and the executive branch, and reviews and participates in the
formulation of national policies affecting those areas.
Selective Service System (SSS). The SSS was created to supply
manpower to the U.S. Armed Forces during time of national emergency. Although
the Armed Forces have recruited personnel through voluntary enlistment incentives
since 1973, the SSS remains the primary vehicle for conscription should it become
necessary. In 1987, the SSS was given the task of developing a post-mobilization
health care system that would assist with providing the Armed Forces with health
care personnel in time of emergency.

CRS-24
Selected World Wide Websites
Federal Consumer Information Center (FCIC)
[http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov] and [http://www.info.gov/]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Summary and Justification of Budget
[http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage]
Corporation for National and Community Service
[http://www.cns.gov/]
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
[http://www.hud.gov]
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
[http://www.hq.nasa.gov]
National Science Foundation (NSF)
[http://www.nsf.gov]
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/]
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
[http://www.va.gov]
Additional Reading
CRS Report RL31804, Appropriations for FY2004: VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies, by Richard Bourdon and Paul Graney.
HUD
CRS Report RL32062, Housing Issues in the 108th Congress, by E. Richard Bourdon.

CRS Report RL30486, Housing the Poor: Federal Programs for Low-Income
Families, by Morton J. Schussheim.
CRS Report RL31930, The Housing Choice Voucher Program: Background,
Funding, and Issues in the 108th Congress, by Maggie McCarty.
CRS Report RS20704, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), by
Maggie McCarty.
CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Recent Statistics, Targeted Federal
Programs, and Recent Legislation, by M. Ann Wolfe; updated by Maggie
McCarty and Christopher E. Carter.

CRS-25
EPA
CRS Issue Brief IB10114, Brownfields and Superfund Issues in the 108th Congress,
by Mark Reisch.
CRS Issue Brief IB10108, Clean Water Act Issues in the 108th Congress, by Claudia
Copeland.
NSF
CRS Report 95-307, U.S. National Science Foundation: An Overview, by Christine
M. Matthews.
CRS Report RS21267, U.S. National Science Foundation: Major Research
Equipment and Facility Construction, by Christine M. Matthews.
CRS Report RL30930, U.S. National Science Foundation: Experimental Program
to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), by Christine M. Matthews.
CNCS
CRS Report RS20420, AmeriCorps and Other Service Programs: Description and
Funding Levels, by Ann M. Lordeman.
CRS Report RL30186, Community Service: A Description of AmeriCorps, Foster
Grandparents, and Other Federally Funded Programs, by Ann M. Lordeman
and Alice D. Butler.