Senate Report 109-109 - TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, THE JUDICIARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006

[Senate Report 109-109]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 175
109th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 109-109

======================================================================

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, THE JUDICIARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006
_______

July 26, 2005.--Ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Bond, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 3058]

The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 3058) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development,
the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 0000)
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and
the Treasury; the Executive Office of the President; and
certain independent agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, reports favorably
thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. deg.

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2006

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $88,864,400,000
Amount of 2005 appropriations........................... 86,875,512,000
Amount of 2006 budget estimate.......................... 83,316,143,000
Amount of House allowance \1\........................... 90,415,599,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2005 appropriations................................. +1,988,888,000
2006 budget estimate................................ +5,548,257,000
House allowance..................................... -1,551,199,000

\1\ Excludes $603,397,000 considered by the House for the District of
Columbia.

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

Program, Project, and Activity................................... 4
Reprogramming Guidelines......................................... 4
Relationship With Budget Offices................................. 5
Congressional Budget Justifications.............................. 5
House Appropriations............................................. 6
Title I--Department of Transportation:
Office of the Secretary...................................... 7
Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 20
Federal Highway Administration............................... 54
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.................. 60
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 67
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 78
Federal Transit Administration............................... 85
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................ 105
Maritime Administration...................................... 106
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration....... 110
Research and Innovative Technology Administration............ 113
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.......................... 114
Office of Inspector General.................................. 114
Surface Transportation Board................................. 115
Administrative Provisions--Department of Transportation...... 116
Title II--Department of the Treasury:
Departmental Offices......................................... 118
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network......................... 124
Financial Management Service................................. 125
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau..................... 126
Bureau of Engraving and Printing............................. 127
Bureau of the Public Debt.................................... 127
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund............ 128
United States Mint........................................... 129
Internal Revenue Service..................................... 130
Department of the Treasury: Administrative Provisions........ 141
Title III--Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Tenant-based Rental Assistance............................... 142
Project-based Rental Assistance.............................. 146
Public Housing Capital Fund.................................. 146
Public Housing Operating Fund................................ 147
Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing [HOPE
VI]........................................................ 148
Native American Housing Block Grant.......................... 149
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account........... 150
Community Planning and Development........................... 151
Housing Programs............................................. 177
Government National Mortgage Association..................... 183
Policy Development and Research.............................. 183
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity........................... 284
Office of Lead Hazard Controln............................... 185
Management and Administration................................ 186
Office of Inspector General.................................. 188
Working Capital Fund..................................... 188
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight............... 189
Administrative Provisions.................................... 189
Title IV--The Judiciary:
Supreme Court of the United States........................... 191
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit....... 192
U.S. Court of International Trade............................ 193
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial
Services................................................. 193
Defender Services............................................ 195
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners............................. 196
Court Security............................................... 196
Administrative Office of the United States Courts............ 197
Federal Judicial Center...................................... 198
Judicial Retirement Funds.................................... 199
United States Sentencing Commission.......................... 199
Administrative Provisions--The Judiciary..................... 200
Title V--Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated
to the President:
Compensation of the President................................ 201
White House Office........................................... 201
Executive Residence at the White House....................... 202
Council of Economic Advisers................................. 203
Office of Policy Development................................. 203
National Security Council.................................... 204
Office of Administration..................................... 204
Office of Management and Budget.............................. 205
Office of National Drug Control Policy....................... 205
Funds Appropriated to the President.......................... 207
Unanticipated Needs.......................................... 211
Special Assistance to the President.......................... 212
Official Residence of the Vice President..................... 212
Title VI--Independent Agencies:
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board... 213
Consumer Product Safety Commission........................... 213
Election Assistance Commission............................... 214
Federal Election Commission.................................. 215
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation........................ 215
Federal Labor Relations Authority............................ 216
Federal Maritime Commission.................................. 216
General Services Administration.............................. 217
Merit Systems Protection Board............................... 227
Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental Policy Foundation............................ 228
National Archives and Records Administration................. 229
National Credit Union Administration......................... 232
National Transportation Safety Board......................... 234
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................ 235
Office of Government Ethics.................................. 236
Office of Personnel Management............................... 237
Office of Special Counsel.................................... 241
Selective Service System..................................... 242
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............ 242
United States Postal Service................................. 243
United States Tax Court...................................... 245
Statement Concerning General Provisions...................... 245
Title VII--General Provisions This Act........................... 246
Title VIII--General Provisions, Departments, Agencies, and
Corporations................................................... 248
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 251
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 252
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 253
Budgetary Impact Statement....................................... 260
Comparative Statement............................................ 261

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2006, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and
activity'' [PPA] shall mean any item for which a dollar amount
is contained in appropriations acts (including joint
resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or
accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint
explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This
definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget
(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to
discretionary grants and discretionary grant allocations made
through either bill or report language. In addition, the
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal
Aviation Administration, shall be applied equally to each
budget item that is listed under said accounts in the budget
justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts
and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or
joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference.

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee includes a provision (sec. 710) establishing
the authority by which funding available to the agencies funded
by this Act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The
provision specifically requires the advanced approval of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of any proposal
to reprogram funds that: (1) creates a new program; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or activity [PPA]; (3) increases
funds or personnel for any PPA for which funds have been denied
or restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to redirect funds
that were directed in such reports for a specific activity to a
different purpose; (5) augments an existing PPA in excess of
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; (6) reduces an
existing PPA by $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
(7) creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different
from the congressional budget justifications or the table at
the end of the Committee report, whichever is more detailed.
The Committee retains the requirement that each Agency
submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not later than 60 days after enactment of this
Act to establish the baseline for application of reprogramming
and transfer authorities provided in this Act. Specifically,
each Agency should provide a table for each appropriation with
columns displaying the budget request; adjustments made by
Congress; adjustments for rescissions, if appropriate; and the
fiscal year enacted level. The table shall delineate the
appropriation both by object class and by PPA. The report must
also identify items of special congressional interest.
The Committee expects the agencies and bureaus to submit
reprogramming requests in a timely manner and to provide a
thorough explanation of the proposed reallocations, including a
detailed justification of increases and reductions and the
specific impact the proposed changes will have on the budget
request for the following fiscal year. Except in emergency
situations, reprogramming requests should be submitted no later
than June 30.
The Committee expects each Agency to manage its programs
and activities within the amounts appropriated by Congress. The
Committee reminds agencies that reprogramming requests should
be submitted only in the case of an unforeseeable emergency or
a situation that could not have been anticipated when
formulating the budget request for the current fiscal year.
Further, the Committee notes that when a Department or Agency
submits a reprogramming or transfer request to the Committees
on Appropriations and does not receive identical responses from
the House and Senate, it is the responsibility of the
Department to reconcile the House and Senate differences before
proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, to consider
the request to reprogram funds unapproved.
The Committee would also like to clarify that this section
applies to Working Capital Funds and Forfeiture Funds and that
no funds may be obligated from such funds to augment programs,
projects or activities for which appropriations have been
specifically rejected by the Congress, or to increase funds or
personnel for any PPA above the amounts appropriated by this
Act.

RELATIONSHIP WITH BUDGET OFFICES

Through the years, the Committee has channeled most of its
inquiries and requests for information and assistance through
the budget offices of the various departments, agencies, and
commissions. The Committee has often pointed to the natural
affinity and relationship between the budget offices and the
Committee which makes such a relationship workable. The
Committee reiterates its longstanding position that while the
Committee reserves the right to call upon any office or officer
in the departments, agencies, and commissions, the primary
conjunction between the Committee and these entities must be
through the budget offices. To help ensure the Committee's
ability to perform its responsibilities, the Committee insists
on having direct, unobstructed, and timely access to the budget
offices and expects to be able to receive forthright and
complete responses from that office and its employees.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

For fiscal year 2006, the Office of Management and Budget
[OMB] directed each agency to prepare a performance budget. The
Committee is committed to supporting the Administration as it
seeks to implement the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act [Results Act]. The Committee has
found the presentation of linking budgetary resources to
specific performance targets to be a valuable tool for
reviewing and evaluating agency priorities relative to
financial proposals and continues to support the linkage of
costs to performance in agency programs. The Committee,
however, is troubled that the agencies funded under this Act
have chosen to accommodate an increasing amount of performance
information in budget justifications by eliminating fundamental
programmatic budget data that is critical to the work of the
Committee. This trend has made it increasingly difficult for
the Committee to perform its necessary oversight work in
reviewing agency budget proposals.
Budget justifications are prepared not for the use of the
agency, but instead are the primary tool used by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations to evaluate the resource
requirements and proposals of agencies. The Committee is aware
that the format and presentation of budget materials is largely
left to the agency within presentation objectives set forth by
OMB. In fact, OMB Circular A-11, Part 6 specifically states
that the ``agency should consult with your congressional
committees beforehand to ensure their awareness of your plans
to modify the format of agency budget documents.'' The
Committee is disappointed that none of the agencies funded
under this Act heeded that direction and only a small number of
agencies even offered to brief the Committee regarding the new
format for justification materials in advance of the submission
of their fiscal year 2006 budget requests.
While the Committee values the inclusion of performance
data and presentations, it is important to ensure that, in the
implementation of the Results Act, vital budget information
that the Committee needs is not lost. Therefore, the Committee
directs that justifications submitted with the fiscal year 2007
budget request by agencies funded under this Act must contain
the customary level of detailed data and explanatory statements
to support the appropriations requests at the level of detail
contained in the funding table included at the end of the
Report. Among other items, agencies shall provide a detailed
discussion of proposed new initiatives, proposed changes in the
agency's financial plan from prior year enactment, and detailed
data building the request for the new year for transfers and
annualization of prior year programs. At a minimum, each agency
must also provide adequate justification for funding and
staffing changes for each individual office and materials that
compare programs, projects, and activities that are proposed
for fiscal year 2007 to the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
The Committee is aware that the analytical materials
required for review by the Committee are unique to each Agency
in this Act. Therefore, the Committee expects that the each
agency will coordinate with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations in advance on its planned presentation for the
budget justification materials to support of the fiscal year
2007 budget request.

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS

The Committee recommendation excludes District of Columbia
appropriations items that were funded by the House in this
bill. The Committee believes that it is appropriate to fund
those items in a separate bill. For ease of comparison, the
Committee report excludes in the ``House allowance'' those
items that are addressed in the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2006, an original Senate bill.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment
of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The
Office of the Secretary is comprised of the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary immediate and support offices; the Office of
the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, including the
offices of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for
Transportation for Policy and Intermodalism; three Assistant
Secretarial offices for Budget and Programs, Governmental
Affairs, and Administration; and the Offices of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Intelligence and Security,
Office of Emergency Transportation, Chief Information Officer,
the General Counsel and Public Affairs. The Office of the
Secretary also includes the Department's Office of Civil Rights
and the Department's Working Capital Fund.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $86,536,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 87,046,000
House allowance......................................... 67,824,000
Committee recommendation................................ 86,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation finances the costs of policy development
and central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary
for the overall planning and direction of the Department. It
covers the immediate secretarial offices and the offices of the
under secretary, assistant secretaries, general counsel and
other support offices.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $86,000,000 for
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and
representation expenses. The recommendation is $1,046,000 less
than the budget request and $3,272,000 more than the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level. The budget request proposes a
consolidated appropriation for the various offices comprising
the Office of the Secretary. The Committee does not approve the
request and has continued to recommend a specific individual
funding level for each office. Furthermore, the Committee
recommendation continues to fund the immediate Office of the
Secretary, the immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary, and
the Executive Secretariat as separate budget activities instead
of as a consolidated office, as requested.
The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer
up to 5 percent of the funds from any office of the Office of
the Secretary to another. The Committee directs the Assistant
Secretary for budget and programs to submit a quarterly report
detailing all transfers pursuant to this authority. Also, the
Committee recommendation continues language that permits up to
$2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the Office of the
Secretary for salaries and expenses.
The Committee recommends prohibiting funds from being used
to enforce the restriction set forth in the International Air
Transportation Competition Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-192)
against the operation of flights between Love Field, Texas, and
one or more points within the State of Missouri.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level and the budget estimate:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2005 enacted recommendation
\1\ 2006 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................ $2,185,000 $2,198,000 $2,198,000
Office of the Deputy Secretary............................... 694,000 698,000 698,000
Office of the General Counsel................................ 14,946,000 15,183,000 15,183,000
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy... 11,623,000 11,680,000 12,650,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.... 8,436,000 9,485,000 8,585,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs... 2,279,000 2,293,000 2,293,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......... 21,493,000 23,139,000 22,031,000
Office of Public Affairs..................................... 1,899,000 1,910,000 1,910,000
Executive Secretariat........................................ 1,433,000 1,442,000 1,442,000
Board of Contract Appeals.................................... 693,000 697,000 697,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....... 1,258,000 1,265,000 1,265,000
Office of Intelligence and Security.......................... 2,022,000 2,033,000 2,033,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer...................... 10,657,000 11,895,000 11,895,000
Office of Emergency Transportation........................... 3,110,000 3,128,000 3,120,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and Expenses........................... 82,728,000 87,046,000 86,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reduction pursuant to Division J, section 122 of Public Law 108-477, reduction pursuant to Division
H, section 197 of Public Law 108-477, and transfer of the Office of Intermodalism to the Research and
Innovative Technology Administration as part of the Departmental reorganization authorized by Public Law 108-
426.

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has
the primary responsibility to provide overall planning,
direction, and control of the Department.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,198,000 for fiscal year 2006
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation
is the same as the budget request and $13,000 greater than the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of
assisting the Secretary in the overall planning and direction
of the Department.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $698,000 for the Immediate Office
of the Deputy Secretary, which is identical to the budget
request and $4,000 greater than the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level.

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services
to the Office of the Secretary including the conduct of
aviation regulatory proceedings and aviation consumer
activities and coordinates and reviews the legal work in the
chief counsels' offices of the operating administrations. The
General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the Department of
Transportation and the final authority within the Department on
all legal questions.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $15,183,000 for expenses of the
Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2006, equal to
the budget request and $237,000 greater than the fiscal year
2005 enacted level. The Committee approves the request for an
administrative adjustment of 3 full time equivalent staff years
(FTEs) with no associated increase in new funding to match more
appropriately the number of positions. The recommendation
includes $150,000, as requested, for one additional FTE for the
Office of Emergency Transportation's litigation caseload.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Under Secretary for Policy is the chief policy officer
of the Department and is responsible to the Secretary for the
analysis, development, and review of policies and plans for
domestic and international transportation matters. The Office
administers the economic regulatory functions regarding the
airline industry and is responsible for international aviation
programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness
licensing, acquisitions, international route awards,
computerized reservation systems, and special investigations
such as airline delays.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends $12,650,000
for the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy, $985,000 more
than the budget request and $1,042,000 more than the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level.
The Committee directs that up to $500,000 shall be used for
an independent forensic audit of expenses and payments made
under the Essential Air Program. The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 for an audit to be conducted by the National Academy
of Public Administration to determine how communities currently
served by the Essential Air Service program might best be
integrated into the national aviation system at lesser cost.
The Committee expects this study to be informed by the recent
assessments conducted by the Secretary, the Inspector General,
and the Government Accountability Office [GAO]. The Committee
further expects this study to examine all transportation
options for these communities, including ground transportation
options, to determine the appropriate level and type of service
that best meets the transportation needs of the residents of
these communities at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the
principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the development,
review, presentation, and execution of the Department's budget
resource requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of
the Department's programs. The primary responsibilities of this
office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation
of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to
ensure the consistency of the Department's budget execution
with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget, to evaluate the program proposals for
consistency with the Secretary's stated objectives, and to
advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes
necessary to improve program effectiveness.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $8,585,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, $900,000 less than
the budget request and $149,000 over the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. The Committee is disappointed with the level of
detail being provided in the budget justifications and
supporting documentations and expects the fiscal year 2007
presentation to provide a more detailed program justification.
Credit Program Initiative.--The Committee recommendation
denies the request for 2 new full time equivalent positions.
The office has a large number of vacancies, and the Committee
understands that the Assistant Secretary has the discretion to
hire applicants with expertise in analyzing creditworthiness
when making staffing decisions. The Committee recommends
$100,000 for contractor support to enhance oversight of the
credit programs administered by the Department's operating
administrations and to negotiate solutions to distressed loans.
While the Committee supports improving evaluation and oversight
of the Department's budget and programs, it is more appropriate
to develop an initiative to improve management of loan
portfolios and financial review and analysis of credit
applications in the modal administration that administers a
respective credit program. The Committee directs the Assistant
Secretary to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations detailing initiatives to improve the
management and reduce the risk of credit programs at each of
the modes that administers them. Also, the report should
identify in detail additional staffing and resource
requirements. The report should be delivered to the Committees
no later than March 1, 2006.
Overdue Congressional Reports.--The Committee appreciates
the effort to reduce the backlog of delinquent reporting
requirements to Congress. The Committee continues to direct the
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs to submit a report
at the beginning of each fiscal quarter on the status of all
outstanding reporting requirements. The report should identify
the deadline established by Congress and an estimated date for
delivery.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises
the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental
activities and on all departmental legislative initiatives and
other relationships with Members of Congress. The Assistant
Secretary promotes effective communication with other Federal
agencies and regional Department officials, and with State and
local governments and national organizations for development of
departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences,
awareness, and needs are brought into the decision-making
process.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $2,293,000 for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, an
amount equal to the budget request and $14,000 over the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible
for establishing policies and procedures, setting guidelines,
working with the Operating Administrations to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the Department in human
resource management, security and administrative management,
real and personal property management, and acquisition and
grants management.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $22,031,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration, $1,108,000 below the
budget request and $538,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level.

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Director of Public Affairs is the principal advisor to
the Secretary and other senior Departmental officials and news
media on public affairs questions. The Office issues news
releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing materials,
publications, and audiovisual materials. It also provides
information to the Secretary on opinions and reactions of the
public and news media on transportation programs and issues. It
arranges news conferences and provides speeches, talking
points, and byline articles for the Secretary and other senior
departmental officials, and arranges the Secretary's
scheduling.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,910,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs, which is the same amount as the budget request
and $11,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary in carrying out their management functions and
responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and
external written materials.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,442,000 for the Executive
Secretariat. The recommendation is identical to the budget
request and $9,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level.

BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals
is to provide an independent forum for the trial and
adjudication of all claims by, or against, a contractor
relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as
mandated by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $697,000 for the Board of Contract
Appeals, the same as the budget request and $4,000 greater than
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for
small and disadvantaged business participation in the
Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective
execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15
of the Small Business Act, as amended.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,265,000, an amount equal to the
budget request and $7,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level.

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Intelligence and Security keeps the Secretary
and his advisors informed on intelligence and security issues
pertaining to transportation. The office also ensures that
transportation policy and programs support the national
objectives of general welfare, economic growth and stability,
and the security of the United States.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,033,000 for the Office of
Intelligence and Security for fiscal year 2006. The recommended
amount is the same as the budget request and $11,000 more than
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Emergency Transportation [OET] provides
support to the Secretary of Transportation for his statutory
and administrative responsibilities in the areas of emergency
preparedness, response and recovery functions. OET coordinates
and conducts the Department's participation in National and
Regional exercises and training for emergency personnel;
administers the Department's Continuity of Government and
Continuity of Operations programs; and coordinates DOT's role
in select international contingency planning and response
initiatives. Additionally, OET provides direct emergency
response and recovery support through the National Response
Plan [NRP] and operates the Department's Crisis Management
Center [CMC], a facility that monitors the Nation's
transportation system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and is the
Department's focal point during emergencies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,120,000 for the Office of
Emergency Transportation. The recommendation is $8,000 less
than the budget estimate and $10,000 more than the fiscal year
2005 enacted level.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO] serves
as the principal adviser to the Secretary on matters involving
information resources and information systems management.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $11,895,000, an amount equal to
the budget request and $1,238,000 greater than the fiscal year
2005 enacted level.
Budget Justification.--The Committee is concerned that the
fiscal year 2006 budget justification does not clearly
identify, describe, and support all of the resources managed by
the Office of the Chief Information Officer [CIO]. For the
entire fiscal year, the budget request for this program
accounts for approximately 20 percent of the funds that will be
provided to the office during the year. The remaining 80
percent of the requested funds, or $50,800,000, will be
reimbursed by the modal operating administrations through the
Working Capital Fund to the CIO. The justification materials
supporting funding through the Working Capital Fund are brief,
vague, and wholy incomplete. Furthermore, the budget
justifications submitted by each of the modal administrations
conceal large increases for funding for information technology
projects that will be managed by the CIO as increases to the
Working Capital Fund that are described as current service
increases or inflation adjustments. This is misleading and
unacceptable, and will not be tolerated by the Committee.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $8,630,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 8,550,000
House allowance......................................... 8,550,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,550,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the
Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity
matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for
the operating administrations, investigating claims that small
businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as
disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the
Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and
making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In
addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing
laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally
operated and federally assisted transportation programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a funding level of $8,550,000 for
the Office of Civil Rights for fiscal year 2006. The
recommendation is identical to the budget request and is
$80,000 less than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $19,840,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 9,030,000
House allowance......................................... 9,030,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Secretary performs those research
activities and studies which can more effectively or
appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This
research effort supports the planning, research and development
activities needed to assist the Secretary in the formulation of
national transportation policies. The program is carried out
primarily through contracts with other Federal agencies,
educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and
private firms.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for transportation
planning, research, and development, $4,840,000 less than the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level and $5,970,000 more than the
President's budget request. The Committee directs funding to be
allocated to the following projects that are listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware State University Hydrogen Storage Research..... $500,000
DOT privacy assessment.................................. 570,000
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute 2,000,000
commercial shipping alternatives for inland waterways..
Integrated Commercial Vehicle Safety Enforcement 900,000
Technology Initiative, MI..............................
Intermodal Transportation Research, Mississippi State 1,000,000
University.............................................
Maritime Domain Awareness Pilot Project, WA............. 500,000
Maritime Fire and Safety Association, WA................ 500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2005........................................ $151,054,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\...............................................
House allowance......................................... 120,014,000
Committee recommendation................................ 120,014,000

\1\ Proposed without limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Working Capital Fund [WCF] provides common
administrative services to the Department's operating
administrations and other Federal entities. The services are
centrally performed in the interest of economy and efficiency
and are funded through negotiated agreements with Department
operating administrations and other Federal customers and are
billed on a fee-for-service basis to the maximum extent
possible.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $120,014,000 on
activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The
budget request proposes to remove the obligation limitation on
the Working Capital Fund for services to the operating
administrations of the Department. The Committee, however,
insists that the discipline of an annual limitation is
necessary to keep assessments and services of the Working
Capital Fund in line with costs. As in past years, the bill
specificies that the limitation shall apply only to the
Department and not to services provided by other entities. The
Committee directs that services shall be provided on a
competitive basis to the maximum extent possible.

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Appropriations guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005................. $892,800 ($18,367,000)
Budget estimate, 2006................ 900,000 (18,367,000)
House allowance...................... 900,000 (18,367,000)
Committee recommendation............. 900,000 (18,367,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital for
disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime
interest rates for transportation-related projects. As required
by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records
the subsidy costs associated with guaranteed loans for this
program as well as administrative expenses of this program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $500,000 to
cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $400,000 for
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan
program. The recommendation is the same as the budget estimate
and is a total of $7,200 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level. The Committee also recommends a limitation on guaranteed
loans of $18,367,000, the same amount as the budget request and
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $2,976,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 3,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist
small, women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged
business firms in securing contracts and subcontracts arising
out of transportation-related projects that involve Federal
spending. It also provides support to historically black and
Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is requested by the
administration since this program provides grants and contract
assistance that serves Department-wide goals and not just OST
purposes.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for grants and
contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year
2006. The recommendation is the same as the budget request and
is $24,000 more than fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

NEW HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $67,456,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 100,000,000
House allowance......................................... 55,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 50,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation finances the cost to outfit and rent a
new Department of Transportation headquarters building. The
proposed concept would consolidate all of the department's
headquarters operating administration functions (except FAA),
from various locations in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area
into leased buildings within the central employment area of the
District of Columbia.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for costs to outfit
the new headquarters building. The recommendation is
$50,000,000 less than the budget estimate and $17,456,000 less
than fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The Committee remains
concerned with the costs associated with moving the Department
to the Southwest Federal Center and recommends a reduction from
the budget estimate to control costs.
Headquarters Security.--The Committee encourages the
Secretary to explore purchasing the requisite software,
hardware and installation services necessary to meet Homeland
Security Presidential Directive-12 standards. The Secretary
should explore smart card and biometric authentication for
access to critical networks and applications as well as
ingress/egress points in the new DOT headquarters building. In
addition, the Secretary is encouraged to utilize small business
concerns in meeting this requirement.

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Mandatory \1\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005 \1\........................................ $51,584,000 $50,000,000 $101,584,000
Budget estimate, 2006........................................... .............. 50,000,000 50,000,000
House allowance................................................. 54,000,000 50,000,000 104,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 60,000,000 50,000,000 110,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From overflight fees or funds otherwise provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 41742.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides additional funding for the
Essential Air Service [EAS] program, which was created as a 10-
year transition program to continue air service to communities
that had received federally mandated air service prior to
deregulation of commercial aviation in 1978. The program
currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small
communities that meet certain criteria.
The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user
fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation
Administration [FAA] to aircraft that neither take off from,
nor land in, the United States. These are commonly known as
overflight fees. In addition, the Act stipulated that the first
$50,000,000 of annual fee collections must be used to finance
the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in fees, the law
requires FAA to make up the difference from other funds
available to the Agency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2006, the administration proposes
$50,000,000 for the EAS program to be funded by overflight fees
collected by the FAA.
The Committee recommendation provides a total of
$110,000,000 for the Essential Air Service program, which is
comprised of an appropriation under this heading of $60,000,000
and $50,000,000 derived from overflight fees or funds otherwise
available to the FAA. The Committee recommendation is
$60,000,000 more than the budget estimate and $8,416,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Based on the latest
projections from the Department of Transportation, the funding
level that the Committee recommends is sufficient to continue
air service during fiscal year 2006 at every community
currently receiving service through the EAS program.
EAS Program Growth.--The Committee is concerned about the
substantial growth of the costs of the EAS program and about
its ability to continue to provide sufficient funding for
subsidies so that no community currently in the EAS system
loses current service levels. The Department will have to renew
a number of contracts during fiscal year 2006, and costs of the
new contracts are expected to increase due to higher fuel
prices and other factors. While the Committee's recommended
funding level attempts to account for such factors, it is clear
that the program will face additional pressure during a time of
extreme fiscal constraint.
The following table reflects the points currently receiving
service and the annual rates as of March 1, 2005 in the
continental United States and Hawaii.

SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AS OF MARCH 1, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. Daily
Est. Miles Enplnmnts Ann. Sbsdy Total Psgrs
States/Communities to Nearest at EAS Rates at 3/ Subsidy per (YE 12/31/
Hub (S,M,or Point (YE 1/2005 Passenger 04)
L) \1\ 12/31/04)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA: Muscle Shoals......................... 60 16.2 $1,364,697 $134.94 10,113
ARIZONA:
Kingman.................................... 103 4.1 1,001,989 385.83 2,597
Page....................................... 280 12.4 1,057,655 136.19 7,766
Prescott................................... 102 11.8 1,001,989 135.94 7,371
Show Low................................... 168 ( \2\ ) 779,325 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
ARKANSAS:
El Dorado.................................. 108 7.1 1,077,939 243.38 \3\ 4,429
Harrison................................... 77 11.3 1,186,822 167.68 \3\ 7,078
Hot Springs................................ 53 11.5 791,214 110.14 \3\ 7,184
Jonesboro.................................. 79 8.0 718,626 142.99 \3\ 5,026
CALIFORNIA:
Crescent City.............................. 362 39.7 816,025 32.83 24,857
Merced..................................... 55 26.3 645,751 39.23 \4\ 16,461
Visalia.................................... 44 3.4 450,000 211.17 2,131
COLORADO:
Alamosa.................................... 162 16.7 1,083,538 103.88 10,431
Cortez..................................... 258 25.3 853,587 53.82 15,861
Pueblo..................................... 43 6.2 618,621 159.52 3,878
GEORGIA: Athens................................ 72 12.1 392,108 51.72 7,582
HAWAII:
Hana....................................... 32 10.0 945,029 151.01 6,258
Kalaupapa.................................. ........... 4.0 745,773 294.19 2,535
Kamuela.................................... 39 7.4 483,982 104.58 4,628
ILLINOIS:
Decatur.................................... 120 41.6 917,077 35.20 26,055
Marion..................................... 122 32.8 1,253,076 61.03 20,533
Quincy..................................... 108 26.4 1,109,530 67.12 16,530
IOWA:
Burlington................................. 96 23.1 999,412 69.09 14,465
Fort Dodge................................. 94 27.8 1,088,354 62.57 17,393
Mason City................................. 128 48.3 1,088,354 36.03 30,206
KANSAS:
Dodge City................................. 149 8.0 1,224,838 244.09 5,018
Garden City................................ 201 22.3 1,224,838 87.89 13,936
Great Bend................................. 120 ( \2\ ) 547,941 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
Hays....................................... 180 18.6 1,301,876 111.88 11,636
Liberal.................................... 153 9.7 684,578 113.32 6,041
Manhattan.................................. 120 12.9 360,803 44.74 8,064
Salina..................................... 93 4.3 360,803 135.18 2,669
KENTUCKY: Owensboro............................ 105 8.8 1,032,673 186.84 5,527
MAINE:
Augusta.................................... 68 13.3 1,065,475 166.08 8,341
Bar Harbor................................. 157 34.0 1,065,475 50.13 21,256
Presque Isle............................... 276 47.9 1,116,423 37.25 29,972
Rockland................................... 80 22.9 1,065,475 74.45 14,311
MICHIGAN:
Escanaba................................... 114 31.7 290,952 14.67 19,837
Ironwood................................... 218 9.2 479,879 82.95 5,785
Iron Mountain.............................. 101 25.5 478,693 30.00 15,956
Manistee................................... 180 7.4 485,545 104.62 4,641
MINNESOTA:
Hibbing.................................... 178 29.4 1,048,612 56.95 18,414
Thief River Falls.......................... 302 14.4 707,017 78.60 8,995
MISSISSIPPI: Laurel/Hattiesburg................ 90 44.5 1,100,253 39.47 27,876
MISSOURI:
Cape Girardeau............................. 123 17.9 990,694 88.28 11,222
Fort Leonard Wood.......................... 86 22.8 885,918 62.16 14,252
Joplin..................................... 72 32.9 755,762 36.66 20,615
Kirksville................................. 137 6.6 968,249 233.88 4,140
MONTANA:
Glasgow.................................... 280 6.1 823,591 216.00 3,813
Glendive................................... 223 2.9 823,591 451.04 1,826
Havre...................................... 248 3.8 823,591 349.87 2,354
Lewistown.................................. 125 6.2 823,591 210.64 3,910
Miles City................................. 146 3.4 823,591 392.00 2,101
Sidney..................................... 273 7.4 823,591 177.84 4,631
West Yellowstone........................... 315 7.5 418,488 89.06 4,699
Wolf Point................................. 293 4.4 823,591 296.79 2,775
NEBRASKA:
Alliance................................... 256 4.5 655,898 235.09 2,790
Chadron.................................... 311 4.6 655,898 226.56 2,895
Grand Island............................... 140 18.4 1,198,396 103.96 11,527
Kearney.................................... 181 20.5 1,166,849 90.76 12,856
McCook..................................... 271 6.7 1,502,651 359.49 4,180
North Platte............................... 277 23.4 870,504 59.41 14,653
Scottsbluff................................ 109 27.8 494,887 28.49 17,372
NEVADA: Ely.................................... 237 5.2 698,078 213.87 3,264
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Lebanon......................... 75 23.8 998,752 66.91 \4\ 14,926
NEW MEXICO:
Alamogordo................................. 91 ( \5\ ) 518,870 ( \5\ ) ( \5\ )
Carlsbad................................... 141 11.2 560,070 79.74 \3\ 7,024
Clovis..................................... 103 6.7 859,057 205.57 \3\ 4,179
Hobbs...................................... 90 3.7 560,318 242.67 \3\ 2,309
Silver City................................ 133 6.2 859,057 221.06 \3\ 3,886
NEW YORK:
Jamestown.................................. 76 13.9 501,937 57.74 8,693
Massena.................................... 143 4.9 429,337 139.30 3,082
Ogdensburg................................. 123 ( \2\ ) 429,337 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
Plattsburgh................................ 78 5.4 753,964 221.17 \3\ 3,409
Saranac Lake............................... 126 6.8 753,964 176.45 \3\ 4,273
Watertown.................................. 65 6.3 429,337 108.83 3,945
NORTH DAKOTA:
Devils Lake................................ 405 6.4 869,635 218.50 3,980
Dickinson.................................. 319 16.4 1,697,248 165.29 10,268
Jamestown.................................. 332 11.1 869,635 125.43 6,933
OKLAHOMA:
Enid....................................... 84 6.2 977,302 250.33 \4\ 3,904
Ponca City................................. 81 4.8 977,302 323.29 \4\ 3,023
OREGON: Pendleton.............................. 195 23.7 649,974 43.87 14,817
PENNSYLVANIA:
Altoona.................................... 108 20.6 727,194 56.46 12,879
Bradford................................... 77 10.1 501,937 79.35 6,326
Du Bois.................................... 112 ( \2\ ) 643,818 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
Johnstown.................................. 82 33.9 727,194 34.25 21,231
Lancaster.................................. 66 ( \5\ ) 1,611,707 ( \5\ ) ( \5\ )
Oil City/Franklin.......................... 86 ( \2\ ) 874,067 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
PUERTO RICO:
Mayaguez................................... 105 56.2 689,000 19.58 35,187
Ponce...................................... 77 7.5 622,000 131.98 4,713
SOUTH DAKOTA:
Brookings.................................. 206 ( \2\ ) 1,039,364 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
Huron...................................... 279 ( \2\ ) 1,039,364 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
Pierre..................................... 397 20.2 449,912 35.65 12,621
Watertown.................................. 207 27.8 1,871,825 107.59 17,397
TENNESSEE: Jackson............................. 85 8.7 1,156,325 213.50 5,416
TEXAS:
Brownwood.................................. 145 ( \2\ ) 964,677 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
Victoria................................... 108 33.2 464,869 22.35 20,802
UTAH:
Cedar City................................. 178 22.4 770,285 55.02 13,999
Moab....................................... 240 ( \2\ ) 674,804 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
Vernal..................................... 174 ( \2\ ) 595,436 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
VERMONT: Rutland............................... 118 6.5 804,102 196.79 4,086
VIRGINIA: Staunton............................. 133 23.3 615,578 42.27 14,563
WASHINGTON: Moses Lake......................... 108 11.1 1,698,922 245.33 6,925
WEST VIRGINIA:
Beckley.................................... 181 6.8 1,008,532 237.36 4,249
Bluefield.................................. 145 6.7 1,008,532 239.44 4,212
Greenbrier................................. 172 7.3 540,579 118.03 4,580
WYOMING:
Laramie.................................... 144 26.9 397,400 23.59 16,846
Riverton................................... 310 36.9 394,046 17.05 23,106
Rock Springs............................... 184 37.8 390,488 16.52 23,642
Sheridan................................... 129 38.2 336,701 14.07 23,926
Worland.................................... 164 7.6 797,844 166.74 4,785
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hub classifications are subject to change annually based on the changes in enplanement levels at the
specific hub and at all airports Nationwide.
\2\ Data not available.
\3\ 11 months data annualized.
\4\ 8 months data annualized.
\5\ Service hiatus during 2004.
\6\ 9 months data annualized.

Federal Aviation Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the
safe movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national
system of airports. The Federal Government's regulatory role in
civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch
within the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce
Act of 1926. This Act instructed the agency to foster air
commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, operate,
and maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and
development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness
certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and
investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics
Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to a new,
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority.
Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the
creation of two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency
and the Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of
Transportation [DOT] began its operations in 1967, the Federal
Aviation Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration
[FAA] and became one of several modal administrations within
DOT. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with
enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased
to exist in 1984. Responsibility for the investigation of civil
aviation accidents was given to the National Transportation
Safety Board in 1967. FAA's mission expanded in 1995 with the
transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from
the Office of the Secretary, and decreased in December 2001
with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the
new Transportation Security Administration.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal
year 2006 amounts to $14,257,500,000, which is $423,140,000
more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The following
table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $7,712,800,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 8,201,000,000
House allowance......................................... 8,396,920,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,176,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides funds for the operation,
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory,
international, commercial space, medical, engineering and
development programs, as well as policy oversight and agency
management functions. The operations appropriation includes the
following major activities: (1) the air traffic organization
which operates, on a 24-hour daily basis, the national air
traffic system, including the establishment and maintenance of
a national system of aids to navigation, the development and
distribution of aeronautical charts and the administration of
acquisition, and research and development programs; (2) the
regulation and certification activities including establishment
and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety and
development of standards, rules and regulations governing the
physical fitness of airmen as well as the administration of an
aviation medical research program; (3) the office of commercial
space transportation; and (4) headquarters, administration and
other staff and support offices.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $8,176,000,000 for FAA
operations, an increase of $463,200,000 above the level
provided for fiscal year 2005 and $25,000,000 below the budget
estimate. The Committee notes that the recommended rate of
increase for this appropriation is approximately 6 percent,
which is 3 times the government-wide budgetary increase of 2.1
percent.
The Committee recommendation derives $5,686,500,000 of the
appropriation from the airport and airway trust fund. The level
is consistent with the requirements of current law and is
$813,500,000 less than the budget estimate. The balance of the
appropriation will be drawn from the general fund of the
Treasury.
As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the event
resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air
traffic control system.
Second Career Training Program.--The Committee recommends
retaining language which prohibits the use of appropriated
funds for the second career training program. This prohibition
has been carried in annual appropriations Acts for a number of
years.
Sunday Premium Pay.--The Committee recommends retaining a
funding limitation which prohibits FAA from paying Sunday
premium pay, except in those cases where the individual
actually worked on a Sunday.
Manned Auxiliary Flight Service Stations.--The Committee
recommends continuing language that prohibits the use of funds
for operating a manned auxiliary flight service station in the
contiguous United States. The Committee does not recommend
funding provided in the Operations account for such stations in
fiscal year 2006.
Aeronautical Charting and Cartography.--The Committee
recommends prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to
conduct aeronautical charting and cartography [AC&C] activities
through the working capital fund [WCF]. Public Law 106-181
authorized the transfer of these activities from the Department
of Commerce to the FAA.
Government-issued Credit Cards.--The Committee recommends
retaining a restriction on using a government-issued credit
card to purchase a store gift card or gift certificate.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal
year 2005 enacted level:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2006 budget recommendation
2005 enacted estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Organization..................................... $6,136,598,000 $6,647,305,000 $6,627,010,000
Aviation Safety.............................................. 903,764,000 941,742,000 956,242,000
Research and Acquisitions.................................... 221,100,000 ............... ...............
Commercial Space Transportation.............................. 11,511,000 11,759,000 11,759,000
Financial Services........................................... 50,408,000 ............... 50,983,000
Human Resource Management.................................... 68,844,000 ............... 69,943,000
Region and Center Operations................................. 147,476,000 ............... 150,744,000
Staff Offices................................................ 137,352,000 450,194,000 141,909,000
Information Services......................................... 35,747,000 ............... 36,112,000
Flight Service Stations Transition........................... ............... 150,000,000 150,000,000
Account-wide adjustments..................................... ............... ............... -18,702,000
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................................................. 7,712,800,000 8,201,000,000 8,176,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

The Committee recommends $6,627,010,000 for the Air Traffic
Organization to operate and maintain the national air traffic
control system. The recommended level is $490,412,000 more than
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The Committee is confident
that the recommended funding level is sufficient to continue
safe and efficient management of the National Airspace System
[NAS].
Aviation Statistics.--The Committee recommends no funding
from FAA Operations for aviation statistical studies to be
conducted by bureau of transportation statistics. The
recommendation is a reduction of $4,000,000 from the budget
estimate. Funding to support the bureau directly should be
requested in the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration.
Contract Tower Program.--The Committee continues to support
the contract tower program and the cost-sharing program as a
cost-effective way to enhance air traffic safety at smaller
airports. The Committee recommends $90,500,000, an increase of
$2,710,000 above the budget estimate. The recommended level
will fund the existing contract tower program, the remaining
eligible non-Federal towers not currently operated by FAA, and
non-towered airports eligible for the program. In addition to
these resources, the Committee recommends $7,500,000 for the
contract tower cost-sharing program.
Annualization Adjustment.--The Committee recommends
$58,778,000 for annualization costs, a reduction of $2,000,000
from the budget estimate to reflect actual costs.
National Airspace System Handoff.--The Committee recommends
a reduction of $17,000,000 below the budget estimate due to
budget constraints.
Air Traffic Controller Training.--The FAA's December 2004
Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan states that the Agency
intends to hire 12,500 new air traffic controllers by 2014. One
of the ways in which they plan to accomplish this is by
reducing the training time. The report also states that the FAA
Academy in Oklahoma City no longer serves as a screen for air
traffic controller candidates but rather is used to provide a
``comprehensive, option specific, training curriculum.''
Initial qualification training at the FAA Academy is pass/fail
with less than a 5 percent failure rate. Accordingly, the
Committee agrees that FAA's policy of requiring all graduates
from FAA's collegiate training initiative program attend the
Academy's basic course is redundant, costly, and time-
consuming. The Committee directs FAA to develop a method to
assess whether or not individual CTI graduates are prepared to
enter option specific training, and allow those who are
prepared to bypass the Academy basic training. As the Agency
seeks to reduce the time needed to train new air traffic
controllers, this has the potential to be a logical first step.
Airway Facilities Certification and Maintenance.--The
Committee is aware that the FAA is in the very early stages of
developing a new process for maintaining and certifying
national airspace systems. This new process, called Reliability
Centered Maintenance, is used by industry and other agencies of
the Federal Government. It relies on detailed analysis to
develop specially tailored national standards for individual
systems. The FAA believes this process will modernize the way
it manages its increasingly software and hardware laden
systems. Considering the importance of this change, the
Committee requests that the GAO conduct an analysis of the
FAA's plans and their impact.
Alien Species Action Plan [ASAP].--The Committee recommends
$1,600,000 to continue the implementation of the Alien Species
Action Plan which was adopted by the FAA as part of its August
26, 1998, Record of Decision approving certain improvements at
Kahului Airport on the Island of Maui. These funds will be used
to complete capital projects that were started in fiscal year
2002 and continue the operational requirements imposed by the
ASAP.
National Airspace Redesign.--The Committee recommends
$2,000,000 for the NY/NJ Airspace Redesign effort and directs
that the funds shall not be reprogrammed by the FAA for other
activities, including airspace redesign activities outside the
NY/NJ metro area.
Louisville International Airport.--The ATO is currently
reviewing the operational viability of the recommendations from
the approved part 150 noise compatibility study at Louisville
Airport. The Committee urges the FAA to perform an
environmental assessment of the airport's west offset approach
and departure proposal for the west runway as expeditiously as
possible. As soon as the cost of the environmental assessment
has been quantified, the Committee directs the FAA to submit a
letter articulating the cost and schedule for the environmental
assessment.
Non-Precision GPS Approaches.--The Committee recommends
$10,000,000 for the development of additional approaches and
flight procedures at the non-part 139 certified airports. The
Committee supports this effort and encourages the FAA to
publish GPS approaches at airports without an existing ILS
approach or other ground-based navigational infrastructure. The
Committee also encourages FAA to develop a GPS instrument
approach at Beaver and Panguitch Municipal Airports in Utah.
Continuous Descent Approaches.--The Committee directs the
FAA to explore the use of continuous descent approaches for
nighttime operations at Philadelphia International Airport to
determine possible decreases in noise levels within the State
of Delaware and to report its findings in a letter to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 1 year of
enactment.

AVIATION SAFETY

The Committee recommends $956,242,000 for aviation safety.
The recommendation is $14,500,000 more than the budget
estimate.
The Committee recommends funds for aviation safety be
distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2006 budget Committee
estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight standards........................ $675,845,000 $685,845,000
Certification........................... 158,271,000 162,271,000
Medical................................. 41,625,000 42,125,000
Accident investigation.................. 4,966,000 4,966,000
Rulemaking.............................. 3,874,000 3,874,000
Air traffic safety oversight............ 5,897,000 5,897,000
Suspected unapproved parts.............. 1,560,000 1,560,000
Planning, direction, and evaluation..... 49,704,000 49,704,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flight Standards Safety Inspectors.--The Committee
recommends $14,300,000 to restore safety inspector staffing
reductions that occurred in fiscal year 2005, an increase of
$8,000,000 from the budget request. The DOT Inspector General's
June report concluded that the Agency's budget request to
replace 80 flight standards inspectors ``may not be sufficient
to ensure that all high risk and emerging issues receive
adequate coverage.'' The recommended level will accelerate the
replacement of staff inspectors lost in the current fiscal year
and provide additional support for expanded repair station
oversight.
The Committee is greatly concerned by level of attrition
considering that the appropriations Act for the current year
fully funded the FAA's budget request for this office. While
the Committee acknowledges that the necessity to absorb
unfunded pay increases has been a strain on available resources
to this office, this strain has been greatly exacerbated by
internal financial assessments against this office imposed by
the Administrator and the Office of the Secretary--assessments
that were not discussed in the budget request.
Aircraft Certification Service.--The Committee recommends
$162,271,000 for aircraft certification service, which is
$4,000,000 more than the budget estimate. Attrition of
certification staff in fiscal year 2005 has impacted adversely
the ability of the domestic aviation industry to bring new
products to the marketplace, which undermines global leadership
and competitiveness. The recommendation will restore the number
of full-time equivalent positions in the FAA Aircraft
Certification Service for fiscal year 2006. The Committee
directs the FAA to submit quarterly reports during fiscal year
2006 to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that
identifies the baseline staffing level, staffing goals, and
number of new hires.
Considering the growth in the U.S. aerospace industry, the
Committee recognizes that the FAA must improve the efficiency
of the certification process. The Committee directs the FAA to
issue a report on the publication and implementation of final
regulations implementing the Organization Designation
Authorization Process [ODA].
Flight Attendant Fatigue Study.--The Committee is
disappointed that it has not yet received the results of the
Civil Aeromedical Institute's flight attendant fatigue study.
The Committee continues to hear reports that flight attendants
are not receiving adequate rest time. The Committee expects the
FAA to report its findings and recommendations for regulatory
revisions in a thorough and expeditious manner.
Human Intervention and Motivation Study [HIMS].--The
Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 in the aviation
medical office to continue the Human Intervention and
Motivation Study for the next 3 fiscal years. Since its
inception in 1974, HIMS has provided the necessary training and
education programs for alcohol and drug abuse prevention in the
airline industry. Over 35 airlines in America actively
participate in this program's workshops and seminars conducted
by trained aeromedical personnel. Particular emphasis is
directed toward identifying, assessing, and treating chemically
dependent pilots in order for them to recover and regain
medical clearance in accordance with FAA standards. The
Committee has been informed that long-term success and recovery
rate is approximately 90 percent.
Medallion Program.--The Committee recommends an increase of
$2,000,000 to continue the medallion five star shield program,
a key safety initiative in the FAA's current strategic plan for
reducing general aviation accidents in Alaska.

COMMERCIAL SPACE

The Committee recommends $11,759,000 for the Office of
Commercial Space Transportation, an amount equal to the budget
request.

FINANCIAL SERVICES

The Committee recommends $50,983,000 for financial
services, which is the same amount as the fiscal year 2006
budget estimate. The budget request presented funding for this
budget activity under the request for ``staff offices.'' The
Committee, however, recommends funding as a separate budget
activity.
Obligation Reports.--The Committee is concerned that the
FAA has discontinued sending quarterly reports that detail
obligations and transfers for each budget line in Facilities
and Equipment and Research, Engineering, and Development. The
FAA informed the Committee, after an inquiry, that the Agency
was unable temporarily to prepare the information due to the
conversion to a new cost accounting system. More than 18 months
later, however, the Agency still has not resumed transmission
of these valuable reports. The Committee directs the FAA to
submit a quarterly obligation report for each appropriation to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for each
appropriation. Each report shall be submitted no later than 15
days after the end of the quarter. In addition, the Committee
directs the FAA to submit a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations no later than November 31, 2005
that details all transfers among budget lines in the Facilities
and Equipment appropriation for fiscal year 2005.

HUMAN RESOURCES

The Committee recommends $69,943,000 for human resources.
The recommended level is the same as the budget request. The
budget request presented funding for this budget activity under
the request for ``staff offices.'' The Committee recommends
continuing to fund for this office as a separate budget
activity, consistent with the recommendation in previous
appropriations Acts.

REGION AND CENTER OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $150,744,000 for region and center
operations. The budget request presented this funding in the
``Staff offices'' request. The Committee recommendation
maintains funding as a separate budget activity.

STAFF OFFICES

The Committee provides $141,909,000 for staff offices. The
recommended level is the same as the budget estimate. The
Committee recommendation reflects realignment of funding for
financial services, human resources, region and center
operations, and information systems as distinct budget
activities.

INFORMATION SERVICES

The Committee recommends $36,112,000 for information
services, which is $500,000 less than the budget estimate. The
Committee's recommended reduction is due to lack of adequate
justification of the e-gov initiative. The Committee directs
that no funds shall be transferred to another agency in support
of e-gov initiatives.

FLIGHT SERVICE STATIONS TRANSITION

The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for one-time costs
associated with the flight service stations transition. The
recommendation is equal to the amount in the budget request.

ACCOUNT-WIDE ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommends a general reduction of $18,702,000
and gives the Administrator discretion to manage the reduction.
The Committee notes that the FAA's average full time equivalent
staff year cost is one of the highest of all Federal agencies.
The Committee expects the Administrator to accommodate the
reduction by reducing overtime, sick leave, and official time
costs; by improving productivity and training processes; and by
consolidating facilities without jeopardizing the safe and
efficient management of the National Airspace System [NAS].

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $2,519,680,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 2,448,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,053,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,448,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Facilities and Equipment [F&E] appropriation provides
funding for modernizing and improving air traffic control and
airway facilities, equipment, and systems. The appropriation
also finances major capital investments required by other
agency programs, experimental research and development
facilities, and other improvements to enhance the safety and
capacity of the airspace system. The program aims to keep pace
with the increasing demands of aeronautical activity and remain
in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration's
comprehensive 5-year capital investment plan [CIP].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,448,000,000
for the Facilities and Equipment of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The Committee recommendation is the same as the
budget estimate and is $71,680,000 less than the fiscal year
2005 enacted level. The bill provides that $2,024,579,000 is
available for obligation until September 30, 2008, and
$423,421,000 is available until September 30, 2006.
The Committee recommendations focus on reinforcing greater
accountability and mission goals, and strive for better or
alternative ways of improving and modernizing the system.
Furthermore, in reviewing the budget estimate for this account,
the Committee has placed priority on funding programs necessary
to upgrade current equipment for future capacity requirements
or programs that will enable the FAA to proceed with
initiatives to improve safety and initiatives to alleviate
congestion, reduce aircraft spacing, and increase the
efficiency of the NAS.
The FAA must take immediate steps to control personnel cost
growth and to impose budget and schedule discipline on major
acquisition programs in a time of fiscal constraints and
declining capital budget funding. Our Nation's air traffic
control system has failed to keep up with the increasing and
changing demands of civil aviation, and the FAA will not be
able to meet future demands and needs without changing and
improving the ways the Agency modernizes the NAS. This
challenge is unlikely to be met without changing the FAA
culture. Ultimately, changing the FAA culture is a long term
proposition, but the failure to do so will harm the aviation
industry, inconvenience the flying public, and serve as an
obstacle to national economic growth.
Budget Activities Format.--The Committee directs that the
fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Facilities and
Equipment account conform to the same organizational structure
of budget activities.
The Committee's recommended distribution of funds for each
of the budget activities funded by the appropriation follows:

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------
2005 enacted Committee
with 2006 estimate recommendation
rescission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1--Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation

Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping................. $58,602,400 $38,460,000 $75,960,000
Safe Flight 21.................................................. 44,098,368 32,950,000 42,950,000
Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications....................... 3,968,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground Communications 29,710,400 33,500,000 33,500,000
System (NEXCOM)................................................
User Request Evaluation Tool (URET)............................. .............. 73,300,000 68,300,000
Traffic Management Advisor (TMA)................................ .............. 24,000,000 22,000,000
Free Flight Phase 2............................................. 87,296,000 .............. ..............
Technology Demonstration--Lousville KY.......................... 1,488,000 .............. 3,000,000
NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory.................... 992,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Facilities................... 11,904,000 12,000,000 12,000,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure Sustainment... 4,265,600 5,100,000 4,100,000
Local Area Augmentation (LAAS) for GPS.......................... 9,920,000 .............. ..............
Global Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance System 9,920,000 .............. 15,000,000
(GCNSS)........................................................
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL ACTIVITY 1.......................................... 262,164,768 221,310,000 278,810,000
===============================================
Activity 2--Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment

En Route Programs:
En Route Automation Modernization (eRAM).................... .............. 341,550,000 327,550,000
En Route Communications Gateway (ECG)....................... .............. 6,000,000 6,000,000
En Route System Modification................................ .............. 34,600,000 34,600,000
En Route Automation Programs................................ 344,422,400 6,900,000 6,900,000
Next Generation Weather Radar [NEXRAD]--Provide............. 4,860,800 5,100,000 5,100,000
Weather and Radar Processor (WARP).......................... 4,662,400 10,500,000 10,500,000
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.............. 25,792,000 42,400,000 34,100,000
Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS)................... 23,907,200 7,500,000 7,500,000
Air Traffic Management (ATM)................................ 37,200,000 83,300,000 53,600,000
Critical Telecommunication Support.......................... 1,289,600 .............. ..............
Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure.................... 13,392,000 22,900,000 22,900,000
ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)--Replacement................ 9,920,000 15,400,000 18,600,000
Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities Improvements.. .............. 3,000,000 3,000,000
En Route Communications and Control Facilities Improvements. 1,012,634 1,864,500 1,864,500
Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS)................... 13,987,200 18,400,000 18,400,000
FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure....................... 70,580,800 57,800,000 57,800,000
Guam Center Radar Approach Control (CERAP)--Relocate........ 2,281,600 3,000,000 3,000,000
Oceanic Automation System................................... 47,616,000 35,700,000 35,700,000
ATOMS Local Area/Wide Area Network.......................... 992,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
Corrider Weather Integrated System (CWIS)................... 3,968,000 .............. ..............
Volcano Monitoring.......................................... 3,968,000 .............. 3,000,000
ARSR-4 Automated Technical Documentation.................... 1,984,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal En Route Programs................................ 611,836,634 698,114,500 652,314,500
===============================================
Terminal Programs:
Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X (ASDE-X)....... 47,616,000 27,200,000 27,200,000
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)--Provide.............. 7,936,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
Terminal Automation Phase 1................................. .............. 83,200,000 83,200,000
Terminal Automation Modernization Program................... 108,028,800 39,300,000 39,300,000
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace............ 127,000,800 85,400,000 105,100,000
ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Facilities-- 47,737,371 51,469,900 51,469,900
Improve....................................................
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/Enhancement 13,888,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
Terminal Voice Switch (ETVS)...............................
NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance.. 21,824,000 20,700,000 18,700,000
Houston Area Air Traffic System (HAATS)..................... 11,904,000 10,200,000 10,200,000
NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS)................. 9,920,000 17,000,000 17,000,000
Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9).......................... 20,534,400 26,200,000 26,200,000
Voice Recorder Replacement Program (VRRP)................... 7,043,200 5,500,000 5,500,000
Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11)............................. 86,800,000 60,600,000 60,600,000
DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer................................. 3,174,400 1,300,000 1,300,000
Precision Runway Monitors................................... 7,340,800 8,500,000 8,500,000
Terminal Radar (ASR)--Improve............................... 1,065,110 942,100 942,100
Terminal Communications--Improve............................ 1,120,365 1,463,000 1,463,000
Integrated Control and Monitoring........................... 3,472,000 .............. ..............
Terminal Automation......................................... 31,446,400 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Terminal Programs................................ 557,851,646 454,975,000 472,675,000
===============================================
Flight Service Programs:
Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)................... 7,737,600 4,500,000 4,500,000
FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation System 9,126,400 14,300,000 10,200,000
(OASIS)....................................................
Weather Message Switching Center Replacement (WMSCR)........ 992,000 .............. ..............
Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization.................. 1,289,600 1,800,000 1,800,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Flight Service Programs.......................... 19,145,600 20,600,000 16,500,000
===============================================
Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR) with Distance 1,984,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Measuring Equipment (DME)..................................
Instrument Landing System (ILS)--Establish.................. 41,014,240 8,200,000 14,025,000
Transponder Landing Systems................................. 6,944,000 .............. ..............
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for GPS................ 99,229,760 100,000,000 98,500,000
Runway Visual Range (RVR)................................... 1,388,800 6,000,000 6,000,000
Navigation and Landing Aids--Improve........................ 4,373,430 2,997,400 2,997,400
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program (ALSIP)........ 24,165,120 5,000,000 8,000,000
Distance Measuring Equipment (DME).......................... 992,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
Visual NAVAIDS--Establish/Expand............................ 3,174,400 1,600,000 1,600,000
LORAN-C..................................................... 22,320,000 .............. 10,000,000
Instrument Approach Procedures Automation (IAPA)............ 3,075,200 5,900,000 5,900,000
Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life Extension Program 1,984,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
(SLEP).....................................................
VASI Replacement--Replace with Precision Approach Path .............. 3,000,000 3,000,000
Indicator..................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Landing and Navigational Aids Programs......... 210,644,950 138,897,400 156,222,400
===============================================
Other ATC Facilities Programs:
Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring................ 2,976,000 6,700,000 2,976,000
FAA Buildings and Equipment................................. 10,939,380 11,400,000 11,400,000
Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support................... 39,680,000 45,000,000 40,000,000
Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local Projects)... 2,281,600 2,500,000 2,500,000
Aircraft Related Equipment Program.......................... 11,904,000 22,000,000 22,000,000
Computer Aided Engineering and Graphics (CAEG) Moderniza- 793,600 .............. ..............
tion.......................................................
Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustained Support............... 7,539,200 5,000,000 5,000,000
Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System (ANICS)..... .............. 600,000 600,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Other ATC Facilities Programs.................... 76,113,780 93,200,000 84,476,000
===============================================
TOTAL ACTIVITY 2.......................................... 1,475,592,610 1,405,786,900 1,382,187,900
===============================================
Activity 3--Non-Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment

Support Equipment:
NAS Management Automation Program (NASMAP).................. 992,000 .............. ..............
Hazardous Materials Management.............................. 14,880,000 17,000,000 15,100,000
Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS)...................... 6,844,800 13,200,000 13,200,000
Logistics Support Systems and Facilities (LSSF)............. 5,952,000 13,200,000 13,200,000
Test Equipment--Maintenance Support for Replacement......... 2,976,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center (NASDAC)...... 1,587,200 900,000 900,000
National Air Space (NAS) Recovery Communications (RCOM)..... 7,572,382 10,000,000 7,573,000
Facility Security Risk Management........................... 34,720,000 30,000,000 30,000,000
Information Security........................................ 7,936,000 12,000,000 8,000,000
Integrated Flight Quality Assurance (IFQA).................. .............. 2,000,000 2,000,000
System Approach for Safety Oversight (SASO)................. .............. 9,200,000 6,350,000
Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment (ASKME).... .............. 2,200,000 2,200,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Support Equipment................................ 83,460,382 112,700,000 101,523,000
===============================================
Training, Equipment and Facilities:
Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization............ 8,432,000 16,000,000 9,500,000
National Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities.......... 6,348,800 7,500,000 7,500,000
Distance Learning........................................... 1,488,000 1,900,000 1,900,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Training, Equipment and Facilities............... 16,268,800 25,400,000 18,900,000
===============================================
TOTAL ACTIVITY 3.......................................... 99,729,182 138,100,000 120,423,000
===============================================
Activity 4--Facilities and Equipment Mission Support

System Support and Services:
System Engineering and Development Support.................. 27,542,880 32,240,000 27,595,000
Safety Management System.................................... .............. 3,000,000 3,000,000
Program Support Leases...................................... 42,259,200 45,000,000 45,000,000
Logistics Support Services (LSS)............................ 7,836,800 9,700,000 9,700,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Leases.................... 14,086,400 13,500,000 13,500,000
Transition Engineering Support.............................. 29,760,000 24,000,000 24,000,000
Frequency and Spectrum Engineering.......................... 6,051,200 6,100,000 6,100,000
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) Moves..................... 1,517,760 500,000 500,000
Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC).................. 37,993,600 33,000,000 33,000,000
Resource Tracking Program (RTP)............................. 992,000 .............. ..............
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD)..... 84,617,600 69,600,000 69,600,000
NOTAMS and Aeronautical Information Programs................ 11,904,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
Flight Service Facilities--Improve.......................... .............. 1,163,100 1,163,100
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL ACTIVITY 4.......................................... 264,561,440 247,803,100 243,158,100
===============================================
Activity 5--Personnel and Related Expenses

Personnel and Related Expenses.................................. 417,632,000 435,000,000 423,421,000
===============================================
SUBTOTAL ALL ACTIVITIES................................... 2,519,680,000 2,448,000,000 2,448,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.--The
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping [ATDP] program
develops and validates technologies that support a range of
timely and critical initiatives within the Engineering,
Development, Test and Evaluation activity. The Committee
recommends $75,960,000 to be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Runway incursion reduction program..................... $7,100,000
System capacity, planning, and improvement............. 6,500,000
Separation standards................................... 2,500,000
General aviation and vertical flight technology program 1,500,000
Operational concept validation......................... 3,000,000
Safer skies............................................ 3,400,000
NAS safety assessments................................. 1,500,000
Wake turbulence........................................ 4,000,000
Airspace management laboratory......................... 7,000,000
NAS requirements....................................... 800,000
Wind profiling and weather research Juneau............. 3,160,000
Runway obstruction warning system...................... 1,000,000
Mobile object infrastructure technology................ 3,000,000
Airport technology program............................. 21,500,000
Airport cooperative research program................... 10,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Runway Obstruction Warning System.--The Committee
recommends an increase of $1,000,000 for the ATDP budget line
to continue development, enhancement, and evaluation of the
Runway Obstruction Warning System at the test bed at Gulfport-
Biloxi Airport.
Mobile Object Infrastructure Technology.--The Committee
recommends $3,000,000 to advance technology to pre-deployment
status and demonstrate the mobile object infrastructure
technology's ability to provide remote maintenance and
monitoring; data collection from disparate and unspecified
sources; quality assurance in a secure and dynamic
infrastructure; and, to establish an existing FAA lab as an
official system wide information management node.
Airport Technology.--The budget estimate included
$17,500,000 for airport technology research under the
limitation for ``Grants-in-Aid for Airports.'' The Committee
recommends funding for this research program in this budget
item because research is not an authorized use of airport
improvement funds. The Committee recommendation is $4,000,000
more than the budget request, and funds recommended in addition
to the estimate are for the airfield pavements research
program, the same amount as the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
The program is designed to develop safer, more cost-effective,
and durable asphalt and concrete airfield pavements.
Airport Cooperative Research Program.--The Committee
recommends $10,000,000 and .5 FTE to continue the airport
cooperative research program, which is equal to the budget
estimate and $7,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level. The Committee does not recommend transferring this
activity to ``Grants-in-aid for airports'' as proposed in the
budget request.
Safe Flight 21.--The Committee supports the Safe Flight 21
program and recommends $42,950,000, an increase of $10,000,000
above the budget estimate. The Committee recommends an
additional $10,000,000 to expedite deployment of ADS-B-based
technology. The Committee directs the FAA to submit a spend
plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not
more than 30 days after enactment of the accompanying Act.
User Request Evaluation Tool [URET].--The Committee
recommends $68,300,000, a reduction from the budget request of
$5,000,000. The Committee notes that 58 percent of the budget
estimate proposes to fund site maintenance and support
activities for all 20 sites even though the conflict probe
capability that URET provides was to be deployed to six centers
in fiscal year 2002. The Committee believes that support costs
should transition to the operations account within a reasonable
time after site deployment and activation. The Committee
recommendation supports the completion of deployment of URET to
the final two sites. Future requests for this budget item
should articulate the handoff from F&E activities to
operational responsibilities.
Traffic Management Advisor [TMA].--The Committee recommends
$22,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget request.
The reduction is to the request of $5,026,917 for program
management and field site support.
Technology Demonstration, Louisville International Airport,
KY.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to continue to use the
Louisville International Airport as a test bed for emerging air
traffic technologies that improve safety, security, and
efficiency of the Nation's airspace.
William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure
Sustainment.--The Committee recommends $4,100,000 for planning
and physical improvements to technical center, which is
$1,000,000 less than the budget request. The recommendation
includes $500,000 for the provision of additional parking areas
and fully funds the other activity tasks.
Global Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance System
[GCNSS].--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 to continue the
GCNSS program and develop a System Wide Information Management
[SWIM] architecture. GCNSS is a critical element in the FAA's
efforts to develop and demonstrate the SWIM architecture that
begins the transformation to a network-enabled air
transportation system, which in turn, will reduce FAA capital
and operational costs.

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

En Route Automation Modernization Program.--The Committee
recommends $327,550,000 for ERAM for fiscal year 2006, a
decrease of $14,000,000 from the budget request and an increase
of $66,554,800 over the fiscal year 2005 appropriated level.
The Committee believes this reduction can be easily
accommodated with appropriate management of the development
ERAM release 1. The Committee also notes that the FAA will
deploy the en route information display system [ERIDS] program
segment using a fixed-price strategy, and the reduction
reflects anticipated savings as a result of the revised
contract pricing strategy. The revisions are consistent with
the Committee's direction in fiscal year 2005 and the
recommendations of a report issued by the Department's
Inspector General on June 29, 2005.
The ERAM program is the largest and most complex program of
the FAA current acquisition programs. While ERAM is progressing
on schedule and within budget, the Committee is well aware that
most complex and challenging software development lays ahead in
fiscal year 2006 as well as integration testing of the
software. At precisely this stage, most major acquisition
programs experience considerable problems that caused
uncontrolled cost growth, schedule delays, and diminished
capabilities.
The FAA system engineering office has begun initial studies
of alternate deployment scenarios. The Committee directs the
FAA to provide the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations with a report on the findings of the analysis.
The Committee appreciates the presentation of the ERAM
program as separate budget lines and the improvements to the
justification materials for the program. The Committee
maintains that the justification would benefit from more
transparency of program measurements and milestones. The
Committee encourages the FAA to provide with the fiscal year
2007 detail regarding each procurement element and definition
and cost estimates for each activity task.
ARTCC Building Improvement/Plant Improvements.--The
Committee recommends $34,100,000 for the capital improvements
to the air route traffic control center buildings and plants.
The recommended level is $8,308,000 or 32 percent more than the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level and $8,300,000 less than the
budget request. The adjustment to the requested level can be
accommodated through careful management of engineering and
program management and sustainment activities.
Air Traffic Management [ATM].--The Committee recommendation
provides $53,600,000 for this budget item, a reduction of
$29,700,000 from the requested level and an increase of
$16,400,000 over the fiscal year 2005 appropriated level. An
appeal of this reduction will be considered before final
passage if a complete justification for the hardware and
software elements of the functional upgrades and designs is
provided to the Committee.
ATC Beacon Interrogator [ATCBI] Replacement.--The Committee
recommends $18,600,000 for acquisition, installation, and site
acceptance of air traffic control beacon interrogator-6 [ATCBI-
6] equipment. The recommended level is $3,200,000 more than the
budget estimate and $8,680,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. The Committee recommends $1,600,000 for site
preparation and equipment procurement for Jackson Hole, WY, and
$1,600,000 for site preparation and equipment procurement for
Central Oregon (Redmond), Oregon.
Integrated Terminal Weather System [ITWS].--The Committee
recommends $18,400,000, the same amount as the budget estimate.
The Committee recommendation includes not less than $1,600,000
for the replacement of the New York prototype ITWS with a
production ITWS system and for the continued operation of the
prototype ITWS until the production system becomes operational.
Oceanic Automation System [OAS].--The Committee recommends
$35,700,000. The recommendation is equal to the budget estimate
and is $11,916,000 less than the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level. It is unclear exactly what progress FAA is making with
ATOP, and there are disturbing developments with this important
program. FAA recently announced that ATOP became operational at
its New York facility, but at the same time announced delays
for its Oakland facility, which was the first site to receive
the new automated system. Further, even though FAA declared
ATOP ready for ``initial operations'' at Oakland, the system
was later deemed operationally unacceptable.
FAA has yet to explain how a new system could pass a
battery of tests--including factory acceptance and site
acceptance testing--and be declared ready to control live
traffic but then found unsatisfactory to do so. The Committee
questions FAA's testing regime as well as cost and timetables
for ATOP considering that FAA has adjusted the contract twice
in the last 12 months to keep ATOP on schedule. The Committee
directs FAA to provide the Committee with a clear understanding
of where the program stands and a schedule for when ATOP will
be ready to control live traffic at all sites 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.
Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X [ASDE-X].--The
Committee reasserts its view that the ASDE-X program is no
longer a ``low cost'' alternative to more expensive airport
surface radars, such as the ASDE-3. FAA committed to completing
deployment of the system by fiscal year 2007, but the schedule
has slipped to fiscal year 2009--a delay of 2 years. Although
FAA has procured 35 ASDE-X systems, installation has become the
major stumbling block. In fact, FAA has yet to deploy systems
to more than half of the planned sites due to changes in system
design and additional requirements, so that only two systems
have been commissioned.
The Committee is troubled that FAA has been slow to install
these new systems. The Committee strongly encourages FAA to use
innovative ways for conducting site surveys and installing
ASDE-X systems, including the use of private firms with
requisite expertise subject to FAA certification. The Committee
also directs FAA to provide priority listing of which airports
will receive ASDE-X system as well as the criteria used to make
these decisions.
Terminal Automation Modernization Program.--The Committee
recommendation provides $39,000,000, an amount equal to the
budget request and an increase of $7,300,000 from the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level. The Committee continues to be
concerned by the growing cost of this budget line item that
originally was described as temporary and a necessary bridge
until STARS was fully installed. The Committee directs the FAA
to provide a plan to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by September 30, 2005 for this budget activity,
including a plan for competing the terminal sustainment and
display replacement activities.
The Committee remains concerned that FAA has not yet
provided cost estimates and timetables for completing Standard
Terminal Automation Replacement [STARS] program as directed in
Committee reports accompanying the fiscal years 2004 and 2005
appropriations. This is unacceptable given the importance of
the effort and extent of the cost and schedule programs
experienced thus far. Moreover, it is perplexing that FAA is
making so much of the next generation air traffic management
system, and seeking ways to pay for it, when the Agency cannot
complete a critical effort like STARS that was scheduled to be
completed years ago.
FAA's most recent decision, the Terminal Automation
Modernization Review [TAMR], addresses only 9 sites, including
4 III-E sites described as critical and 5 smaller II-E sites
also described as critical. This leaves more than 100 sites
that have not been addressed, a decision about them is at least
a year away and that decision will not be reflected until the
fiscal year 2008 budget request. FAA must develop an ability to
manage its capital programs for terminal modernization, and the
development of that capability starts with a clear
understanding of what needs to be modernized, when it needs to
be modernized, how it needs to be modernized, and a plan to
meet the challenges posed by those understandings.
The Committee understands that FAA has explored various
prototype solutions over the years, including a STARS display
on a Common ARTS platform and STARS LITE for the II-E sites.
FAA should endeavor to apply technologies and equipment
developed in the STARS program as it formulates a plan to
modernize the remaining III-E and II-E sites. A plan to
modernize the remaining sites should maximize the utility of
already invested taxpayers' resources consistent with the
rationale behind the STARS procurement.
The FAA is directed to provide the Committee with a cost
constrained plan for terminal automation replacement that takes
into account display replacement at the remaining sites; the
need for a technical refresh of the underlying Common ARTS
software at the 4 III-E sites in the TAMR review; consolidation
of II-E sites where feasible; a detailed life-cycle cost
estimate for continued sustainment of the old Common ARTS
platform and, a timetable for competing those remaining sites
if it is decided that they will not be modernized with STARS
equipment.
The FAA should submit this plan with the submission of the
fiscal year 2007 budget request. Any terminal automation
modernization commitments made before that plan is submitted
are directed to be competed and the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations are to be briefed not less than 10 days
before the competitive solicitation is advertised.
Volcano Monitoring.--The Committee recommendation provides
$3,000,000 to continue the volcano monitoring program, which is
$968,000 less than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities Replacement.--The
Committee recommendation includes $105,100,000 for new and
replacement air traffic control tower [ATCT] and ATCT/TRACON
consolidation projects, an increase of $19,700,000 from the
budget request. Funding shall be available for the following
projects in the corresponding amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addision Field, Dallas, TX.............................. $1,500,000
Battle Creek, MI........................................ 1,600,000
Billings, MT............................................ 1,800,000
Boise, ID............................................... 7,700,000
Broomfield, CO.......................................... 1,220,000
Champaign, IL........................................... 2,200,000
Cleveland, OH........................................... 18,225,000
Dayton, OH.............................................. 1,300,000
Deer Valley, AZ......................................... 2,300,000
Dulles International, Chantilly, VA..................... 4,500,000
Fort Wayne, IN.......................................... 1,300,000
Gulfport/Biloxi, MS..................................... 5,000,000
Huntsville, AL.......................................... 2,216,000
Kona, HI................................................ 2,000,000
LaGuardia Int'l, NY..................................... 10,000,000
Lihue, HI............................................... 2,000,000
Manchester, NH.......................................... 1,300,000
Memphis, TN............................................. 2,300,000
Memphis, TN............................................. 16,100,000
Morristown, NJ.......................................... 1,150,000
Morristown, NJ.......................................... 8,339,000
Newport News, VA........................................ 2,300,000
Phoenix, AZ............................................. 2,450,000
Reno, NV................................................ 3,300,000
Spokane, WA............................................. 3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barnstable, Massachusetts Tower Replacement.--The Committee
is aware that the Barnstable, MA airport is currently in the
midst of a terminal expansion program as a result of increased
enplanements. The Committee understands that the FAA is in the
process of developing an air traffic control tower renovation
and replacement master plan. The Committee directs the FAA to
assess the need and benefit of replacing the tower at the
Barnstable Municipal Airport (Boardman-Polando Field) as part
of this master plan and to report the results to the Committee.
Spokane Tower.--The Committee includes $3,000,000 for the
demolition or relocation of seven buildings that are in the
line-of-sight of the new air traffic control tower currently
under construction. The Committee also understands that the
need to build additional duct banks and other costs will
require additional resources in fiscal year 2006 in order for
the tower to be commissioned on August 27, 2007. The Committee
understands, however, that the FAA intends to utilize
unobligated balances within the tower program to fully cover
these additional costs.
Airport Traffic Control Tower [ATCT]/TRACON Facilities
Improvement.--The Committee recommends $51,469,900 for
improvements to terminal facilities and equipment, which is an
amount equal to the budget request. The Committee
recommendation includes funding for the following improvement,
rehabilitation, and sustainment projects in the amounts listed
below:

IMPROVE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Description Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage, AK...................... Upgrade LPGB/Seismic Compliance............................ $758,641
Kansas City, MO.................... Replace HVAC control system................................ 130,000
Bellevue, NE....................... Install 2 direct expansion rooftop units................... 58,200
Kansas City, MO.................... Recaulk tower joints....................................... 131,250
Lincoln, NE........................ Upgrade and replace HVAC................................... 371,332
Columbia, MO....................... General refer.............................................. 183,860
Des Moines, IA..................... Replace siding............................................. 149,364
Westbury, NY....................... Renovate environmental equip rooms......................... 223,000
Westbury, NY....................... Replace cooling towers..................................... 483,000
Westbury, NY....................... Relocate chilled and condenser pumps and motors............ 264,000
Flint, MI.......................... General refurb............................................. 378,040
Aurora, IL......................... General refurb............................................. 201,420
Janesville, WI..................... General refurb............................................. 95,380
Burlington, VT..................... Install membrane style roof................................ 128,500
Tampa, FL.......................... Completely refurb TRACON................................... 567,000
Sanford, FL........................ Additional D-BRITE and ARTS MDBM........................... 207,530
Fort Sill, OK...................... ARAC Consolidation into OKC TRACON......................... 7,236,070
Ontario, CA........................ Replace HVAC/Seismic Compliance............................ 402,602
Pittsburgh, PA..................... Refurb elevator............................................ 111,550
Buffalo, NY........................ Expand base building....................................... 865,180
Lincoln, NE........................ Stars Facility Upgrade--Construction....................... 219,641
Harrisburg, PA..................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Construction....................... 224,641
Lubbox, TX......................... Facility General Refurbish................................. 694,830
Fargo, SD.......................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 129,673
Midland, TX........................ Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 109,266
Florence, SC....................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 66,032
Bakersfield, CA.................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 69,929
Lexington, KY...................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 57,565
Outagamie, WI...................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 78,250
Monroe, LA......................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 60,425
Sioux Falls, SD.................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 60,425
DFW East, TX....................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 70,407
DFW West, TX....................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 70,407
DFW Center, TX..................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 70,407
Fort Worth Alliance, TX............ Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 78,250
Fort Worth Meacham, TX............. Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 70,854
Dallas Love Field, TX.............. Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 78,250
Grand Prairie, TX.................. Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 80,425
New York TRACON, NY................ Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 63,333
Caldwell, NJ....................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 56,160
White Plains, NY................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 76,119
Poughkeepsie, NY................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 56,160
New York Kennedy, NY............... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 97,739
Farmingdale, NY.................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 109,266
Capital City, PA................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Construction....................... 252,310
Columbia, SC....................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Construction....................... 425,557
Fayetteville, NC................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Construction....................... 583,673
Montgomery, AL..................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Construction....................... 534,926
Gulfport, MS....................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 62,458
Colorado Springs, CO............... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 74,992
Cape Cod, MA....................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 54,654
Nantucket, MA...................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 54,654
Hyannis, MA........................ Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 45,000
Matha's Vineyard, MA............... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 62,599
Clarksburg, WV..................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 56,160
Morgantown, WV..................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 56,160
Kalamazoo, MI...................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 98,250
Bossier City, LA................... Facility General Refurbish................................. 1,270,340
Shreveport, LA..................... Facility General Refurbish................................. 23,850
Houma, LA.......................... Facility General Refurbish................................. 130,060
Carlsbad, CA....................... Modernize term fac/seismic upgrade......................... 1,157,025
Teterboro, NJ...................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 66,032
Danbury, CT........................ Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 56,160
New Haven, CT...................... Stars Facility Upgrade--Design............................. 66,032
ACE Various........................ ........................................................... 79,173
AEA Various........................ ........................................................... 154,000
AGL Various........................ ........................................................... 181,000
ANE Various........................ ........................................................... 80,000
AAL Various........................ ........................................................... 64,000
ANM Various........................ ........................................................... 118,000
ASO Various........................ ........................................................... 171,000
ASW Various........................ ........................................................... 145,000
AWP Various........................ ........................................................... 199,000
Denver, CO......................... Remediate soil heave problem............................... 177,000
---------------
Total........................ ........................................................... 22,193,438
===============
REGIONAL PROJECTS

Anchorage, AK...................... Refurb Tower--Ceiling, Carpet repair....................... 151,200
Anchorage, AK...................... Humidification System Installation......................... 66,000
Fairbanks, AK...................... Replace ceiling tiles, lighting, carpet shades............. 74,700
Reading, PA........................ Replace repair ATCT chiller plant.......................... 50,000
Rochester, NY...................... Resurface parking lot and service road..................... 59,700
Teterboro, NJ...................... ATCT improve refurb tower.................................. 151,400
Middletown, PA..................... Refurb Tower--Ceiling, Carpet repair....................... 38,300
Clarksburg, WV..................... Paint CKB ATCT interior.................................... 33,000
Pittsburgh, PA..................... Repair ceiling and walls................................... 38,500
Clarksburg, WV..................... CKB ATCT window replacement................................ 11,500
Allentown, WV...................... Repair ABE ATCT parking lot................................ 19,500
Lancaster, PA...................... Reseal bldg and repair structure........................... 20,000
N. Philadelphia, PA................ Modernize ATCT............................................. 83,400
Ithaca, NY......................... Reseal bldg and repair structure........................... 83,200
New York, NY....................... Install new public address system.......................... 145,100
Allentown, PA...................... Modernize ATCT............................................. 67,000
Teterboro, NJ...................... Install smoking booth...................................... 18,800
Lancaster, PA...................... Repaint tower exterior..................................... 25,000
Norfolk, VA........................ Construct a storage building at ATCT....................... 137,500
Albany, NY......................... Replace 486 computers with 2 SAID displays................. 52,900
New Haven, CT...................... Replace entrance to the ATCT base building................. 30,000
Portland, OR....................... Modify PDX ATCT Center Console............................. 60,300
Yakima, WA......................... Replace 500kVA transformer and breakers.................... 74,200
Englewood, CO...................... Install 3rd tower radar display at ATCT.................... 10,000
Sea Boeing, WA..................... Add STARS equipment at Boeing field ATCT................... 19,200
Covington, KY...................... Install 3rd final radar monitor position................... 354,900
Covington, KY...................... Install 3rd arrival final radar pos........................ 223,100
Covington, KY...................... Establish 3rd local control position....................... 207,600
Covington, KY...................... Install printers at 4 radar positions...................... 16,500
Covington, KY...................... Relocate grand control position............................ 118,200
Peachtree, GA...................... Replace HVAC............................................... 166,100
Covington, KY...................... Coordinator Console........................................ 60,400
Charlotte, NC...................... Replace Plumbing........................................... 51,000
Chino, CA.......................... Obtain 2nd d-brite for tower cab........................... 27,400
Kearny Mesa, CA.................... Dbrite radar display installation, ceiling repair.......... 20,700
La Verne, CA....................... Install portable rechargeable light gum.................... 6,300
Tucson, AZ......................... Complete rehabilitation of TRACON restroom................. 179,400
Sacramento, CA..................... Provide new potable water piping........................... 46,500
Long Beach, CA..................... Replace elevator control system............................ 64,100
San Diego, CA...................... Recessed curb ramps........................................ 14,100
SN Luis OBSP, CA................... Replace the elastomeric roofing material ATCT.............. 30,500
Prescott, AZ....................... Replace carpet............................................. 6,000
Cleveland, OH...................... Siding Project--ATCT....................................... 102,500
Mansfield, OH...................... Reroof Tower............................................... 52,000
Ann Arbor, MI...................... Reroof Tower............................................... 52,000
Aurora, IL......................... Reroof Tower............................................... 52,000
Minneapolis, MN.................... Reconfigure Console Equipment.............................. 15,200
Detroit, MI........................ Repair and insulate roof................................... 70,000
Olive Branch, MS................... Establish direct voice shout line.......................... 11,600
Reid Hillview, CA.................. Resurface parking lot and service road..................... 18,800
San Luis Obapo, CA................. Replace roof............................................... 30,500
Scottsdale, AZ..................... Replace A/C system......................................... 148,000
Hilo, HI........................... Replace roof............................................... 50,000
Orlando, FL........................ Connectivity of reconfiguration airspace................... 17,600
Grand Forks, ND.................... Enlarge ATCT............................................... 172,100
Minneapolis, MN.................... Reorganize FD/CD position.................................. 15,200
Sioux Falls, SD.................... Install HVAC............................................... 15,000
New Orleans, LA.................... Facility General Refurbish................................. 211,500
Traverse City, MI.................. Reroof Tower............................................... 52,000
Minot, ND.......................... Reroof Tower............................................... 52,000
LaCrosse, WI....................... Reroof Tower............................................... 52,000
Cleveland, OH...................... Reroof Tower............................................... 52,000
Milwaukee, WI...................... Reroof Base Building....................................... 81,000
Grand Fork, ND..................... Replace Carpet............................................. 10,000
Madison, WI........................ TRACON Reconfiguration..................................... 154,400
Lansing, MI........................ New Lighting............................................... 32,200
Duluth, MN......................... Replace Carpet............................................. 23,700
Akron, OH.......................... Model Break room........................................... 63,900
Grand Forks, ND.................... ATCT Expand Parking Lot.................................... 49,500
---------------
Total........................ ........................................................... 4,769,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards
Compliance.--The Committee recommends $18,700,000 for this
budget line. The Committee recommendation is made without
prejudice to fund higher priorities.
Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends
$60,600,000, the same amount as the budget request. The
Committee recommendation supports funding to procure 6 radar
sites at Gulfport, MS; Green Bay, WI; Monterey, CA; South Bend,
IN; Kalamazoo, MI; and Midland, TX. The recommended level also
provides funds for the construction of 10 radar facilities at
Mobile, AL; North Valley, AZ; Little Rock, AR; Lexington, KY;
Saginaw, MI; Sioux City, IA; Gulfport, MS; Amarillo, TX;
Peoria, IL; and Green Bay, WI.
The Committee is aware of the gap in radar coverage in
north central Kansas that affects airports at Salina and
Manhattan as well as a number of military facilities. The
Committee encourages the FAA to cooperatively work with the
Department of Defense and U.S. Army to develop a surveillance
solution that would provide improved radar coverage for the
Salina Airport and serve the needs of the U.S. Army.
The Committee is aware also of the desire for a terminal
radar to serve the region around the Santa Fe Airport in New
Mexico. The Committee encourages the FAA to work with Santa Fe
to improve radar coverage for the area.
FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation System
[OASIS].--The Committee recommends $10,300,000, a reduction of
$4,100,000 from the budget estimate and an increase of
$1,073,600 from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The
Committee recommendation sustains lease services at 16 sites
and 3 support systems until the FAA phases out the system.
Instrument Landing System [ILS] Establishment.--The
Committee recommends $14,025,000 for establishment of
instrument landing systems, which includes $4,400,000 for cost-
sharing initiatives in which the FAA and airports share the
costs of certain systems, including ILS, lighting, and
navigational aids. The Committee directs funds to be
distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, FL..... Install previously $1,800,000
procured approach
lighting systems
(runway 31).
Hartsfield-Jackson International, Aquire and install 400,000
GA. replacement LPDME.
Keokuk Municipal, IA.............. Install previously 550,000
aquired glide slope.
Klawock, AK....................... Install previously 1,800,000
aquired ILS.
Long Beach, CA.................... Install previously 2,000,000
procured approach
lighting systems
(runway 25R).
McCook Municipal, NE.............. Phase II 675,000
installation of
glide slope and
PAPI sys- tem.
Western Nebraska (Scottsbuff) Acquire and install 1,900,000
Regional, NE. glide slope and
MALSR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the Committee recommends $500,000 for the FAA
to conduct site survey to determine costs and feasibility for
installing instrument landing systems at the following
airports: Reno/Tahoe International, NV; University Park, PA;
Aiken Municipal, SC; Wendover, UT; and Menomonie Municipal--
Score Field, WI.
Wide Area Augmentation System.--The Committee
recommendation includes $98,500,000 for the Wide Area
Augmentation System [WAAS] for fiscal year 2006, a decrease of
$1,500,000 from the budget request. The Committee is aware that
the DOT Inspector General has noted that delays in the
development of flight procedures and user equipage continue to
be a risk to WAAS implementation. The Committee has reduced
funding for software support due to budget constraints.
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP].--The
Committee recommends $8,000,000 for procurement and
installation of frangible approach lighting equipment including
high intensity approach lighting system with sequenced flashing
lights [ALSF-2] and medium intensity approach lighting system
[MALSR]. The recommended level is $3,000,000 more than the
budget estimate and $16,165,120 less than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. The recommendation includes $3,000,000 to
continue the program of providing lighting systems at rural
airfields throughout Alaska.
In addition, the Committee is concerned with the slow pace
of developing a new specification for MALSR. The Committee
directs the FAA to submit a letter to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations that indicates the schedule for
issuing the new MALSR specification.
Loran-C.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue
the program to modernize the Loran-C navigation system. The
Committee is aware that recapitalization of the loran
radionavigational system in the contiguous United States has
largely been completed, but notes that substantial work remains
in Alaska.
Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring.--The
Committee recommends $2,976,000 for fuel storage tank
management, the same amount as the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level. The reduction is made without prejudice due to higher
budget priorities.
The Committee is aware that the Tonopah, NV radar site is
subject to frequent power surges, which result in losses of
radar coverage in the area. The Committee encourages the FAA to
consider acquiring and installing an uninterruptible power
source or engine generator electrical system at the radar site.
Electrical Power Systems-Sustain/Support.--The Committee
recommendation provides $40,000,000 for the electrical power
systems program, which is $320,000 more than the fiscal year
2005 level and $5,000,000 less than the budget request.

NON-AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

Hazardous Materials Management.--The Committee recommends
$15,100,000 for the hazardous materials management program. The
Committee recommendation is an inflationary increase of
$220,000 from the fiscal year 2005 appropriated level and a
reduction of $1,900,000 from the budget estimate.
National Airspace System [NAS] Recovery Communications
[RCOM].--The Committee recommendation provides $7,573,000 for
this budget item, the same level as the adjusted appropriation
in fiscal year 2005 and a reduction of $2,427,000 from the
fiscal year 2006 requested level. This reduction can be
accommodated by constraining other C3 efforts and by stretching
out the completion of the hardware procurement.
Information Security.--The Committee recommendation
provides $8,000,000 for this budget item, a reduction of
$4,000,000 from the requested level and the same amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2005. This funding is adequate to
pursue the current information security improvements to prevent
and isolate intrusion in the Agency's computer networks.
System Approach for Safety Oversight [SASO].--The Committee
recommends $6,350,000 for this new program, which is $2,850,000
less than the budget estimate. Some of the activities related
to re-engineering business process models are not capital
expenses. In addition, the Committee is concerned by the vague
and overly general description of the initiative in the
justifications materials as well as by the lack of specificity
about future funding requirements.
Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization.--The
Committee recommends $9,500,000 for improvements to the
aeronautical center, an increase of $1,068,000 from the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level and a reduction of $6,500,000 from the
budget request. The recommendation provides sufficient funds to
make significant improvements in the Mike Monroney Aeronautical
Center facilities and to address the most critical deficiencies
in those facilities.

MISSION SUPPORT

System Engineering and Development Support.--The Committee
recommendation provides $27,595,000 for system engineering and
technical assistance [SETA] and other contract support. The
recommendation is the same level appropriated in fiscal year
2005 and a reduction of $4,645,000 from the budget estimate.
Funding in this budget line has increased by 15 percent since
fiscal year 2003, even as funding for ``Facilities and
Equipment'' has decreased. The reduction is appropriate given
the declining level of resources compared to the fiscal year
2005 enacted level. The Committee directs the FAA to submit a
list to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of
all major programs that have been cancelled as a direct result
of SETA investment analysis by December 31, 2005.

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

Personnel and Related Expenses.--The Committee
recommendation provides $423,421,000.

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $129,880,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 130,000,000
House allowance......................................... 130,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 134,500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Research, Engineering and Development [RE&D]
appropriation provides funding for long-term research,
engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic
control system by increasing its safety and capacity, as well
as reducing the environmental impacts of air traffic, as
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the
Federal Aviation Act, as amended. The programs are designed to
meet the expected air traffic demands of the future and to
promote flight safety through improvements in facilities,
equipment, techniques, and procedures in order to ensure that
the system will safely and efficiently handle future volumes of
aircraft traffic.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $134,500,000 for the FAA's
research, engineering, and development activities. The
recommended level of funding is $4,500,000 more than budget
request and $4,620,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level.
A table showing the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2006 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
2005 enacted 2006 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
Fire research and safety.................................... $6,525,376 $6,244,000 $6,244,000
Propulsion and fuel systems................................. 7,114,624 4,049,000 5,049,000
Advanced material/structural safety......................... 6,643,424 2,613,000 3,213,000
Atmospheric hazards/digital system safety................... 4,086,048 3,441,000 3,441,000
Aging aircraft.............................................. 18,997,792 19,007,000 20,077,000
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research........... 1,107,072 3,340,000 3,340,000
Flightdeck maintenance/system integration human factors..... 11,699,648 8,181,000 8,181,000
Aviation safety risk analysis............................... 8,570,880 4,932,000 4,932,000
Air traffic control airways facility human factors.......... 9,391,264 9,654,000 9,654,000
Aeromedical research........................................ 10,078,720 6,889,000 8,889,000
Weather program--safety..................................... 20,671,296 20,582,000 20,582,000
Improve Efficiency:
Joint Program and Development Office........................ 5,059,200 18,100,000 17,000,000
Wake Turbulence............................................. 4,261,632 2,296,000 2,296,000
Reduce Environment Impacts: Environment and Energy.............. 11,794,880 16,008,000 17,008,000
Mission Support:
System Planning and Resource Management..................... 515,840 1,271,000 1,201,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility...... 3,361,888 3,393,000 3,393,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 129,879,584 130,000,000 134,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes across the board rescission.

IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

Fire Research and Safety.--The Committee recommends
$6,244,000 for fire research and safety, the same amount as the
budget request.
Propulsion and Fuel Systems.--The Committee recommends
$5,049,000 for propulsion and fuel systems research to reduce
commercial fatalities. The Committee provides $500,000 to
complete the evaluation of the effects of molecular markers
designed for the purpose of detecting adulteration or dilution
of jet fuel for use in aviation engines. The Committee
recommends $300,000 to continue research into technologies for
modifications of existing general aviation piston engines to
enable safe operation using unleaded aviation fuel.
The recommended level of funding also includes $500,000 for
further research into the performance and combustion
characteristics of aviation grade ethanol fuels at South Dakota
State University.
Advanced Materials/Structural Safety.--The Committee
recommends $3,213,000 for advanced materials/structural safety
research. The recommendation is an increase of $600,000 from
the budget estimate and a decrease of $3,430,424 from the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The Committee recommends
$500,000 to support and improve ongoing metallic and composite
structures research at the National Institute for Aviation
Research and $400,000 for advanced materials research at the
University of Washington.
Center of Excellence for General Aviation Research
[CGAR].--The Committee notes that the FAA has supported the
research efforts of the Center of Excellence for General
Aviation Research [CGAR] which is a consortium of the aviation
industry and five universities--Embry Riddle Aeronautical
University; the University of North Dakota; Wichita State
University; University of Alaska; and, Florida Agricultural and
Mechanical University. The Committee supports the continued
funding of the research of CGAR and recommends $400,000 for
CGAR in the propulsion on fuel system budget activity and
$100,000 in the aging aircraft budget activity.
Aging Aircraft.--The Committee recommends $20,077,000 for
the aging aircraft program to reduce commercial aviation
fatalities and to continue the collaborative efforts between
the FAA and several public and private organizations. The
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the Center for Aviation
Systems Reliability [CASR]; $1,265,000 for the Aging Aircraft
Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center [AANC]; $1,000,000
for the National Institute for Aviation Research; and,
$1,325,000 for the Center for Aviation Research and Aerospace
Technology [CARAT]; and assumes continued support for the
Engine Titanium Consortia.
Flight Safety/Atmospheric Hazards Research.--The Committee
recommends $5,167,000, which is $235,000 more than the budget
estimate. The recommendation includes $235,000 to continue
development of in-flight simulator training for commercial
pilots at the Flight Research Training Center.
Aeromedical Research.--The Committee recommends $8,889,000
for aeromedical research, an increase of $2,000,000 above the
budget estimate. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 to
continue studies related to cabin air quality to be conducted
by the center of excellence for cabin environment research.

IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

Joint Program and Development Office.--The Committee
recommends $17,000,000 for FAA's contribution to the multi-
agency Joint Planning and Development Office [JPDO]. This
office represents the Departments of Defense, Commerce,
Transportation, and Homeland Security, in addition to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the FAA, in
developing the next generation air transportation system. The
JPDO, and its charter, was established and charged in Public
Law 108-176.
The JPDO has the potential to shape the next generation air
traffic management system by coordinating and focusing the
research efforts and procurement decisions of the participating
Federal agencies. The Committee, however, is concerned that the
JPDO has not established firm expectations for what it can and
should deliver in the short- and long-term and has not
developed budget or cost estimates that are fundamental for
making informed choices for future development. This is
particularly important given the complex mission to transform
the current system and FAA's inability to bring successfully
new capabilities on line that can enhance capacity.
The JPDO released its first plan in late 2004, but it did
not address what new capabilities it would pursue or the
related funding requirements. There are several potential core
capabilities, including automatic dependent surveillance-
broadcast [ADS-B], that appear to be candidates for early
deployment. An important measure for evaluating the JPDO will
be how it shapes, modifies, initiates, and even eliminates
various acquisition programs. The JPDO will ultimately be just
another internal layer of management unless the office has and
uses the authority to influence procurement programs,
priorities, and timetables. The Committee believes that the
JPDO can assist the administration in cutting through the
seemingly interminable and ineffective efforts to this point to
improve the acquisition agenda at the FAA and to help match
FAA's operational imperatives with acquisition execution.
Because of the potential funding implications and
adjustments to existing FAA programs, the Committee directs the
DOT Inspector General to provide an assessment of the current
acquisition decision-making process and how to best integrate
the JPDO into that process. The DOT IG should give special
attention to how FAA acquisition elements, both internal to the
FAA and contracted services funded by the Facilities and
Equipment appropriation, are also involved in the acquisition
process and whether those functions would be better suited as a
responsibility of the JPDO.

REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF AVIATION

Environment and Energy.--The Committee recommends
$17,008,000 for research to reduce environmental impacts. The
recommended level is $1,000,000 more than the budget estimate
and $5,213,120 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
The recommended level includes $1,000,000 for aerospace
propulsion particulate emissions research at the consortium
coordinated by the University of Missouri--Rolla.

MISSION SUPPORT

System Planning & Resource Management.--The Committee
provides $1,201,000, which is slightly less than the 2006
budget estimate.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $2,800,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 3,300,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,600,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,390,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account finances a program of grants to fund airport
planning and development, noise compatibility planning and
projects, the military airport program, reliever airports,
airport program administration, and other authorized activities
for public use airports in all States and territories.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,390,000,000 for liquidation of
obligations incurred pursuant to contract authority for grants-
in-aid for airports. The recommended liquidation of contract
authorization is $90,000,000 more than budget estimate and
$590,000,000 more than fiscal year 2005 enacted level. This is
consistent with the Committee's limitation on obligations for
airport grants for fiscal year 2006 and for the payment of
obligations from previous fiscal years.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2005........................................ $3,472,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 3,000,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,600,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,500,000,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$3,500,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year 2006,
which is $500,000,000 more than the budget estimate and
$28,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The
Committee recommendation is sufficient to continue the
important tasks of enhancing airport and airway safety,
ensuring that airport standards continue to be met, maintaining
existing airport capacity, and developing additional capacity.
A table showing the distribution of these funds according
to current law compared to the fiscal year 2005 level and the
President's budget request follows:

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2005 enacted 2006 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation Limitation........................................ $3,472,000,000 $3,000,000,000 $3,500,000,000
Personnel and Related Expenses........................... 68,251,584 81,346,584 71,096,000
Airport Technology Research.............................. ............... 17,500,000 ...............
Small Community Air Service.............................. 19,840,000 ............... 20,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Available for AIP Grants............................... 3,383,908,416 2,901,153,416 3,408,904,000
==================================================
Emergency Assistance to Airports............................. 25,000,000 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total AIP.............................................. 3,497,000,000 3,000,000,000 3,500,000,000
==================================================
Primary Airports............................................. 903,365,316 816,280,396 903,768,585
Cargo Service Airports....................................... 118,436,795 91,710,881 119,311,640
Alaska Supplemental (Sec. 4714(e))........................... 21,345,114 21,345,114 21,345,114
States (General Aviation):
Non-Primary Entitlement.................................. 384,493,376 347,620,461 341,147,527
State Apportionment by Formula........................... 292,288,307 176,988,919 340,633,273
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 676,781,683 524,062,177 681,780,800
==================================================
Carryover Entitlement........................................ 415,911,084 400,000,000 400,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Entitlements.................................. 2,135,839,992 1,853,398,567 2,126,206,139
==================================================
Small Airport Fund:
Non Hub Airports......................................... 222,164,063 196,254,528 217,288,910
Non Commercial Service................................... 111,082,031 98,127,264 108,644,455
Small Hub................................................ 55,541,016 49,063,632 54,322,227
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Small Airport Fund............................ 388,787,110 343,445,424 380,255,592
==================================================
Subtotal Non Discretionary............................. 2,524,627,102 2,196,843,991 2,506,461,731
==================================================
Discretionary Set-Aside: Noise............................... 300,748,460 162,489,138 315,854,794
Discretionary Set-Aside: Reliever............................ 5,671,257 3,064,081 5,956,119
Discretionary Set-Aside: Military Airport Program............ 34,371,253 18,570,187 26,097,691
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Discretionary Set-asides...................... 340,790,969 184,123,406 347,908,604
==================================================
C/S/S/N...................................................... 388,867,759 390,139,514 408,400,249
Pure Discretionary........................................... 129,622,586 130,046,505 136,133,416
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Other Discretionary........................... 518,490,345 520,186,019 544,533,665
==================================================
Subtotal Discretionary................................. 859,281,314 704,309,425 902,442,269
==================================================
TOTAL AIP GRANTS....................................... 3,383,908,416 2,901,153,416 3,408,904,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Airport Discretionary Grants.--Within the budgetary
resources provided in the accompanying bill, $902,442,269 is
available for discretionary grants to airports. The Committee
has carefully considered a broad array of discretionary grant
requests that can be expected in fiscal year 2006.
Specifically, the Committee expects the FAA to give priority
consideration to applications for the projects listed below in
the categories of AIP for which they are eligible. If funds in
the remaining discretionary category are used for any projects
in fiscal year 2006 that are not listed below, the Committee
expects that they will be for projects for which FAA has issued
letters of intent (including letters of intent the Committee
recommends below that the FAA issues subsequently), or for
projects that will produce significant aviation safety
improvements or significant improvements in systemwide capacity
or otherwise have a very high benefit/cost ratio.
Within the program levels recommended, the Committee
directs that priority be given to applications involving the
further development of the following airports:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Airport Name Project Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport terminal improvements.
AL Abbeville Municipal Runway extension.
AL Huntsville International--Jones Construct Taxiway L.
Field
AL Mobile Regional Rehabilitate Access Road.
AL Mobile Regional Airport Land acquisition for future
Runway RPZ.
AR Boone County Regional Airport Acquire aircraft rescue and
firefighting vehicle.
AR Texarkana Regional Airport Construct Aircraft Firefighting
and Rescue station.
AR Jonesboro Municipal Airport Taxiway Lighting.
AR Stuttgart Municipal Airport Rehabilitate taxiway and apron.
AR Northwest Arkansas Regional Airfield drainage improvements
Airport and construct parallel
taxiway.
AZ Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport Taxiway Reconstruction.
AZ Phoenix Deer Valley Land Acquisition.
CA Sacramento International Update airport master plan.
DE Delaware Airpark (33N) Construct runway, taxiway and
apron.
FL Gainesville Regional Rehabilitate runway and
parallel taxiway.
FL Panama City-Bay County Various Improvements.
International
FL Jacksonville Reconstruct Terminal Apron.
FL Labelle Municipal, X14 Construct Terminal Building.
FL Space Coast Regional Apron Reconstruction.
GA Augusta Regional Airport at Terminal Building.
Bush Field
GA Glimer County Airport, Ellijay Land Acquisition, Access Road
Georgia and Apron.
GA Newnan-Coweta County Airport Perimeter fencing.
IA Dubuque Regional ARFF Equipment.
IA Atlantic Municipal Construct runway--phase 5.
IA Arthur N. Neu Airport Construct Runway 3/21.
IA Council Bluffs Municipal Construct Runway 18/36 Phase 6.
IA Fairfield Municipal Construct Runway 18/36 Phase 6.
IA Iowa City Municipal Extend Runway 2/27 Phase.
IA Newton Municipal Construct Taxiway Phase 1.
IA Ankeny Regional Update airport master plan,
expand north apron, remove
power line for Runway 36, and
improve runway safety area.
IA Keokuk Municipal Perimeter fencing.
IA Charles City Municipal Runway and Taxiway
construction.
IL St. Louis Downtown Airfield Signage.
IL Quad City International Taxiway Improvements.
IL Greater Rockford Expand Terminal Building,
Extend Runway 7/25.
IN Gary/Chicago Railroad relocation.
IN Indianapolis Executive Design and construction of
parallel taxiway phase 1.
KY Bowman Field To construct a taxiway parallel
to runway 14-32.
KY Louisville International- Group VI Taxiway Upgrades.
Standiford Field
KY Louisville International- Noise mitigation.
Standiford Field
KY Barkley Regional Runway improvements.
KY Barkley Regional Terminal Building.
LA Alexandria Int'l Various taxiway and runway
improvements.
LA Baton Rouge Airport Rehabilitate Taxiway Lighting.
LA Baton Rouge Airport Land Acquisition for Blount
Road.
LA Baton Rouge Airport Land Acquisition, Conway.
LA Baton Rouge Airport Land Acquisition, Hobgood.
LA Leesville Runway extension.
LA Morehouse Memorial Runway extension.
LA Monroe Regional New terminal.
LA Houma-Terrebonne Reconstruct taxiways and
aircraft-parking ramps.
LA South Lafourche Strengthen and widen runway.
LA New Orleans Int'l Aircraft rescue and
firefighting building.
LA Lafayette Airport Construct taxiway.
MD Martin State Taxiway F Extension.
MD Baltimore-Washington Taxiway, apron enhancements.
International
MD Greater Cumberland Regional Various Improvements.
ME Greenville Municipal Airport Reconstruction of Runway 14-32.
MI Manistee County Blacker Various Improvements.
MI Cherry Capital Terminal upgrades.
MI Jackson County Reynolds Field New primary runway and various
improvements.
MI Capitol City Phase II of extension to
primary runway.
MI Chippewa County International Maintenance and Inspection
facility.
MI Bishop Land acquisition, design and
construction for new facility.
MI Greenville Municipal Airport New terminal.
MI Detroit City Land acquisition, replacement
runway and airport
modernization.
MI Detroit Metropolitan Wayne De-icing facility and
County equipment.
MN Wilmar Design and construction of new
hangar facilities.
MN Minneapolis-St Paul/Wold- Terminal pavement/aprons.
Chamberlain
MN St. Paul Downtown Holman Field Flood protection dike.
MN Duluth International Terminal security enhancements.
MN St. Cloud Regional Environmental assessment to
support land acquisition and
development; Terminal security
enhancements; Airside terminal
equipment--movable aircraft
stairs and deicing equipment.
MN Thief River Falls Regional Construct hangar to address
overnight storage and
maintenance issues.
MO Jefferson City Memorial Extend taxiways.
MO New Branson West Construct runway.
MO Nevada Municipal Runway 2/20 Rehabilitation.
MO Moberly-Omar N Bradley Extend Runway 13/31 and
Construct Parallel Taxiway.
MS Golden Triangle Regional Various improvements.
Airport
MS Corinth Municipal Land Acquisition.
MS Gulfport-Biloxi International Taxiway rehabilitation, cargo
apron and lighting.
MS Gulfport-Biloxi International Perimeter Road, Taxiway
Airport Rehabilitation.
MS Bruce Campbell Field Construct terminal and terminal
access road.
MS Jackson International Runway extension, apron
replacement, rehabilitation of
runways and taxiways.
MS Hawkins Field Runway extension.
MS Philadelphia Municipal Runway extension.
MT Billings Logan International Overlay Runway 10R/28.
MT Missoula International Land acquisiton.
NC Concord Regional Runway improvements.
NC Rowan County Airport Land acquisition.
NC Rockingham-Hamlet ILS system, terminal
improvement, security fencing,
and land acquistion.
ND Devils Lake Municipal Construct wildlife fence,
Aircraft Rescue and Fire
Fighting vehicle building,
land purchase, runway
extension.
ND Jamestown Regional Construct wildlife fence,
Aircraft Rescue and Fire
Fighting vehicle building,
land purchase, taxiway
extension.
ND Lisbon Municipal Runway construction.
NE Western Nebraska Regional Rehabilitate Apron,
Airport Rehabilitate Runway Lighting,
Rehabilitate Taxiway Lighting,
Install Guidance Signs,
Install Miscellaneous
Navigational Aids, Install
Runway Vertical/Visual
Guidance System, and Construct
Terminal Building.
NJ Teterboro Airport Implementation of runway safety
improvements on the ends of
runways that lack the FAA
standard of a 1,000 foot
safety overrun area.
NJ Teterboro Airport Development and implementation
of a Perimeter Intrusion
Detection system.
NJ Woodbine Municipal Land acquisition.
NM Double Eagle II Construct apron.
NM Alexander Municipal Construct crosswind runway.
NV Carson Replace single runway.
NV North Las Vegas Air Terminal Security Identification Display
Area [SIDA] Access Control
Systems.
NV Reno Stead Ramp Road Reconstruction.
NV Reno Tahoe International FAR Part 150 Residential Sound
Insulation Program.
NV Reno Stead Reconstruction of Taxiway ``B''
North End and Construction of
Runway 14/32 South Taxiway
Connector at the Reno Stead
Airport.
NV Reno Stead Runway 8/26 Edge Lighting
Replacement.
NV Reno Stead Update Airport Master Plan
Study and Drainage Master
Plan.
NV Reno Tahoe International Second Floor Concourse Build-
out--Phase II.
NY Niagara Falls International New terminal, apron, and
related upgrades.
OH Cleveland Hopkins International Continuation of payments to the
Department of Port Control for
runway 6L/24R pursuant to
Letter of Intent issued by the
FAA in 2000.
OH Cleveland Hopkins International Runway 6R/24L safety
improvements and southwest
extension.
OK Sallisaw Municipal Extend, rehabilitate runway.
OK R.L. Jones, Jr. Airfield drainage improvements.
OK Altus/Quartz Mountain Regional Improve the runway safety area,
rehabilitate runway and
install airfield lighting and
signs and runway drainage
improvements.
OK University of OK--Westheimer Construct roads and improve
drainage.
OK R.L. Jones, Jr. Reconstruction and
rehabilitation of roads around
RVS.
OK R.L. Jones, Jr. Asphalt improvements.
PA Philadelphia International Environmental Impact Statements
for the near-term extension of
Runway 17/35 and the longer-
term Airfield Capacity
Enhancement Program.
PA Pittsburgh International Upgrades for snow removal
equipment buildings.
PA Fayette County Airport Runway extension and various
Authority improvements.
SD Black Hills Clyde Ice Field Runway extension.
TN Nashville International Airport Rehabilitate runway 13-31.
TN McGhee-Tyson ARFF building.
TX Easterwood Airport Rehabilitate Runway 16/34.
TX Denton Municipal Airport Various airfield improvements.
TX Alliance Extend runway and taxiways.
TX New Braunfels ILS.
TX Granbury Municipal Construct new Runway 18/36.
TX Brownsville Extend runway, improve airport
drainage, rehabilitate
terminal apron, rehabilitate
Runway 13/31, and improve
Runway 17/35 safety area.
TX Brownsville Airport parking lot.
TX San Marcos Municipal Construct t-hangar and terminal
building.
UT Beaver and Panguitch Municipal GPS Approach Surveys.
WA Snohomish County (Paine Fled) Kilo One Taxiway.
WI Kenosha Regional Develop southeast hangar area.
WI Lacrosse Municipal Construct parallel taxiway
phase II.
WI Dane County Regional-Tax Field Expand air carrier apron.
WI LEO. Simmental Municipal Reconstruct and extend runway;
Construct parallel taxiway;
Develop hangar area phase II.
WI Wittman Regional Reconstruct and strengthen
crosswind runway.
WI Rhinelander-Oneida County Extend and reconstruct runway
15/33 and construct a parallel
taxiway.
WI Austin Straubel International Construct runway 18 safety area
and install Instrument Landing
System [ILLS].
WI Manitowoc County Reconstruction of Runway 17/35
with High Intensity Runway
Lighting; Precision Approach
Path Indicator; Construction
of an access road to navies
and equipment.
WI Merrill Municipal Construct parallel taxiways,
hangar area and terminal
building.
WI New Richmond Regional Extend and reconstruct primary
runway and parallel taxiway;
construct hangar area;
reconstruct apron.
WI Chippewa Valley Regional Construct and expand airline
terminal facilities.
WI Rice Lake Regional--Carl's Strengthen primary runway and
Field parallel taxiway.
WI Taylor County Extend primary runway,
construct parallel taxiway,
develop terminal area.
WI Rock Co Land Acquisition.
WV Raleigh City Memorial Various Improvements.
WV Yeager Various Improvements.
WV Harrison/Marion Regional Various Improvements.
WV Tri-State/Walker-Long Field Various Improvements.
WV Greenbrier Valley Various Improvements.
WV Morgantown Muni-Walter L. Bill Various Improvements.
Hart Fld
WV Mid-Ohio Valley Regional Various Improvements.
WV Mercer Cty Various Improvements.
WV Upshur County Regional Various Improvements.
WV Elkins-Randolph Co-Jennings Various Improvements.
Randolph Fld
WV Fairmont Muni Various Improvements.
WV Logan County Various Improvements.
WV Eastern WV Reg/Shephard Field Various Improvements.
WV Marshall County Various Improvements.
WV Grant County Various Improvements.
WV Philippi-Barbour County Various Improvements.
Regional
WV Kee Field Various Improvements.
WV Mason County Various Improvements.
WV Jackson County Various Improvements.
WV Summersville Various Improvements.
WV Braxton County Various Improvements.
WV Welch Muni Various Improvements.
WV Wheeling-Ohio County Various Improvements.
WV Mingo County Various Improvements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letters of Intent.--Congress authorized the FAA to use
letters of intent [LOI's] to fund multiyear airport improvement
projects that will significantly enhance systemwide airport
capacity. FAA must consider a project's benefits and costs in
determining approval for AIP funding. The FAA has adopted a
policy of committing to LOI's no more than approximately 50
percent of forecasted discretionary funds allocated for
capacity, safety, security, and noise projects. The Committee
has viewed this policy as reasonable as it gave FAA the
flexibility to fund other worthy projects that do not fall
under a LOI. Both FAA and airport authorities have found
letters of intent helpful in planning and funding airport
development.
Current letters of intent assume the following grant
allocations for fiscal year 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska: Ted Stevens Anchorage International............. $14,185,000
California: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International..... 2,419,000
Florida:
Southwest Florida International..................... 4,000,000
Miami International................................. 7,550,000
Orlando International............................... 7,620,000
Georgia: The William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International 19,368,000
Illinois:
Central Illinois Regional Airport................... 4,872,000
Chicago Midway International........................ 12,000,000
Indiana: Indianapolis International..................... 15,000,000
Kentucky: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International.... 16,995,000
Massachusetts: General Edward Lawrence Logan 13,610,000
International..........................................
Maryland: Hagerstown Regional-Richard A. Henson Field... 6,000,000
Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County............. 19,050,000
Minnesota: Minneapolis-St Paul International/World- 7,500,000
Chamberlain............................................
Missouri: Lambert-St Louis International................ 17,882,000
North Carolina: Piedmont Triad International............ 12,900,000
New Hampshire: Manchester............................... 4,500,000
Ohio:
Cleveland Hopkins International..................... 10,576,000
Port Columbus International......................... 7,000,000
Pennsylvania: Harrisburg International.................. 8,340,000
Rhode Island: Theodore Francis Green State.............. 643,000
Tennessee: Memphis International........................ 5,878,000
Texas:
Dallas/Fort Worth International..................... 5,692,000
George Bush Intercontinental........................ 17,250,000
Washington: Seattle-Tacoma International................ 17,604,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, applications are pending for capacity
enhancement projects which would, if constructed, significantly
reduce congestion and delay. These projects require multiyear
funding commitments. The Committee recommends that the FAA
enter into letters of intent for multiyear funding of such
capacity enhancement projects.
Panama City-Bay County International Airport, FL.--The
Committee encourages the FAA to give priority consideration to
the application for a letter of intent that the Panama City-Bay
County International Airport Authority submitted for
construction of a new airport. The Committee has been informed
that substantial safety and capacity benefits will accrue from
the completion of this project. Also, the Committee understands
that almost two-thirds of the cost of this project will be
funded from non-Federal sources.
Passenger Facility Charges.--The Committee notes that a
sizable alternative source of funding is available to airports
in the form of passenger facility charges [PFC's]. The first
PFC charge began for airline tickets issued on June 1, 1992.
DOT data shows that as of April 30, 2005, 354 airports were
approved to collect PFC's in the amount of $47,600,000,000.
During calendar year 2004, airports collected $2,231,141,000 in
PFC charges, and $2,198,000,000 is estimated to be collected in
calendar year 2005. Of the airports collecting PFC's,
approximately one-fifth collected about 90 percent of the
total, and all of these are either large or medium hub
airports. The first collections at the new $4.50 PFC level
began on April 1, 2001, at 31 airports. As of December 31,
2003, 229 airports have been approved to collect at the PFC
level of $4.50. Eventually, the funding to airports from the 50
percent nominal increase in authorized passenger facility
charges will result in dramatically increased resources for
airport improvements, expansions, and enhancements.
Runway Incursion Prevention Systems and Devices.--The bill
includes a provision that allows funds for grants-in-aid to
airports to be used by airports to procure and install runway
incursion prevention systems and devises.
Explosive Detection System [EDS] Installation.--The
accompanying bill retains language to prohibit funding under
this limitation to be used for modifications to airports that
are necessary to install bulk explosive detection systems.
Funding for such modifications is now provided by the
Department of Homeland Security.
Administration.--The Committee recommends a separate
limitation of $71,096,000 for personnel and related expenses of
the office of airports within the overall limitation on
obligations for the grants-in-aid for airports. The
recommendation is $10,250,584 less than budget estimate and
$2,844,416 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The
Committee recommends no funding for the airport cooperative
research program as an expense of the office of airports, a
reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget estimate. Instead, the
Committee recommends funding this research program under
``Facilities and Equipment.'' The Committee recommends limiting
funding for electronic grant systems development and
integration to the base level of funding of $500,000 and
reduces inflationary growth by $584.
Airport Technology Research.--The Committee does not
recommend transferring 18 full time equivalent [FTE] staff or
any related funding for the airport technology research program
to the limitation on obligations for grants-in-aid to airports.
Research, even research that directly supports airports, is not
authorized under the AIP program. The Committee, however, has
recommended funding for these research activities under the
Facilities and Equipment account.
Small Community Air Service Development Program.--The
Committee recommends a limitation of $20,000,000, within the
overall limitation on obligations for grants-in-aid to
airports, for the small community air service development
program and associated administrative costs. This is the same
amount as the level provided in fiscal year 2005. The program
is designed to improve air service to underutilized airports in
small and rural communities. The total number of communities or
groups of communities that can participate in the program is
limited to no more than 4 from any one State and no more than
40 in any fiscal year. The program gives priority to
communities that have high air fares, will contribute a local
share of the cost, will establish a public-private partnership
to facilitate airline service, where assistance will provide
benefits to a broad segment of the traveling public, and where
the assistance will be used in a timely fashion.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

Rescission, 2005........................................ -$265,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... -1,674,000,000
House allowance......................................... -469,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -1,174,000,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a rescission of contract
authorization of $1,174,000,000 of contract authority from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Section 48112 of title 49,
United States Code, stipulates that additional contract
authorization for the grants-in-aid program is automatically
made available in an amount equal to the difference between the
appropriated level for the facilities and equipment program and
the authorized amount for the same fiscal year. The Committee
recommendation rescinds $469,000,000 of new contract
authorization that was made available in fiscal year 2005
pursuant to section 48112. The recommendation also rescinds
$705,000,000 of contract authorization made available pursuant
to section 48112 or otherwise available in fiscal year 2006.
All of the contract authorization that the Committee recommends
for rescission exceeds the obligation limitation for fiscal
year 2006. The Committee recommendation will not have a
programmatic impact on the grants-in-aid for airports program.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Section 101 provides airports the authority to transfer
certain instrument landing systems to the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Section 102 limits the number of technical staff years at
the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more
than 375 in fiscal year 2006.
Section 103 prohibits funds in this Act to be used to adopt
guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide
the Federal Aviation Administration ``without cost'' buildings,
maintenance, or space for FAA services. The prohibition does
not apply to negotiations between FAA and airport sponsors
concerning ``below market'' rates for such services or to grant
assurances that require airport sponsors to provide land
without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities.
Section 104 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA
appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C.
41742(a)(1) as fees are collected and credited under U.S.C.
45303.
Section 105 allows funds received to reimburse FAA for
providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities
to be credited to the Operations account.
Section 106 extends the terms and conditions of the
aviation insurance program, commonly known as ``war risk
insurance,'' and the limitation on air carrier liability for
third party claims arising out of acts of terrorism to August
31, 2006 and includes an option for the Secretary to futher
extend the program until December 31, 2006.
Section 107 includes a provision making a project meeting
certain specified requirements eligible for grants-in-aid for
airports.
Section 108 allows small hub primary status airports to be
eligible for a terminal development project if the airport
received a discretionary grant while the airport was designated
as a non-hub primary airport.

Federal Highway Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration
is, in partnership with State and local governments, to foster
the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway and
intermodal system nationwide including access to and within
National Forests, National Parks, Indian Lands and other public
lands.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level
of $41,013,259,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2006.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $343,728,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 367,638,000
House allowance......................................... 359,529,000
Committee recommendation................................ 364,638,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This limitation on obligations provides for the salaries
and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration for program
management, direction, and coordination; engineering guidance
to Federal and State agencies; and advisory and support
services in field offices.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$364,638,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. The
Committee recommends $603,000 for 6 new FTEs for oversight of
major projects. The Committee supports the initiative to
improve the agency's capability for monitoring the status of
major projects and reviewing project finance plans. The
Committee directs FHWA to submit with the fiscal year 2007
budget justification a report describing the cost, schedule,
funding, and technical status of all major projects and an
explanation of significant risks to costs, schedules, funding
or technical issues.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $4,000,000 for
increased administrative funding in support of oversight and
stewardship activities without prejudice. The Committee notes
that the justification for the initiative is brief and overly
vague. The Committee is willing to reconsider this reduction
should the FHWA provide adequate documentation to support this
funding increase.
Assistance to Daggett County, Utah.--The Committee directs
the FHWA to provide administrative assistance and guidance to
Daggett County, Utah, regarding the administration and
application of existing Federal funds for the rehabilitation
and enhancement of Brown's Park Road. This road provides
service to both the Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area and
interstate access to the surrounding States. The Committee is
informed that Daggett County lacks the ability to administer
existing Federal funds for the rehabilitation of this road and
needs guidance and advice on what Federal programs may benefit
this unique circumstance.
Beartooth Highway.--The Committee is aware that in May
2005, the State of Montana suffered a serious mudslide that
destroyed large portions of the scenic Beartooth Highway. The
Beartooth Highway is an internationally recognized roadway, and
has substantial economic value to the Montana communities of
Red Lodge and Cooke City. The Committee understands that repair
of the highway is eligible for emergency relief highway funding
and urges the FHWA to support the reconstruction efforts and
act quickly on any requests for assistance.

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Limitation, 2005........................................ $458,800,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance......................................... 485,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 408,491,420

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The limitation controls spending for the transportation
research and technology programs of the FHWA. This limitation
includes the intelligent transportation systems, surface
transportation research, technology deployment, training and
education, and university transportation research.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations for
transportation research of $408,491,420. This limitation is
consistent with the Senate-passed authorization level and is
$50,308,580 less than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2005........................................ $34,422,400,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 34,700,000,000
House allowance......................................... 36,287,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,194,259,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid highways program provides financial support
to States and localities for development, construction, and
repair of highways and bridges through matching grants. The
program is financed from the Highway Trust Fund and most of the
funds are distributed through apportionments and allocations to
States. State highway departments have the authority to
initiate Federal-aid projects subject to approval of plans,
specifications, and cost estimates by the Federal Highway
Administration.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2006 Federal-
aid highways obligations to $40,194,259,000, which is
$5,494,259,000 more than the budget request and the fiscal year
2005 enacted level.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS

The roads and bridges that make up our Nation's highway
infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the
joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States
have much flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best
meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA's
assistance and oversight.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21],
the highway, highway safety, and transit authorization through
fiscal year 2003 makes funds available in the following major
categories:
National Highway System.--The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] of 1991 authorized the
National Highway System [NHS], which was subsequently
established as a 163,000-mile road system by the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This system serves
major population centers, intermodal transportation facilities,
international border crossings, and major destinations. It is
comprised of all interstate routes, selected urban and
principal rural arterials, defense highways, and major highway
connectors carrying up to 76 percent of commercial truck
traffic and 44 percent of all vehicle traffic. A State may
transfer up to half of its NHS funds to the Surface
Transportation program [STP] and all NHS funds with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation. The Federal
share of the NHS is an 80 percent match and funds remain
available for 4 fiscal years.
Interstate Maintenance.--The 46,567-mile Dwight D.
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges,
interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate
routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity
other than high occupancy vehicle [HOV] and auxiliary lanes.
All remaining Federal funding to complete the initial
construction of the interstate system has been provided through
previous highway legislation. TEA21 provides flexibility to
States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of
prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no
remaining work to complete the Interstate System may transfer
any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their Interstate
Maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on
Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish
Interstate Construction fund eligibility for the work and
transfer the Federal share of the cost to their Interstate
Maintenance program.
Surface Transportation Program.--The surface transportation
program [STP] is a very flexible program that may be used by
the States and localities for any roads (including NHS) that
are not functionally classified as local or rural minor
collectors. These roads are collectively referred to as
Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are
not restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this
program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the
transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee
funds under TEA21 which may be used as if they were STP funds.
Once distributed to the States, STP funds must be used
according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety
construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50
percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and
remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of
the State. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an
amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts
reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor
collectors. The Federal share for the STP program is 80 percent
with a 4-year availability period.
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program.--The program
provides assistance for bridges on public roads, including a
discretionary set-aside for high cost bridges and for the
seismic retrofit of bridges. Fifty percent of a State's bridge
funds may be transferred to the NHS or the STP, but the amount
of any such transfer is deducted from the national bridge needs
used in the program's apportionment formula for the following
year.
At least 15 percent, but not more than 35 percent, of a
State's apportioned bridge funds must be spent on bridges not
on the Federal-aid system.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program.--This program provides funds to States to improve air
quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range
of transportation activities are eligible, as long as DOT,
after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help
meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA21 provides
greater flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and
expands and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to
reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate
matter [PM-10] nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a State
has no non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be
used as if they were STP funds.
On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be
appropriate candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both
sectors are critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ
program, including regional emissions and verifying new mobile
source control techniques.
Federal Lands Highways.--This program provides
authorizations through three major categories--Indian
reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands
highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways
category)--as well as a new category for Federally-owned public
roads providing access to or within the National Wildlife
Refuge System. There is also a program for improving deficient
bridges on Indian reservation roads.
The Committee directs that the funds allocated for this
program in this bill and in permanent law are to be derived
from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, and not
from funds allocated to the National Park Service's regions.
Minimum Guarantee.--After the computation of funds for
major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are distributed to
ensure that each State receives an additional amount based on
equity considerations. This minimum guarantee provision under
current law as extended ensures that each State will have a
return of 90.5 percent on its share of contributions to the
highway account of the Highway Trust Fund.
Emergency Relief.--This program provides for the repair and
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA21 restates the
program eligibility specifying that emergency relief [ER] funds
can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential
highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting
from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect
the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds
are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds
from other highway programs.
National Corridor Planning and Border Infrastructure
Programs.--TEA21 created a national corridor planning and
development program that identifies funds for planning, design,
and construction of highway corridors of national significance,
economic growth, and international or interregional trade.
Allocations may be made to corridors identified in section
1105(c) of ISTEA and to other corridors using considerations
outlined in legislation. The coordinated border infrastructure
program is established to improve the safe movement of people
and goods at or across the U.S./Mexico and U.S./Canada borders.
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities.--This program
provides funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry
terminal facilities.
National Scenic Byways Program.--This program provides
funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of
Transportation as All American Roads [AAR] or National Scenic
Byways [NSB]. These roads have outstanding scenic, historic,
cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities.
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot
Program.--TEA21 created a new transportation and community and
system preservation program that provides grants to States and
local governments for planning, developing, and implementing
strategies to integrate transportation and community and system
preservation plans and projects. These grants may be used to
improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce
transportation externalities and the need for future
infrastructure investment, and improve transportation
efficiency and access consistent with community character.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $35,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 35,000,000,000
House allowance......................................... 36,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,194,259,000

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $40,200,000,000. The recommended level is $5,194,259,000
more than the budget request and is necessary to pay
outstanding obligations from various highway accounts pursuant
to prior appropriations acts.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $2,300,000,000 in contract authority
balances from the five core programs. The Committee directs
FHWA to administer the rescission by allowing each State
maximum flexibility in making these adjustments among the five
programs.

APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $79,360,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 80,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System
[ADHS] is authorized under section 1069(y) of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (Public Law 1020-240).
Funds for the ADHS will be used for the necessary expenses for
construction of corridor highways in the 13 States that
comprise the Appalachian region.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for the Appalachian
Development Highway System [ADHS]. The recommended amount is
$80,000,000 more than the budget estimate and $640,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. In many instances,
these corridor highways will replace some of the most deficient
and dangerous segments of rural roadway in the Nation.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 110 distributes obligation authority among Federal
aid highway programs.
Section 111 credits funds received by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics to the Federal-aid highways account.
Section 112 authorizes funds made available to States of
Arizona and Nevada to be expended for payment of debt service
on notes issued for the bypass bridge project at Hoover Dam.
Section 113 prohibits funding for development or
dissemination of any programmatic agreement making the
Interstate eligible under the National Register of Historic
Places.
Section 114 exempts certain over-the-road bus and public
transit vehicles from axle weight limitations.
Section 115 provides access for solid waste vehicles to a
``transit only'' ramp in Washington State following the
completion of necessary safety improvements to the ramp.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was
established within the Department of Transportation by the
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act [MCSIA] (Public Law 106-
159) in December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier
safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Highway Administration.
FMCSA's primary mission is to improve the safety of
commercial vehicle operations on our Nation's highways. To
accomplish this mission, FMCSA is focused on reducing the
number and severity of large truck crashes. FMCSA is
responsible for ensuring that Mexican commercial vehicles
entering the United States operate in accordance with the North
American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] and comply with all U.S.
hazardous material and safety regulations. In addition, FMCSA
oversees compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Commercial
Regulations through increased household goods carrier
enforcement, education and outreach.
Agency resources and activities contribute to safety in
commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, including
the use of stronger enforcement measures against safety
violators; expedited safety regulation; technology innovation;
improvements in information systems; training; and improvements
to commercial driver's license testing, recordkeeping, and
sanctions. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA works closely
with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the motor
carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual
citizens.
MCSIA and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century [TEA21] provide funding authorizations for FMCSA,
including administrative expenses, motor carrier research and
technology, the national Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program [MCSAP] and the Information Systems and Strategic
Safety Initiatives [ISSSI] program. FMCSA's scope was expanded
by the U.S.A. Patriot Act, which created new and enhanced
security measures. In addition, the Appropriations Acts since
fiscal year 2002 have included funding for border enforcement
and safety related activities associated with implementation of
the NAFTA requirement that Mexican long-haul shippers be
allowed to operate within the United States subject to the same
safety and environmental requirements placed on American
commercial carriers.
For fiscal year 2006, it is necessary to reauthorize the
FMCSA programs contained in TEA21 and MCSIA. The budget request
reflects the administration's reauthorization proposal for a
new account structure for FMCSA that consolidates the current
programs into two distinct accounts: Motor Carrier Safety
Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants. The
Committee recommendation follows the proposed new structure of
accounts and notes that the recommendation is consistent with
the provisions of the reauthorization bill adopted by the
Senate on May 17, 2005.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $490,020,000 for FMCSA
in fiscal year 2006, which is $25,020,000 more than the
requested amount and $46,053,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
level. The Committee recommends this funding with the
expectation that Congress will soon act to provide sufficient
contract authority to reflect this amount.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2005........................................ $255,487,000
Budget estimate, 2006 (limitation)...................... 233,000,000
House allowance......................................... 215,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 211,400,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources to support
motor carrier safety program activities and maintain the
agency's administrative infrastructure. Funding supports
nationwide motor carrier safety and consumer enforcement
efforts, including Federal safety enforcement activities at the
U.S./Mexico border to ensure that Mexican carriers entering the
United States are in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. Resources are also provided to fund motor
carrier regulatory development and implementation, information
management, research and technology, safety education and
outreach, and the 24-hour safety and consumer telephone
hotline.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$211,400,000 for FMCSA operating expenses and motor carrier
safety programs. The recommendation is $21,600,000 less than
the budget estimate and is made to remain within the funding
level included in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act [SAFETEA], as passed by the
Senate. The Committee notes that the surface transportation
authorization process envisions predetermined guaranteed
funding levels for the operating expenses and motor carrier
safety programs for fiscal year 2006 and the next several
years. It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the
appropriate funding level for administrative expenses and
program support beyond one fiscal year due to the staffing
fluctuations in any organization and the potential necessity
for additional resources to respond to an unforeseen or acute
safety issue. Accordingly, the approach of the authorization
bill risks inadequate funding and potentially could compromise
safety by impeding the administration's and Congress's
flexibility to assess annually and provide the appropriate
level of resources.
The Committee recommendation also restructures the
administrative and program account consistent with the budget
request and as adopted in the Senate reauthorization bill. The
funding recommendation is $44,087,000 less than the fiscal year
2005 enacted limitation on administrative expenses under the
former structure of accounts. For comparative purposes, the
recommendation is $5,711,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
amount after realigning the previous year's levels to the new
account structure. The bill specifies that $9,600,000 for the
research and technology program is available for obligation
until September 30, 2009. In addition, the bill specifies that
$6,800,000 is to make commercial vehicle analysis reporting
system [CVARS] grants and clarifies that no non-Federal match
is needed for CVARS grants. The recommended funding level for
CVARS grants is the same as the amount in the budget estimate
and SAFETEA.

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $143,649,000 for operating
expenses.
Administrative Infrastructure Completion.--The Committee
recommends $8,275,000 for the administrative infrastructure
completion initiative, which is $2,441,000 less than the budget
request and $339,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 level. The
budget estimate is based on an inflationary increase to the
fiscal year 2005 requested level of funding, not the enacted
level. The Committee recommendation adjusts the estimate for
current services with a limited increase for the program. The
Committee encourages FMCSA to contain the cost of the program
and to identify efficiencies for the administrative functions.
State Enforcement of Farm Operations.--The Committee is
concerned about the confusion and the unnecessary burdens
imposed on farm operators and State enforcement officials
associated with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 381-397. Clearly,
farmers operating their own equipment to transport their own
farm commodities to local markets are intended in many if not
most cases to be exempt from the Federal regulatory
requirements imposed on commercial operators. In regard to the
regulations referenced, the Committee directs the FMCSA to
review and provide a report to the Committee within 90 days
outlining: the explicit legal requirements for farm operators
and State enforcement officials; the flexibility, waivers and
exemptions available to States in enforcing Federal
requirements; what conditions related to farm operator
compliance compel the DOT to withhold Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program assistance to States; and, include
recommendations on how these Federal requirements may be
simplified and made more uniform to avoid unnecessary and
unintended confusion and regulatory burdens.
Household Goods Enforcement.--The Committee recommends
$1,344,000 for household goods enforcement, which is equal to
the budget request and $54,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. The Committee encourages FMCSA to assert its
role to enforce Federal laws and regulations with respect to
transportation of household goods and to do everything possible
to increase the number of investigations against unscrupulous
household goods movers.
Federal New Entrant Program.--The Committee recommends
$2,000,000 for FMCSA costs associated with the new entrant
program. The recommended level is $14,647,000 less than the
budget request and is $976,000 less than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. The recommended level is sufficient to support
the existing on-board staffing for fiscal year 2006. The
Committee continues to assert that it is more appropriate for
the new entrant program to be primarily carried out by the
States as the roadside inspection program with FMCSA performing
the role of setting policy, exercising oversight over the
States, and carrying out the program in the few States that are
unable to do so presently. In those cases, FMCSA may provide
assistance through their own personnel or the use of certified
contractors to conduct safety audits on new entrant carriers.
Consistent with the Committee's recommendations in the past 2
fiscal years and the Senate passed SAFETEA legislation, the
Committee recommends an increase of $29,000,000 under ``Motor
Carrier Safety Grants'' for grants to States to carry out the
new entrant program. The Committee directs FMCSA to inform the
States of the full amount of funding available to implement the
program for fiscal year 2006 and to provide assistance to the
States in preparing to draw upon these funds.
Quality Assurance and Regulatory Evaluation Initiatives.--
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for a new quality assurance
program and a new regulatory evaluation program. The Committee
recommendation is $800,000 lower than the budget estimate and
is made without prejudice so as not to exceed the funding level
established in SAFETEA. The Committee recommendation supports 2
new full time equivalent positions and no less than $700,000
for contract support. The Committee supports both initiatives
and encourages FMCSA to implement each to achieve the intended
effect of ensuring that agency policies, procedures, and
regulations are achieving agency goals and are being applied
evenly.
Enforcement Case Backlog.--The Committee recommends
$400,000 to reduce the backlog of enforcement cases against
unsafe carriers and institute a process to streamline
adjudications.
Working Capital Fund.--The Committee recommends $3,080,000
for the working capital fund. The Committee recommendation is a
10 percent increase above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
The Committee has not received adequate justification to
support a 38 percent increase, as proposed in the budget
request.
U.S.-Mexico Cross Border Trucking.--Section 350 of the
fiscal year 2002 Transportation Appropriations Act (Public Law
107-87) mandated that certain safety requirements must be met
for Mexican motor carriers to enter the United States. Prior to
the enactment of that legislation, on June 27, 2002, the
Committee held a joint hearing with the Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation on cross-border truck and bus
operations at the United States-Mexico border. At that hearing,
the Department of Transportation's Inspector General pointed
out that, despite the fact that FMCSA had issued a rule
requiring States to authorize their enforcement personnel to
take action when they encounter a vehicle without valid
operating authority, only two States had taken the necessary
action by the time of that hearing. Today, more than 3 years
later, some States have still not provided authorization for
their enforcement personnel to take trucks without the proper
operating authority out-of-service despite the fact that the
FMCSA established a deadline for compliance with this
requirement of September 30, 2003.
The Committee is frustrated and dismayed to learn of the
slow responsiveness by several States in complying with this
Federal requirement. The Committee has tasked the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration with carrying out congressional
intent on all of the safety requirements established in section
350 of Public Law 107-87 and the implementation of all Federal
motor carrier safety regulations. This includes the provision
in section 350 requiring that inspectors of Mexican trucks
affix a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance [CVSA] decal showing
that the vehicle meets all necessary requirements. Given the
Agency's disappointing results in compelling compliance by the
States to the above-cited requirements, the Committee directs
the Administrator to redouble her efforts and take whatever
steps are necessary to ensure that States come into full
compliance with all the safety requirements and intent set
forth in section 350.

PROGRAM EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $67,751,000 for FMCSA's program
expenses.
A table comparing the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2006 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:

Federally Conducted Compliance Reviews.--The Committee is
concerned that the number of federally conducted compliance
reviews and enforcement actions have decreased significantly
since the new entrant program commenced and directs FMCSA to
ensure that it reverses this trend consistent with the
objectives and goals of MCSIA. The Committee also directs FMCSA
to work closely with the States to promote their continued
participation in a vigorous compliance review program. In order
to monitor its progress, FMCSA shall provide a report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the number of
completed compliance reviews and new extrant safety audits in
conjunction with the Agency's fiscal year 2007 budget request.
Research and Technology.--The Committee recommends
$9,600,000 for research and technology. The recommendation is
$1,353,000 less than the requested amount and $1,168,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
Outreach and Education.--The Committee recommends
$2,013,000 for the outreach and education program, an increase
of $1,000,000 above the budget request and $169,000 less than
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The Committee reminds FMCSA
that data collection and analysis are two of the most important
aspects of any program that focuses on ways to inform and
influence behavior. The Committee expects FMCSA to manage the
Outreach and Education program with the same performance, data,
and analysis-driven focus which the Agency is implementing for
the enforcement programs. The Committee directs FMCSA to use
funds provided above the budget estimate to continue the
outreach program with the goal of enhancing the coordination
and effective enforcement of Federal laws and regulations with
respect to household goods transportation. The Committee
directs FMCSA to develop a process as part of the household
good outreach program for State safety authorities and law
enforcement agencies to refer investigations to the appropriate
Federal authorities.
Share the Road Safely.--The Committee recommends no less
than $500,000 of outreach and education funds for the share the
road safely campaign. The recommendation is $3,000 more than
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
Since fiscal year 2004, the Congress has directed the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] to be
the responsible DOT Agency for the share the road safely
program instead of the FMCSA, the original modal Agency to
administer the program. This was done to not only help boost a
fledgling program; it was also to encourage NHTSA to help
instruct motor carrier staff regarding the inner workings of an
education campaign that includes both the motoring public and
commercial motor vehicle drivers.
In fiscal year 2005, the Congress provided $497,000 to
NHTSA for the program and directed FMCSA to detail one FTE to
the Agency to help oversee share the road safely, in
anticipation of FMCSA resuming full responsibility for the
program in fiscal year 2006. The Committee recommends funding
for share the road safely under the motor carrier account and
no funding has been provided directly to NHTSA. However, the
Committee directs FMCSA to use this experience as a vital
lesson in education program management. Further, FMCSA shall
provide at least two updates to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations during fiscal year 2006 on the transition of
the program from NHTSA to FMCSA, as well as the status of the
two planned enforcement/media waves.
Consumer Hotline.--The Committee recommends $390,000 for
the telephone hotline, which is $166,000 less than the budget
request and $18,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level. The Committee notes that funding for the hotline has
been limited to $375,000 for the past 2 fiscal years and the
recommended increase will maintain current services.
Information Management Program.--The Committee recommends
$43,423,000 for FMCSA's information management program [IMP],
which is $45,714,000 less than the budget request and
$40,573,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005.............. $190,000,000 $188,480,000
Budget estimate, 2006............. 232,000,000 232,000,000
House allowance................... 286,000,000 286,000,000
Committee recommendation.......... 278,000,000 278,620,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources for the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP] State grants. Grants
will be used to support State compliance reviews; identify and
apprehend traffic violators; conduct roadside inspections; and
support safety audits on new entrant carriers. Grants are also
provided to States for enforcement efforts at both the southern
and northern borders to ensure that all points of entry into
the United States are fortified with comprehensive safety
measures; improvement of State commercial driver's license
[CDL] oversight activities to prevent unqualified drivers from
being issued CDL's; and the Performance Registration
Information Systems and Management [PRISM] program, which links
State motor vehicle registration systems with carrier safety
data in order to identify unsafe commercial motor carriers.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract
authorization of $278,620,000 for the payment of obligations
incurred in carrying out motor carrier safety grant programs.
The Committee recommendation is $46,620,000 more than budget
estimate and is consistent with the amount of contract
authorization for this program under SAFETEA, as passed by the
Senate. The recommended liquidating cash appropriation is an
$88,620,000 increase from the enacted level of funding under
the ``National Motor Carrier Safety Program,'' the previous
account for grants and project funding to States.

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$278,620,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended
limitation is $46,620,000 more than budget estimate and is
consistent with the amount of contract authorization for this
program under SAFETEA, as passed by the Senate. The Committee
recommendation is $90,140,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level of funding under the ``National Motor Carrier
Safety Program.'' The Committee recommends a separate
limitation for each grant program funded under this account
with the following funding allocations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP]......... $193,620,000
Border enforcement grants............................... 33,000,000
Performance and registration information system 4,000,000
management [PRISM] grants..............................
Commercial driver's license and driver improvement 23,000,000
program................................................
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks 25,000,000
[CVISN] grants.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee recommendation includes language clarifying
that the Federal share is 100 percent for grants provided for
commercial driver's license program improvements as authorized
by section 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999 (Public Law 106-159).
The Committee recommendation includes language clarifying
that if a State does not have a new entrant audit program,
funds can be withheld and transferred to FMCSA to carry out the
safety audit on their behalf.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120 subjects the funds in this Act to section 350
of Public Law 107-87 in order to ensure the safety of all
cross-border long haul operations conducted by Mexican-
domiciled commercial carriers.
Section 121 prohibits the use of funds in this Act to
implement or enforce any provision of the Final Rule issued on
April 16, 2003, (Docket No. FMCSA-97-2350) as it may apply to
operators of utility service vehicles and as it applies to
motion picture and television production drivers working at a
site within a 100 air mile radius of the reporting location.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]
is responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety
behavioral programs, and the motor vehicle information and
automobile fuel economy programs. The Federal Government's
regulatory role in motor vehicle and highway safety began in
September 1966 with the enactment of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (codified as chapter 301 of
title 49, U.S. Code) and the Highway Safety Act of 1966
(codified as chapter 4 of title 23, U.S. Code). The National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 instructs the
Secretary to reduce traffic crashes and deaths and injuries
resulting from traffic crashes; establish motor vehicle safety
standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in
interstate commerce; carry out needed safety research and
development; and expand the national driver register. The
Highway Safety Act of 1966 instructs the Secretary to increase
highway safety by providing for a coordinated national highway
safety program through financial assistance to the States.
In October 1966, these activities, originally under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, were transferred to
the Department of Transportation, to be carried out through the
National Traffic Safety Bureau. In March 1970, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established
as a separate organizational entity in the Department. It
succeeded the National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously
had administered traffic and highway safety functions as an
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
NHTSA's mission was expanded in October 1972 with the
enactment of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
(codified as chapters 321, 323, 325, 327, 329, and 331 of title
49, U.S. Code). This Act instructs the Secretary to establish
low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information
activities, and odometer regulations. Three major amendments to
this Act have been enacted: (1) a December 1975 amendment
directs the Secretary to set and administer mandatory
automotive fuel economy standards; (2) an October 1984
amendment directs the Secretary to require certain passenger
motor vehicles and their major replacement parts to be marked
with identifying numbers or symbols; and (3) an October 1992
amendment directs the Secretary to set and administer
automobile content labeling requirements.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation of $779,062,000 provides
sufficient funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to maintain current programs and continue the
mobilization and paid media initiatives that have proven so
effective in increasing safety belt use and impaired driving
awareness.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2005........................................ $231,122,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 227,367,000
House allowance......................................... 237,367,000
Committee recommendation................................ 226,688,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These programs support research, demonstrations, technical
assistance, and national leadership for highway safety programs
conducted by State and local government, the private sector,
universities, research units, and various safety associations
and organizations. These programs emphasize alcohol and drug
countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law
enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic
records and licensing, State and community traffic safety
evaluations, motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety,
pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy driving, young and
older driver safety programs, and development of improved
accident investigation procedures.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $226,688,000 in new
budgetary resources, which is $679,000 less than the budget
request and $4,434,000 less than the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level.
The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the
following program activities in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Program recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact programs:
Safety performance................................ $11,334,000
Safety assurance.................................. 18,277,000
Highway safety.................................... 46,172,000
Research and analysis............................. 70,107,000
General administration............................ 673,000
Salaries and benefits................................. 72,002,000
Travel................................................ 1,336,000
Operating expenses.................................... 22,963,000
Grant administration reimbursement.................... (16,176,000)
-----------------
Total........................................... 226,688,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

OPERATING EXPENSES

Budget Documentation.--The Committee reminds NHTSA that
budget request materials submitted to the Congress should not
only include explanatory documentation for any proposed budget
increases; the budget materials should also describe any
proposed decreases to programs from the prior year's funding
levels. This is clearly lacking in the budget documentation for
fiscal year 2006 and NHTSA should ensure that this does not
reoccur in future years.
Working Capital Fund.--The Committee notes with concern the
drastic increase in NHTSA's working capital fund request for
fiscal year 2006, representing a 50 percent increase over last
year's enacted level. These costs, lacking any justification or
description in the budget request documents, are for costs
related to the new DOT headquarters building. With the fiscal
constraints the Agency faces, the Committee is troubled that
such a large increase is a high priority, given that the
funding will do little to improve the safety of America's
roads. The Committee recommends $5,403,000 for the working
capital fund, a decrease of $2,000,000 from the budget request.
Administrative Grant Reimbursements.--The Committee
continues to deny NHTSA's repeated requests for an increase in
the administrative take-down the Agency places on the grant
programs. This is funding that would otherwise go to the States
to improve highway safety at the State and local level.
Therefore, the Committee recommends $16,176,000, the fiscal
year 2005 level, as reimbursements to NHTSA for administering
the grant programs.
Workforce Planning and Development.--NHTSA established this
program in fiscal year 2001 in an effort to encourage young
professionals to enter into the fields of engineering,
research, science and technology, vehicle safety and injury.
The Committee recognizes the agency's desire to build a base
for future employment but notes that the challenges of
attrition in the transportation workforce are not unique to
NHTSA. The Committee continues to encourage that this type of
workforce planning be done throughout the entire Department of
Transportation and be coordinated by the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration. Accordingly, the
Committee, again, has not included the requested funding to
support the initiative.

SAFETY PERFORMANCE

Vehicle Safety Harmonization.--The Committee recommends
$206,000 for international harmonization activities, an amount
equal to the budget request.
New Car Assessment Program.--The Committee recommends
$7,679,000 for the New Car Assessment Program [NCAP]. The
Committee directs NHTSA to evaluate whether the NCAP program
should be refined in light of the findings in the GAO report
issued in April 2005. The Agency should detail this evaluation
in a letter report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by March 15, 2006. NHTSA should provide
responses to the issues raised in the GAO report and
specifically address the recommendations made by the GAO. NHTSA
should also examine methods by which NCAP tests can
differentiate more clearly the performance of dissimilar
vehicles and other changes to improve the ratings system used
to communicate NCAP results to the public.
Additionally, the Committee commends NHTSA for beginning
the process to consider changing its frontal program, as
evidenced by its October 14, 2004, Federal Register request for
comments. Given the proximity of the September 1, 2007, date by
which all light duty vehicles will have to meet a 35 mph full
frontal barrier test under FMVSS 208, as well as the lead times
inherent in vehicle design, the Committee encourages the Agency
to complete its analysis of the docket comments and take any
commensurate action it deems appropriate no later than December
16, 2005. The Committee further directs NHTSA to address
specifically means to communicate the availability of crash
avoidance technologies, such as stability control, to consumers
to aid in their evaluation of vehicle safety as part of their
purchase decision.

highway safety programs

The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the
following program activities in the following amount:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impaired Driving....................................... $12,800,000
Pedestrians/Bicycles................................... 2,000,000
Motorcycles............................................ 738,000
National Occupant Protection........................... 11,774,000
Enforcement and Justice Services....................... 2,271,000
Emergency Medical Services............................. 3,505,000
Records and Licensing.................................. 2,660,000
Highway Safety Research................................ 7,490,000
Emerging Traffic Safety Issues......................... 1,178,000
NOPUS.................................................. 1,656,000
International Activities............................... 100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impaired Driving.--The Committee recommends $12,800,000 to
support the impaired driving program. This amount is $2,706,000
more than the budget request. These additional funds will allow
NHTSA to continue to: (1) promote high visibility law
enforcement; (2) educate prosecutors, judges and law
enforcement regarding impaired driving and promote specialized
or enhanced court systems; (3) develop effective messages and
countermeasures to reach high risk groups; (4) encourage
widespread adoption of medical screening and brief intervention
for individuals with alcohol abuse problems; and (5) complete
NHTSA's model impaired driving records information system pilot
which will assist States in tracking repeat offenders and begin
to promote its use in more States. The additional funding will
also provide NHTSA with resources to advance the use of
standard field sobriety testing [SFST], continue to train law
enforcement to use SFST, fund the standardization of the SFST
course and study how to reduce significantly the time required
to present the course to law enforcement.
The Committee recommendation has combined NHTSA's impaired
driving and drug impaired driving programs into one program
line item, in recognition of the fact that countermeasures must
focus on the impaired driving issue with adequate attention to
both alcohol and drugs.
In addition, the Committee recommends additional funding of
$14,000,000 to support national advertising in coordination
with the annual ``You Drink & Drive. You Lose'' impaired
driving law enforcement crackdown. These funds will be derived
from the section 163 grant program.
Judicial and Prosecutorial Awareness.--The Committee
recommends $1,100,000 for judicial and prosecutorial awareness
to expedite the detection, identification and tracking of hard
core drunk drivers. The Committee is aware that one of the
major factors in alcohol-related crashes is the number of
habitual drunk drivers involved in alcohol-related traffic
crashes.
The Committee directs NHTSA to work with State and local
law enforcement officials, judges, prosecutors and parole
officers to assist them in developing strategies that
specifically target the removal of habitual drunk drivers from
the road. In addition, the Committee awaits the report from
NHTSA regarding strategies to evaluate the effectiveness of
this program and NHTSA's plans to carry it out. This report was
due on June 1, 2005.
Driving While Intoxicated [DWI] Online Reporting System
Development.--According to NHTSA's research, DWI enforcement
requires high visibility for efficiency. Unfortunately, the DWI
arrest process can take up to 6 hours to complete, with DWI
arrest paperwork accounting for approximately 60 percent of the
processing time. In 2003 and 2004, under a grant from the Texas
Department of Transportation, the Texas Municipal Police
Association [TMPA] conducted a number of focus groups to
determine the issues prolonging DWI arrest time. The majority
stated that a standardized and simplified DWI report would
allow officers to complete a DWI arrest in less time and ease
the extensive DWI arrest process for officers.
After gathering and analyzing information from the focus
groups, TMPA developed the pilot Online DWI Reporting System in
an effort to reduce the amount of paperwork associated with DWI
arrests, without compromising the information required in legal
proceedings. TMPA has reported to the Committee that those
using the system have experienced up to a 50 percent reduction
in DWI processing times, as well as ensured the integrity of
the reports in court by consulting with prosecutors.
The DWI Online Reporting System is currently in its pilot
stage in Texas, and a statewide release is planned for the
autumn of 2005. TMPA has also received a grant from NHTSA to
collaborate with the State of Georgia and develop an online DWI
reporting system for the State by January 2006. The Committee
is encouraged by the success of this pilot program and
encourages NHTSA to continue to monitor its progress closely.
Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Pupil Transportation.--The
Committee is troubled by the considerable decrease NHTSA
proposes for the pedestrian, bicycle, and pupil transportation
program in fiscal year 2006, amounting to a reduction of 45
percent from the fiscal year 2005 level. The Committee directs
NHTSA to provide a specific and detailed analysis to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by September 1, 2005,
itemizing and explaining each proposed reduction to this
program.
Student Transportation.--As NHTSA is undertaking cuts to
these important programs in the pedestrians, bicyclists, and
pupil transportation category, they are simultaneously
undertaking the development of a tool to determine the economic
impacts of installing safety belts in school buses. The
Committee understands that there were quite a few school bus
accidents in 2005 and national discussions are taking place
about making school bus transportation safer. However, the
Committee is concerned that school bus safety may be
overshadowing the larger issue of student safety. Three years
ago, the Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, at the request of Congress, provided a data-driven
report that showed that school bus transportation is the safest
possible mode for students traveling to school; fatalities per
million student miles were less than 1 percent on school bus
travel. However, being a passenger in a vehicle with a teen
driver (2.4 percent), walking (8.7 percent) or the worst,
riding a bicycle, have proven to be far more dangerous.
Therefore, as NHTSA is developing a report on the economic
impacts of seat belt installation in school buses, the
Committee directs NHTSA to expand the scope of this report to
include the economic impacts, as well as the possible impacts
to child fatalities, of providing increased school bus service
for children who now take other, much more dangerous, modes to
school.
In addition, the Committee reminds NHTSA that in April
2002, the Agency released a report to Congress that stated that
lap seat belts had little benefit in reducing serious injuries
in an accident; the report went further to state that these
belts could actually increase the risk of injury for students
on a school bus. As NHTSA is undergoing this economic and
safety analysis, the Committee instructs the Agency to submit a
letter by August 31, 2005, to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations that explains the justification for
undertaking this analysis, considering the findings of the
previous report. NHTSA is reminded that their mission is to
assist State and local decision makers in reducing student risk
of injury in the most effective--as well as safe--manner.
Backover Incidents.--The Committee has become aware of
possible increases in backover incidents, especially involving
impacts between small children and the rear of reversing motor
vehicles. The Committee directs NHTSA to evaluate means to
reduce this incidence, including educational efforts undertaken
by State agencies--such as the Utah Department of
Transportation's ``Spot the Tot'' program--and by various
organizations, as well as technological means provided by
original equipment manufacturers and the aftermarket. In
addition, NHTSA should explore the value of promptly providing
relevant information to consumers on effective means to reduce
or avoid backover incidents. NHTSA shall report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 1 year of
enactment of this Act on its assessment of the magnitude of
backover incidents and the means of mitigating such incidents.
If the Agency is unable to quantify the extent of the issue,
then it should include possible means by which a better
quantification of backover incidents may be obtained.
Motorcycles.--NHTSA's budget documents state that
motorcycle fatalities have increased for 6 straight years, for
a total 73 percent increase since 1997. Helmet use continues to
decline in many States and impaired driving plays a role in 40
percent of motorcycle accidents. Despite these shocking
statistics, NHTSA again is proposing to decrease funding for
the motorcycle program. The Committee recommends $800,000 for
motorcycle program activities, the fiscal year 2005 level, and
directs NHTSA to provide an update to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by November 1, 2005, detailing the
Agency's innovative and creative agenda for decreasing
motorcycle fatalities in fiscal year 2006.
National Occupant Protection Program.--Recent years have
seen encouraging increases in safety belt use across the
country, reaching 80 percent for 2004; Michigan has
accomplished a 93 percent use rate.
The Committee continues to urge NHTSA to be vigilant and
resourceful in its efforts to not only increase the seat belt
rate, but ensure that this vigilance is not overshadowing the
overall goal of reducing fatalities in this and every aspect of
highway safety. The Committee recommends $11,774,000 for
NHTSA's occupant protection efforts, which is the requested
amount.
To supplement NHTSA's overall safety belt effort, the
Committee recommends funding to continue the ``Click It or
Ticket'' national public service message program.
Emergency Medical Services.--The Committee is aware that
there is no national repository for EMS data, similar to the
national databases that exist to support police and fire
services. The Congress included additional funding in fiscal
year 2005 to support a National EMS Resource Center to assist
State and local EMS data collection and analysis. For fiscal
year 2006, the Committee recommends an additional $850,000 to
support the continuation costs of the NEMSIS Technical
Assistance Center. In addition, the Committee encourages NHTSA
to continue toward the full implementation of NEMSIS, which
will provide data entry and reporting capabilities at the local
EMS level, data collection and reporting capabilities at the
State level, and a National EMS Database to be housed at NHTSA.
This database will also have a Technical Assistance Center to
assist EMS systems in data collection and use. The Committee
also recommends $350,000 to continue rural vehicular trauma at
the University of South Alabama.
International Activities.--The Committee recommends
$100,000 for NHTSA's new international activities initiative, a
decrease of 50 percent from the budget request.
Share the Road Safely.--For the last 2 fiscal years, the
Congress has directed NHTSA to take responsibility for the
share the road safely program, instead of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA]. In fiscal year 2005, the
Congress directed FMCSA to detail one FTE to NHTSA to help
oversee this program, in anticipation of FMCSA resuming full
responsibility for the program in fiscal year 2006. The
Committee has provided funding for share the road safely under
the FMCSA account and no funding has been provided directly to
NHTSA. However, the Committee directs NHTSA to remain available
as a resource to FMCSA in the future with regard to this
program, as it pertains to both the motoring public, as well as
commercial motor vehicles.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Biomechanical Research.--The Committee recommends
$14,000,000 for biomechanics research. The Committee's
recommendation includes necessary resources for the continued
research of the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network
program.
Driver/Vehicle Performance/Simulator.--The Committee
includes $7,050,000 for the driver/vehicle performance/
simulator program as requested in the budget estimate. Within
the funds provided, the Committee directs that no less than
$3,000,000 be utilized for the National Advance Driving
Simulator.
Fatality Analysis Reporting System.--The Committee
recommends $7,063,000 for the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System [FARS], the proposed budget request. This represents a
$1,300,000 increase from the fiscal year 2005 enacted base
funding, a drastic increase in growth. In addition, the
Agency's request materials state that ``without the additional
funding . . . it will be nearly impossible for the Agency to be
able to reach the target of August for completion of these
critical data.'' In fiscal year 2005, the Congress provided an
additional $850,000 over the NHTSA requested amount, because
the Agency claimed that the FARS program would not be able to
complete its work without the increased funding. Although the
funding is in the actual budget request this year, the
Committee is concerned that this program is not being budgeted
for appropriately, as it appears to be on the verge of a shut-
down on a yearly basis. Perhaps by providing the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations a detailed itemization of
spending by August 15, 2005, NHTSA will be more properly
prepared for the fiscal year 2007 budget submission.
FAST FARS.--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the
FAST FARS data collection program. An effective FAST FARS
system will permit the Agency to analyze the effectiveness of
its programs more quickly, thereby improving decision making to
better utilize limited safety funding resources.
Tread Act Compliance.--The primary purpose of the TREAD Act
was to improve the safety of the motoring public. The Committee
remains concerned that many tires that are imported into the
United States do not comply with the early warning reporting
and future tire testing requirements of the TREAD Act. To
assist NHTSA's ongoing enforcement efforts against non-
compliant tire imports, the Committee provides $150,000 under
salaries and expenses for one additional full-time equivalent
staff to work exclusively in NHTSA's vehicle safety compliance
office. NHTSA should move to ensure that this position is
filled expeditiously.
Vehicle Crash Causation Study.--The Committee continues to
support the ongoing vehicle crash causation study and provides
$7,000,000, the fiscal year 2005 level, for this purpose.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Safety.--
The Committee strongly supports NHTSA's new initiative to
address possible safety concerns as hydrogen fuel cell and
other alternative fuel cell vehicles are introduced into the
Nation's fleet. The fiscal year 2006 budget request,
$1,350,000, is provided for this purpose.
Plastic and Composite Vehicles.--The Committee recognizes
the development of plastics and polymer-based composites in the
automotive industry and the important role these technologies
play in improving and enabling automobile performance. The
Committee recommends $250,000 to begin development of a program
to examine possible safety benefits of Lightweight Plastic and
Composite Intensive Vehicles [PCIV]. The program will help
facilitate a foundation between DOT, the Department of Energy
and industry stakeholders for the development of safety-
centered approaches for future light-weight automotive design.

national driver register

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation Limitation
of contract on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005........................ $3,600,000 $3,571,000
Budget estimate, 2006....................... 4,000,000 4,000,000
House allowance............................. 4,000,000 4,000,000
Committee recommendation.................... 4,000,000 4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding to implement and operate the
Problem Driver Pointer System [PDPS] and improve traffic safety
by assisting State motor vehicle administrators in
communicating effectively and efficiently with other States to
identify drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked
for serious traffic offenses such as driving under the
influence of alcohol or other drugs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract
authorization of $4,000,000 for payment on obligations incurred
in carryout provisions of the National Driver Register Act. The
recommended liquidating cash appropriation is equal to the
budget estimate and is $400,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$4,000,000 for the national driver register. The recommended
limitation is the same as the budget request and is $429,000
more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005.................. $225,000,000 $223,200,000
Budget estimate, 2006................. 465,000,000 465,000,000
House allowance....................... 551,000,000 551,000,000
Committee recommendation.............. 548,182,095 548,182,095
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under the Section 402 grant program, grant allocations are
determined on the basis of a statutory formula established
under 20 U.S.C. 402. Individual States use this funding in
national priority areas established by Congress which have the
greatest potential for achieving safety improvements and
reducing traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries. The section
410 alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grant
program encourages States to enact stiffer laws and implement
stronger programs to detect and remove impaired drivers from
the roads. The section 405 occupant protection program
encourages States to promote and strengthen occupant protection
initiatives.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation
of contract authorization of $548,182,095 for payment on
obligations incurred in carryout provision of the highway
traffic safety grant programs. The Committee recommendation is
consistent with the amount of contract authorization for
highway traffic safety grant programs under SAFETEA, as passed
by the Senate. The recommended liquidating cash appropriation
is $83,182,095 more than budget estimate and $324,982,095 more
than fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$548,182,095 for the highway traffic safety grant programs
funded under this heading. The recommended limitation is
$83,182,095 more than budget estimate and $324,982,095 more
than fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of
section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for
State, local, or private buildings or structures.
The Committee recommends a separate limitation on
obligations for administrative expenses and for each grant
program as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety programs (section 402)................... $209,217,985
Occupant protection programs (section 405).............. 149,667,110
Demonstration programs (section 406).................... 7,400,000
Emergency medical services program (section 407A)....... 5,000,000
Impaired driving program (section 410).................. 115,721,000
State traffic safety information systems improvements 45,000,000
(section 412)..........................................
Administrative expenses................................. 16,176,000
---------------
Total............................................. 548,182,095
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Safety Messages.--The bill contains a provision
(sec. 140) extending the authority for States to use traffic
safety grant funds under Section 402 to produce and place
highway safety public service messages in television, radio,
cinema, print media and on the Internet. The Committee
continues a provision that was included in previous
appropriations Acts which designated grant funds to be used for
public safety messages related to safety belt use and support
of the ``Click It or Ticket'' mobilization that is conducted
each year in May and November. In fiscal year 2005, NHTSA again
used this funding to support State high-visibility ``Click It
or Ticket'' enforcement programs and bolstered these programs
with almost $10,000,000 in targeted State and national
advertising.
The Committee has again included bill language providing
$10,000,000 from the seat belt grant program to be used
consistent with current practice and as directed by the NHTSA
Administrator for broadcast advertising to support the national
law enforcement mobilization aimed at increasing seat belt use.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION

Section 130 allows States to use funds provided under
section 402 of title 23, U.S.C. to produce and place highway
safety public service messages related to seat belt usage and
impaired driving. The provision allocates $10,000,000 for the
purpose of national paid media to support national safety belt
mobilizations under section 157 and a total of $20,000,000
under section 163 to include: $6,000,000 to support State
impaired driving mobilization enforcement efforts and
$14,000,000 for paid media to support national law enforcement
mobilizations on impaired driving.
The Committee notes that the pending reauthorization bill,
SAFETEA, as passed by the Senate, creates a $24,000,000 set-
aside for paid media support. Currently, the Committee
recommends funding these programs as it has in previous
appropriations bills for the short term; however, the Committee
will review the conference deliberations on that legislation
for direction for the conference of this appropriations bill.
Section 131 allows the Secretary of Transportation for
fiscal year 2006, to use the funds necessary to carry out the
provisions of section 157 of title 23.
Section 132 allows up to $130,000 of funds available under
23 U.S.C. 403 and 7212(a)(9) of the Highway Safety Grant
Program Reauthorization Act of 2005 to pay travel and expenses
for State management reviews and highway safety staff core
competency development training.

Federal Railroad Administration

The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an
operating administration within the Department of
Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of
Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the
Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department
of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the
Interior. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad
industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to
rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical
infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad
Administration.

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $138,651,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 145,949,000
House allowance......................................... 145,949,000
Committee recommendation................................ 146,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA
rail safety activities and all other administrative and
operating activities related to staff and programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $146,000,000 for Safety and
Operations for fiscal year 2006, which is $51,000 more than the
budget request and $7,349,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. Of this amount the bill specifies that,
$13,856,000 remains available until expended.
Safety Oversight and Enforcement.--The Committee notes with
concern and dismay that this has been one of the worst years on
record in recent times for railroad-related injuries and
fatalities. A hazardous materials derailment in Graniteville,
South Carolina resulted in nine fatalities, 250 injuries and
the evacuation of 5,400 people. In addition, a tragic commuter
crash in Glendale, California resulted in 11 deaths and 120
injuries, and an Amtrak derailment in Stevenson, Washington
resulted in 24 people being injured. More recently, a collision
between two trains in Bentonia, Mississippi on July 10, 2005,
resulted in four crew fatalities. A few months ago, the
Secretary announced a Rail Safety Action Plan designed to focus
the FRA's safety oversight effort. As the FRA implements this
new safety action plan, the Committee directs the GAO to
conduct a broad assessment of FRA's enforcement activities. The
GAO's review should examine how the newly created Rail Safety
Action Plan complements the existing Safety Assurance and
Compliance Program to ensure that identified safety
vulnerabilities are addressed in a timely and systemic manner.
The GAO should provide its assessment to the Committee by June
1, 2006.

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $35,737,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 46,325,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 41,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Railroad Research and Development provides for research in
the development of safety and performance standards for
railroads and the evaluation of their role in the Nation's
transportation infrastructure.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,000,000
for railroad research and development, which is $5,325,000 less
than the budget request and $5,263,000 more than the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level.
Within the funds provided, $15,000,000 is for the
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System [NDGPS]. The
account also includes $3,000,000 for a public-private
partnership with a freight railroad to fund a project to assist
the development of technology to deploy safety overlay
technology designed to prevent train movement authority
violations, over-speed violations, and train collision
accidents caused by non-compliance of authorities as well as
provide additional protections to roadway workers and to
protect against open switches in non-signal territories. Within
the funds provided, $2,000,000 is for Marshall University and
the University of Nebraska for safety research programs in rail
equipment, human factors, track, and rail safety-related
issues. The Committee also includes $250,000 for structural
integrity research utilizing plates or chopped fiber sprays for
reinforcements on rail structures such as piles, pile-caps, and
steel bridges at WVU's Constructed Facilities Center.

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM

The Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program
[RRIF], as established in section 7203 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21], does not authorize any
direct appropriations, but it enables the Secretary of
Transportation to provide loans and loan guarantees to State
and local governments, Government-sponsored authorities and
corporations, railroads and joint ventures to acquire, improve,
or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities,
including track, bridges, yards, and shops. No appropriations,
new loan guarantee commitments, nor loan repayment extensions
are proposed for fiscal year 2006.

NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $19,493,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance......................................... 10,165,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Next Generation High-Speed Rail Technology
Demonstration Program [NGHSR] seeks to demonstrate technology
that will facilitate the incremental development of high-speed
rail passenger service that has air or road competitive door-
to-door trip times between major city pairs and reliable, high
quality, cost-effective service.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $11,500,000 for NGHSR, which is
$11,500,000 more than the budget request and $7,993,000 less
than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The Committee rejects
the administration's recommendation that this program be
eliminated. Nevertheless, the Committee has reduced
substantially the funding until the future of a national
passenger rail system has been decided. If Amtrak or some
subsequent national passenger rail system is reformed
successfully, a high speed rail component will be an obvious
element of such a system. Consequently, the Federal Railroad
Administration must maintain an adequate commitment to high
speed rail technology as well as other related technology.
The Committee includes $4,500,000 to address critical
highway-rail crossing safety needs within the Gulf Coast High
Speed Rail Corridor. In addition, the Committee includes
$2,000,000 for highway-rail crossing improvements to the
Pacific Northwest Corridor in Vancouver, Washington; $500,000
for the Public Education and Enforcement Research program for
highway-rail grade crossing safety in Illinois; and, $500,000
for corridor improvements to the Midwest Regional Rail
Initiative in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

ALASKA RAILROAD REHABILITATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $24,800,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Alaska Railroad was established by Congress on March
12, 1914, in order to facilitate economic development and
access to mineral deposits in the Territory of Alaska.
Completed in 1923, the railroad was part of the Department of
the Interior until the creation of the Department of
Transportation at which time the railroad became part of FRA.
On January 5, 1985, pursuant to authority delegated by the
Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982, (45 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.),
FRA sold the Federal Government's interest in the Alaska
Railroad to the Alaska Railroad Corporation [ARRC], a public
corporation of the State of Alaska. Today, the ARRC provides
freight and passenger service from the ice-free ports of
Whittier, Seward and Anchorage to Fairbanks as well as Denali
National Park and military installations. Vessel and rail barge
connections are provided from Seattle, Washington and Prince
Rupert, British Columbia.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $20,000,000 for rail safety and
infrastructure improvements benefiting passenger and freight
operations of the Alaska Railroad. This funding is $4,800,000
below the fiscal year 2005 level and $20,000,000 above the
budget request.

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,207,264,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\............................... 360,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,176,248,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,450,000,000

\1\ Funds to be available for transfer to the Surface Transportation
Board for directed service of commuter rail obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a
for-profit corporation that operates intercity passenger rail
services in 46 States and the District of Columbia, in addition
to serving as a contractor in various capacities for several
commuter rail agencies. Congress created Amtrak in the Rail
Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-518) in response
to private carriers' inability to profitably operate intercity
passenger rail service due a steady decline in ridership that
began in the 1920's. Thereafter, Amtrak assumed the common
carrier obligations of the private railroads in exchange for
the right to priority access of their tracks for incremental
cost.
Amtrak has operated at a deficit every single year since
its inception in 1971. This is despite generating more than
$35,000,000,000 in revenue and receiving approximately
$28,000,000,000 in Federal subsidy assistance during this time.
At the same time, Amtrak accumulated a significant backlog of
both deferred maintenance costs and capital investment needs
while failing to make any substantial progress toward financial
self-sufficiency or operational solvency.
Recently, Amtrak's annual deficits have grown from
approximately $900,000,000 during the 1990's to well over
$1,000,000,000 each year since 2001. Since 2001, Amtrak's
annual operating losses have exceeded $1,000,000,000 and annual
cash losses have exceeded $600,000,000. Amtrak also faces some
$600,000,000 a year in capital costs, mostly with regard to the
Northeast Corridor. Amtrak also will have debt service of
nearly $300,000,000 annually for the foreseeable future. In
addition, the deferral of maintenance has created a significant
risk of operational failure.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes $1,450,000,000 for the operation
costs and capital requirements of Amtrak, which is $242,736,000
more than the fiscal year 2005 funding level and $1,090,000,000
more than the budget request.
Necessity for Cost Cutting Measures.--For fiscal year 2006,
the Amtrak Board of Directors has sought an appropriation of
$1,820,000,000 which is $420,000,000 more than the Committee
allowance and $603,000,000 more than the comparable 2005
appropriation. The request of the Amtrak Board reflects an
expectation of steadily increasing costs--especially costs
associated with capital expenditures over the Northeast
Corridor. In the face of those expectations, the Committee
believes it essential that the Corporation take immediate
measures to lower its costs.
The Inspector General of the Department of Transportation
has found that removing sleeper car service, dining cars, and
other amenities from long distance trains could reduce net
operating losses by $74,000,000 to $158,000,000 a year and
would also yield an immediate reduction of about $75,000,000 in
planned annual capital spending. Over the next 5 years, the
potential Federal subsidy savings range from $650,000,000 to
over $1,000,000,000.
The cost of providing sleeper car accommodations for first
class passengers costs the Corporation $39,400,000 annually.
Services such as food and beverage and sleeper car
accommodations do not come close to covering the costs of
providing those services. As such, Amtrak spends $2 for every
$1 received when providing food and beverage service and incurs
associated operating losses of nearly $150,000,000.
Furthermore, Amtrak estimates that it will spend $11,600,000
over the next 5 years to overhaul long distance diner cars.
Consistent with existing law, the Committee instructs that,
beginning no later than 6 months after the enactment of this
Act, no operating grants to Amtrak may be used to subsidize
losses from food and beverage service. 49 U.S.C. Section 24305
provides that Amtrak may provide food and beverage service on
its trains only if revenues from the services each year are at
least equal to the costs of providing those services.
While the Committee recognizes that passengers traveling on
long-distance trains for 10 to 12 hours or longer clearly need
a means to access food during the trip, this does not mean that
food service should be provided with a Federal subsidy. Options
for reducing costs for food service could include increasing
food prices, installing vending machines, having passengers
obtain meals in stations during regular stops, distributing
boxed meals that have been prepared off the train, selling
packaged food from carts on the trains, and redesigning food
service cars so that they generate sufficient revenues to
offset costs. Amtrak is directed to pursue these alternatives.
Besides losing $39,400,000 annually providing sleeper car
accommodations to its first class passengers, Amtrak estimates
that it will spend $144,700,000 over the next 5 years to
overhaul its Viewliner and Superliner sleeper cars and
$111,100,000 to acquire new sleeper cars.
The Committee has included a provision stipulating that, no
later than 6 months after the enactment of this Appropriations
bill, no fiscal year 2006 operating grants to Amtrak may
subsidize losses from sleeper car accommodations on Amtrak's
long distance trains. Amtrak may provide sleeper car
accommodations only if revenues from the service are at least
equal to the operating and capital expenses of providing such
service.
Further, Amtrak requested $787,000,000 in capital funds for
fiscal year 2006. To help meet this funding level, the
Committee authorizes the Corporation to impose a Federal ticket
surcharge, or passenger service fee, to each ticket issued by
Amtrak and to apply the proceeds toward restoring Amtrak-owned
infrastructure, fleet, and facilities to a system wide state-
of-good-repair. A surcharge equal to 5 percent of the current
ticket price may be imposed on each ticket issued for passenger
rail travel in the Northeast Corridor and a surcharge equal to
2 percent of the current ticket price may be imposed on each
ticket issued for passenger rail travel outside the Northeast
Corridor. Such ticket surcharges could result in additional
revenues to the Corporations totaling $51,700,000 assuming that
such surcharges do not serve to depress ticket sales. The
provision included in the bill authorizes the Corporation to
assess these surcharges only if it believes that they will not
have a deleterious effect on ridership and revenues.
Managerial Cost Accounting System.--To achieve long-term
reforms in the delivery of intercity passenger rail, it is also
imperative that Amtrak develop a cost accounting system that
identifies the average and marginal costs of providing service
on all of Amtrak's corridor and long distance routes. Amtrak's
current cost accounting system is insufficient to provide the
information required for effective route management. The
Committee has included a provision setting aside not less than
$5,000,000 for the purpose of procuring the new managerial cost
accounting system, which shall include average and marginal
unit cost capability.
Subsidy Requirements and Maintenance Costs of the Northeast
Corridor.--In testimony before the Committee in March 2006, the
Department of Transportation General Counsel noted with dismay
that Amtrak receives a greater Federal subsidy on a per
passenger mile basis than other modes of transportation.
Indeed, a more in depth analysis of Amtrak's finances reveals
that, within the Amtrak system, no rail service receives a
higher subsidy on a per passenger mile basis than the Northeast
Corridor.
While much of the debate over subsidies for Amtrak has
centered around the per-passenger subsidies of Amtrak's long
distance trains, these discussions customarily ignore Amtrak's
extraordinarily high annual capital and maintenance
expenditures for the Northeast Corridor. Such discussions also
routinely ignore the annual debt service payments that Amtrak
must cover. In fiscal year 2006, Amtrak's debt service payments
for the Northeast Corridor are expected to be roughly
$124,000,000--more than the comparable debt service levels
attributable to either Amtrak's long distance trains or State-
supported Corridors. When all of Amtrak's anticipated costs for
the coming year are factored into the analysis of Amtrak's
costs and subsidy needs, it reveals that Amtrak's State-
supported trains and long distance trains will cost roughly 26
cents and 29 cents per passenger mile respectively while the
Northeast Corridor service will cost roughly 34 cents per
passenger mile.
Moreover, it is clear that the overwhelming share of
Amtrak's recent and anticipated capital expenditures have and
will continue to be directed toward the Northeast Corridor.
Over the last 3 years, annual capital expenditures over the
Northeast Corridor have grown from by more than 90 percent--a
boost of $178,000,000. During the same period, appropriations
for the railroad's annual subsidy grew by $167,000,000. For
fiscal year 2006, Amtrak is seeking to boost such expenditures
to $531,000,000--a 170 percent increase over the level just 2
years ago. Both the Administration and Amtrak's own proposals
for reforming the railroad call for the Northeast Corridor to
be returned to a ``state of good repair.'' The DOT Inspector
General testified before the Committee that this initiative
alone will cost roughly $5,000,000,000.
At present, despite the fact that Amtrak owns the entire
Northeast Corridor between Washington DC, and New Rochelle, New
York and between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston,
Massachusetts, Amtrak trains represent only 10 percent of the
trains operating over the Amtrak-owned segments. Trains
operated by the commuter rail authorities comprise the other 90
percent. Given the longer distances traveled by Amtrak trains
over the Corridor, the commuter railroads represent roughly 42
percent of the train miles traveled over the corridor. Yet,
while contributions by the commuter authorities to the
Corridor's maintenance costs have increased in recent years,
the extent of these contributions have not been consistent
between commuter authorities and do not cover their fully
allocated portion of said maintenance costs. As such, the
Committee has included a provision allowing the Corporation to
assess the commuter rail authorities operating over the
corridor an appropriate fee for the maintenance expenses that
the Corporation must make to sustain their commuter rail
operations.
In establishing the appropriate amount for such
assessments, the Corporation must fully account for the
contributions that those rail authorities are already making
toward these maintenance costs based on the existing agreements
between the commuter authorities and the Corporation. Moreover,
the Committee expects the Corporation to work with the impacted
commuter rail authorities to establish a transparent and
consultative process based on empirical data regarding the
Corridor's annual maintenance needs so that all contributors to
the Corridor's costs have a clear and common understanding of
the necessary maintenance projects requiring funding.
Representations Before Congress.--While the Committee
recognizes a legitimate need for Amtrak to communicate with
Congress, it believes that it is essential that Amtrak staff
accurately reflect the program and policies of Amtrak's Board
of Directors and Amtrak management. As such, the Committee has
included a provision that prohibits funding in the bill from
being used to influence Congress regarding proposed legislation
unless those representations are consistent with the stated
policies of the Amtrak Board as articulated through the Amtrak
President.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL RAIL ADMINISTRATION

Section 140 makes a technical correction to the use of
funds made available in Public Law 108-447 for rail relocation
in Auburn, Maine to improve safety and mitigate an existing
hazard.
Section 141 makes a technical correction to the use of
funding made available to Illinois for rail safety programs.
Section 142 allows the Secretary of Transportation to make
a $1,000,000 grant to the New Orleans Regional Planning
Commission from the Next Generation High-Speed Rail account.

Federal Transit Administration

The Federal Transit Administration was established as a
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist
in the development of improved mass transportation facilities,
equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning
and establishment of urban and rural transportation services
needed for economical and desirable development; to provide
mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural
areas; to maximize the productivity and efficiency of
transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and
local governments and their instrumentalities in financing such
services and systems.
The programs funded by the Federal Transit Administration,
as contained in TEA21 and a series of short-term extensions for
fiscal year 2005, need to be reauthorized for fiscal year 2006,
and the budget request for the Federal Transit Administration
reflects the administration's reauthorization proposal. The
budget request retains a separate account for administration
and restructures the Federal transit programs into two
accounts: Formula Grants and Research and Major Capital
Investment Grants. In addition, the budget request proposes to
consolidate funding from the general fund for the
administration account and from the Highway Trust Fund for the
proposed Formula Grants and Research account.
The Committee recommendation provides sufficient funding
and stability for the Federal Transit Administration pending
completion of the reauthorization of the surface transportation
programs. The Committee has followed the program structure
found in current law and has resisted the temptation to
prejudge programmatic priorities and modifications that may
emerge from the reauthorization process. Nevertheless, the
Committee remains concerned that the single-minded focus to
increase local flexibility and funding stability as presented
in the budget request may cause neglect to other important
Federal interests in a national transit program. The Federal
interest in transit should be--and is--greater than
establishing rote entitlements that merely redistribute trust
fund revenue by formula.
Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level
of $8,208,644,715 is provided for the administrative expenses
and programs of the Federal Transit Administration for fiscal
year 2006. This funding is comprised of $1,386,522,000 in
appropriations from the general fund and $6,822,125,000 in
limitations on contract authority from the mass transit account
of the Highway Trust Fund.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations compared to fiscal year 2005 and the
administration's request:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 House Committee
Program 2005 enacted 2006 estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses............. $77,376,000 $83,500,000 $80,000,000 $79,544,000
Formula grants...................... 3,999,917,670 ................. 4,417,000,000 4,354,191,000
University transportation research.. 5,952,000 ................. 8,000,000 5,818,000
Transit planning and research....... 126,976,000 ................. 160,325,000 156,278,000
Formula grants and research......... ................. 6,135,000,000 ................. .................
Capital investment grants........... 3,312,114,400 ................. 3,641,675,000 3,490,972,000
Major capital investment grants..... ................. 872,500,000 ................. .................
Job access and reverse commute 124,000,000 ................. 175,000,000 121,833,000
grants.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005.............. $9,672,000 $67,704,000
Budget estimate, 2006............. 83,500,000 ................
House allowance................... 12,000,000 68,000,000
Committee recommendation.......... 13,411,000 66,133,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Administrative expenses funds personnel, contract
resources, information technology, space management, travel,
training, and other administrative expenses necessary to carry
out its mission to promote public transportation systems.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $79,544,000 in new
budget resources for the Agency's salaries and administrative
expenses, which is comprised of an appropriation of $13,411,000
from the general fund and a limitation on obligations of
$66,133,882 from the mass transit account of the highway trust
fund. The recommended level of funding is $2,168,000 more than
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
The specific levels of funding recommended by the Committee
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator............................ $925,000
Office of Administration............................... 6,800,000
Office of Chief Counsel................................ 4,200,000
Office of Communications & Congressional Affairs....... 1,300,000
Office of Program Management (including the Office of 7,500,000
Safety and Security)..................................
Office of Budget and Policy............................ 7,200,000
Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation....... 4,700,000
Office of Civil Rights................................. 3,000,000
Office of Planning..................................... 4,200,000
Regional offices....................................... 21,000,000
Central account........................................ 16,219,000
National Transit Database.............................. 2,500,000
----------------
TOTAL............................................ 79,544,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee recommendation includes language authorizing
the Administrator to transfer funding between offices. Any
transfers totaling more than 5 percent of the initial
appropriation from this account must be approved by the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations through the same
process used for reprogramming funds.
Budget Justifications.--The FTA is directed to submit its
fiscal year 2007 congressional justification for administrative
expenses by office, with material detailing salaries and
expenses, staffing increases, and programmatic initiatives of
each office.
Staffing Increases.--The Committee recommends no funding
for additional FTE for fiscal year 2006. The Agency's budget
justification materials state that 10 additional FTE are needed
due to the ``pending enactment of new and expanded
transportation authorization legislation which may make major
changes in our program structure and processes''. The Committee
does not support drastic increases in Federal agencies simply
because new authority may be given to them at some point in the
future. In addition, the request gives no mention to the
responsibilities that will be reduced or eliminated under this
pending legislation and what impact those changes will have on
FTA's staffing.
Project Management Oversight Activities.--The Committee
directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO reports
for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
To further support oversight activities, the bill continues
a provision requiring FTA to reimburse the DOT Office of
Inspector General [OIG] $2,000,000 for costs associated with
audits and investigations of transit-related issues, including
reviews of new fixed guideway systems. This reimbursement must
come from funds available for the execution of contracts. Over
the past several years, the OIG has provided critical oversight
of a number transit projects and FTA activities, which the
Committee has found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that
the Inspector General will continue such activities in fiscal
year 2006.
National Transit Database.--The Committee recommendation
continues funding for the operation of the National Transit
Database in the administrative expenses account. The budget
request assumes funding for the National Transit Database to be
set aside under the proposed Formula Grants and Research
account. The Committee asserts that the activities of the
database are administrative in nature and therefore recommends
$2,500,000 for continued operation and maintenance of the
National Transit Database.
Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].--TEA21, as amended,
requires that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on
Banking, 60 days before executing a full funding grant
agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, the Committee directs FTA to
submit the following information: (1) a copy of the proposed
full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual Federal
appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and
total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2008; (4) a
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization, by
individual project; (5) an evaluation of whether the
alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all
the viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the
project's cost and sponsor's ability to finance the project,
which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which
shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and
finance plan; (7) the source and security of all public and
private sector financing; (8) the project's operating plan,
which enumerates the project's future revenue and ridership
forecasts; and (9) a listing of all planned contingencies and
possible risks associated with the project.
The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before
approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full
funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes
shall include any budget revisions or program changes that
materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the
FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement.
The Committee directs FTA to continue to provide a monthly
new start project update to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, detailing the status of each project. This
update should include FTA's plans and specific milestone
schedules for advancing projects, especially those within 2
years of a proposed full funding grant agreement. In addition,
FTA should notify the Committees 10 days before any project in
the new starts process is given approval by FTA to advance to
preliminary engineering or final design.
Interpreting Congressional Intent.--The Committee
reiterates to FTA that it is improper for the agency to take
actions changing the Congressionally approved scope of programs
and projects without receiving approval of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. The Committee continues to direct
FTA to consult with the Committees before making any decisions
clarifying Congressional intent.

FORMULA GRANTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005................ $499,990,000 $3,499,928,000
Budget estimate, 2006............... ................ ................
House allowance..................... 662,550,000 3,754,450,000
Committee recommendation............ 734,117,000 3,620,074,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Formula grants to States and local agencies funded under
this heading fall into four categories: urbanized area formula
grants; clean fuels formula grants; formula grants and loans
for special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with
disabilities; and formula grants for non-urbanized areas. In
addition, setasides of formula funds are directed to: a grant
program for intercity bus operators to finance Americans with
Disabilities Act [ADA] accessibility costs; and the Alaska
Railroad for improvements to its passenger operations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,354,191,000 for transit formula
grants. The recommended level of funding is comprised of an
appropriation of $734,117,000 from the general fund and
$3,620,074,000 from a limitation on obligations from the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund. The recommendation
is $354,273,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
The Committee recommendation maintains the set-aside for
project oversight in current law instead of providing an
increase for program management of formula funds, as requested.
The Committee distributes, consistent with current statutory
set asides, the total level of funding among the formula
categories as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urbanized Area Formula............................... $3,713,389,578
Alaska Railroad...................................... 5,467,615
Over-the-road Bus Program............................ 7,428,824
Elderly & Persons with Disabilities.................. 178,291,778
Nonurbanized Area Formula............................ 449,613,205
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3007 of TEA21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized formula
grants, by striking the authorization to utilize these funds
for operating costs, but includes a specific provision allowing
the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized areas with
a population of less than 200,000. Generally, urbanized formula
grants may be used to fund capital projects and to finance
planning and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and
associated capital maintenance used in mass transportation. All
urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population are
statutorily required to use 1 percent of their annual formula
grants on enhancements, which include landscaping, public art,
bicycle storage, and connections to parks.
Over-the-road Buses.--The Committee has included $7,428,824
in fiscal year 2006 for the over-the-road accessibility
program. These funds are intended to assist over-the-road bus
operators in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act
accessibility requirements.
The following table displays the State-by-State
distribution of the formula program funds within each of the
program categories:

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2006 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310
Section 5307 Section 5311 Non- Elderly & Persons State Total
State Urbanized Area urbanized Area with Formula Grants
Disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................. $16,899,475 $12,506,648 $3,107,587 $32,513,710
Alaska.............................. \1\ 9,513,218 1,743,130 360,884 11,617,232
American Samoa...................... ................. 285,933 70,638 356,571
Arizona............................. 51,608,524 6,101,216 3,250,633 60,960,373
Arkansas............................ 8,427,522 9,046,763 1,976,164 19,450,449
California.......................... 636,895,839 19,224,938 19,281,482 675,402,259
Colorado............................ 51,262,946 5,431,523 2,242,398 58,936,867
Connecticut......................... 44,324,994 2,780,269 2,178,232 49,283,495
Delaware............................ 6,743,484 1,260,541 591,424 8,595,449
District of Columbia................ 77,294,100 ................. 501,508 77,795,608
Florida............................. 181,519,593 12,538,499 12,276,668 206,334,760
Georgia............................. 71,476,359 15,852,764 4,565,637 91,894,760
Guam................................ ................. 772,616 190,929 963,545
Hawaii.............................. 27,931,825 1,874,705 843,369 30,649,899
Idaho............................... 6,137,201 3,444,442 801,678 10,383,321
Illinois............................ 237,017,016 13,384,686 7,083,208 257,484,910
Indiana............................. 37,781,783 13,323,463 3,697,983 54,803,229
Iowa................................ 13,656,727 9,041,179 1,875,903 24,573,809
Kansas.............................. 10,427,102 7,389,451 1,674,988 19,491,541
Kentucky............................ 19,607,789 12,352,514 2,859,873 34,820,176
Louisiana........................... 31,697,549 9,649,210 2,847,014 44,193,773
Maine............................... 3,299,641 4,796,107 959,849 9,055,597
Maryland............................ 77,483,601 4,986,035 3,030,981 85,500,617
Massachusetts....................... 134,376,810 3,563,340 4,045,553 141,985,703
Michigan............................ 70,576,720 16,768,748 5,881,503 93,226,971
Minnesota........................... 46,841,542 11,018,547 2,663,822 60,523,911
Mississippi......................... 5,443,113 10,803,943 1,981,992 18,229,048
Missouri............................ 40,172,602 12,500,035 3,528,779 56,201,416
Montana............................. 2,781,760 3,333,919 655,848 6,771,527
N. Mariana Islands.................. 728,450 37,561 72,499 838,510
Nebraska............................ 8,582,985 4,522,511 1,089,603 14,195,099
Nevada.............................. 23,056,083 1,606,809 1,346,205 26,009,097
New Hampshire....................... 5,034,167 3,413,564 805,942 9,253,673
New Jersey.......................... 224,463,177 3,296,777 5,163,282 232,923,236
New Mexico.......................... 9,539,832 4,774,801 1,209,684 15,524,317
New York............................ 595,660,936 17,327,584 12,330,346 625,318,866
North Carolina...................... 42,513,505 21,403,170 5,114,079 69,030,754
North Dakota........................ 3,292,822 2,053,270 504,951 5,851,043
Ohio................................ 94,383,818 20,172,440 6,888,734 121,444,992
Oklahoma............................ 14,483,822 9,817,173 2,341,390 26,642,385
Oregon.............................. 40,112,333 7,213,218 2,165,686 49,491,237
Pennsylvania........................ 161,770,479 20,313,213 8,143,283 190,226,975
Puerto Rico......................... 42,759,308 1,656,573 2,732,767 47,148,648
Rhode Island........................ 10,126,070 599,906 816,480 11,542,456
South Carolina...................... 15,152,064 10,671,490 2,699,121 28,522,675
South Dakota........................ 2,530,117 2,796,200 563,421 5,889,738
Tennessee........................... 30,308,166 13,598,002 3,786,591 47,692,759
Texas............................... 212,094,766 30,224,659 11,416,760 253,736,185
Utah................................ 31,423,160 2,421,029 1,081,034 34,925,223
Vermont............................. 1,124,889 2,512,727 471,608 4,109,224
Virgin Islands...................... ................. 542,071 177,723 719,794
Virginia............................ 57,802,506 11,804,533 3,997,038 73,604,077
Washington.......................... 103,606,845 7,937,112 3,389,916 114,933,873
West Virginia....................... 5,334,071 6,454,672 1,473,842 13,262,585
Wisconsin........................... 41,690,805 12,582,953 3,090,158 57,363,916
Wyoming............................. 1,488,896 1,835,956 393,108 3,717,960
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 3,700,262,907 447,365,139 178,291,778 4,325,919,824
Oversight..................... \2\ 18,594,286 2,248,066 ................. 20,842,352
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 3,718,857,193 449,613,205 178,291,778 4,346,762,176
Over-the-Road Bus............. ................. ................. ................. 7,428,824
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total................... 3,718,857,193 449,613,205 178,291,778 4,354,191,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $5,440,277 to Alaska Railroad for improvements to passenger operations.
\2\ Includes $27,338 in an oversight take-down from Alaska Railroad.

UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005........................ $744,000 $5,208,000
Budget estimate, 2006....................... ............ ............
House allowance............................. 1,200,000 6,800,000
Committee recommendation.................... 981,000 4,837,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 5505 of TEA21 provides authorization for the
university transportation research program. The purpose of the
university transportation research program is to foster a
national resource and focal point for the support and conduct
of research and training concerning the transportation of
passengers and property. Funds provided under the FTA
university transportation research program are transferred to
and managed by the Research and Special Programs Administration
and combined with a transfer of funds from the Federal Highway
Administration. The transit university transportation research
program funds are statutorily available only to the University
of Minnesota and Northwestern University. Funding is also
statutorily available for awards based on competitive
applications of approved universities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,818,000 to continue the
university transportation research program. The recommended
funding level is comprised of an appropriation of $981,000 from
the general fund and $4,837,000 from a limitation on
obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust
fund. The Committee recommendation is $133,745 more than the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH

------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005...................... $15,872,000 $111,104,000
Budget estimate, 2006..................... .............. ............
House allowance........................... 24,049,000 136,276,000
Committee recommendation.................. 26,350,000 129,937,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides financial assistance to States
for statewide planning and other technical assistance
activities; local and regional planning support for
metropolitan areas and non-urban areas; research, development,
and demonstration projects; and the national transit institute.
National research and planning funds are used to partner with
the transportation industry and academic institutions to
further transit technology and increase the quality and level
of transit services.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee action provides $156,287,000 for transit
planning and research. The recommended level of funding is
comprised of an appropriation of $26,350,000 from the general
fund and a limitation on obligations from the mass transit of
the highway trust fund of $129,937,000.
The accompanying bill specifies that $5,208,000 is
available for rural transportation assistance; $3,967,000 for
the National Transit Institute at Rutgers University;
$8,992,000 for transit cooperative research; $104,004,000 for
State and metropolitan planning; and $34,116,000 for the
national planning and research program.
National Planning and Research.--Within the total funding
level for the national planning and research program, the
Committee recommendation includes the following activities in
the corresponding amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced vehicle emission reduction sensor technology, $500,000
Ohio...................................................
Biodiesel hybrid bus research, Alabama.................. 1,000,000
CIMERC, Pennsylvania.................................... 1,000,000
City of Mt. Vernon, Washington--transit and 200,000
redevelopment study....................................
Low cost carbon fiber production technology, Tennessee.. 1,000,000
NDSU transit center for small urban areas............... 400,000
Project ACTION.......................................... 3,000,000
Southern fuel cell coalition--center for transportation 1,500,000
and the environment....................................
Transport 2020, Wisconsin............................... 1,000,000
Washington State ferries wireless over water project.... 1,000,000
WVU exhaust emission testing initiative, West Virginia.. 1,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FORMULA GRANTS AND RESEARCH

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Obligation limitation, 2005.............................................
Budget estimate, 2006................................... $6,135,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As proposed in the budget, the Formula Grants and Research
would include formula grants to States and local agencies and
transit planning and research activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend funding for formula grants
and research and has funded these activities consistent with
current law in the absence of completion of the surface
transportation reauthorization bill.

TRUST FUND SHARE OF EXPENSES

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The liquidation cash appropriation provides for liquidation
of obligations incurred pursuant to contract authorization and
annual limitations on obligations for the highway trust fund
share of the administrative expenses, formula grants,
university transportation research, transit planning and
research, job access and reverse commute grants, and capital
investment grants.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,824,667,000 in liquidating cash
for the administrative expenses and programs of the Federal
Transit Administration, which is $6,134,667,000 more than the
budget estimate and $80,167,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. The recommended level is equal to limitations on
obligations included for fiscal year 2006 and is necessary to
meet the accounting principles of the highway trust fund.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
General funds Trust funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005.................. $414,014,000 $2,898,100,000
Budget estimate, 2006................. ............... ...............
House allowance....................... 546,251,000 3,095,424,000
Committee recommendation.............. 588,578,000 2,902,394,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 5309 of 49 U.S.C. authorizes discretionary grants
or loans to States and local public bodies and agencies thereof
to be used in financing mass transportation investments.
Investments may include construction of new fixed guideway
systems and extensions to existing guideway systems; major bus
fleet expansions and bus facility construction; and fixed
guideway expenditures for existing systems.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee action recommends a level of $3,490,972,000.
Within this total, $2,902,394,000 is derived from the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund and $588,578,000 is
appropriated from the general fund.
The Committee provides that funding for capital investment
grants shall be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed guideway modernization........................... $1,307,473,000
Buses and bus facilities............................... 796,977,000
New starts............................................. 1,386,522,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUS AND BUS FACILITIES

The Committee recommends $796,977,000 for bus and bus
facilities funding. These funds may be used to replace,
rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to
construct bus-related facilities.
Limited Extensions of Discretionary Funds.--There have been
occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of
capital investment funds for longer than the original 3-year
availability. The Committee, however, has extended funding for
many of these projects for more than 1 fiscal year, in an
effort to give transit agencies and FTA the opportunity to
spend these funds. The Committee strongly urges FTA to obligate
the grants before the commencement of the fiscal year 2006
calendar, as the Committee will not look favorably upon any
further requests for an extension of funds past 1 fiscal year.
Three, even 4, fiscal years is more than an adequate amount of
time for project sponsors to obligate the discretionary grants,
except in the most unusual of circumstances. Transit agencies
are urged not to seek discretionary funding when the work
cannot be completed in a 3-year time frame. In addition, by
October 30, 2006, FTA should submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing which of these
projects have not obligated the funds, including an explanation
of why this could not be achieved.
The availability of these particular funds is extended for
1 additional year, absent further congressional direction. For
the second year, the Committee directs the FTA not to
reallocate funds provided in fiscal year 2002 or previous Acts
for the following bus and bus facilities projects:
PA--Wilkes Barre intermodal facility
AL--City of Montgomery's Rosa Parks bus project
AL--Alabama State Dock intermodal passenger and freight
terminal bus and bus related facilities
IN--Indianapolis downtown transit facility
MA--Springfield Union Station intermodal facility
MO--Missouri Pacific Depot
MO--St. Louis Metro Transit Agency/Cab Care paratransit
facility
MT--Statewide bus and bus facilities
PA--Butler Township multi-modal transfer center
PA--Callowhill bus garage replacement
PA--Monroe County Transit Authority park and ride
NM--Las Cruces intermodal transit facility.
The Committee further directs the FTA not to reallocate
funds provided in fiscal year 2003 for the following bus and
bus facilities projects:
NV--Bus Rapid Transit Project Las Vegas Blvd
NV--Las Vegas Downtown Transportation Center
NV--Regional Transportation Commission [RTC] BRT--North Las
Vegas CIVIS Bus Stops
MT--Billings bus and bus facilities
MO--Missouri Bus & Bus Facilities--Dunklin County, City of
Houston, Southeast Missouri Transportation Service, Scott
County, SE Missouri State University
MO--Missouri Statewide Bus and Bus Facility Projects
OH--Lorain Renovation Train Depot in a Multi-modal Hub
OH--Ohio Public Transportation Association--Bus and Bus
Facilities for the State of Ohio
NE--Metro Area Transit--Intermodal Facility
NE--Metro Area Transit South Omaha/Stockyard Center.
CT--Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center
CT--Hartford-New Britain Busway Project
CT--Norwich Intermodal Transportation Center
IN--Indianapolis Downtown Transit Facility
MA--Springfield Union Station Intermodal Redevelopment
Project
WA--Aurora Avenue Bus Rapid Transit
WA--Burien transit center transit oriented development
WA--King Street Station Multimodal Facility
The Committee recommends that funds for bus and bus
facilities shall be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project Name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Association of Area Agencies on Aging Bus and $500,000
Van Purchase..........................................
Alabama State Docks Intermodal Center.................. 5,400,000
Alaska Native Medical Center intermodal bus/parking 2,000,000
facility..............................................
BARTA-Franklin Street Station Intermodal, Pennsylvania. 1,000,000
Bellows Falls, Vermont Multimodal...................... 2,000,000
Ben Franklin Transit, Maintenance and Operations 1,000,000
Facility, Washington..................................
Blacksburg Transit Intermodal Facility, Virginia....... 500,000
Bloomington-Indiana University Campus Bus System, 1,500,000
Indiana...............................................
Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation, Indiana. 2,400,000
Boulder Highway Max Bus Rapid Transit System, Nevada... 1,000,000
Brazos Transit District Bus Replacement, Texas......... 250,000
Bridgeport Intermodal Transport Center, Connecticut.... 6,000,000
Brockton Area Transit Authority Replacement Buses, 1,500,000
Massachusetts.........................................
Broward County Alternative Fuel Buses, Florida......... 250,000
Bucks County Intermodal Facility, Pennsylvania......... 1,000,000
Burlington Transit Facilities, Vermont................. 1,500,000
Bus and Bus Facilities, Farmington, New Mexico......... 320,000
Bus and Bus Facilities, Las Cruces, New Mexico......... 1,400,000
Bus Replacement/Expansion for the Rapid, Grand Rapids, 3,000,000
Michigan..............................................
Bus Replacement and Facilities, Delaware............... 3,000,000
Bus Replacements, Pennsylvania......................... 1,000,000
Canal Road Connector Bus Rapid Transit/HOV Project, 11,000,000
Mississippi...........................................
Capital Area Transportation Authority, Hybrid Public 3,500,000
Transportation Vehicles Purchase, Lansing, Michi- gan
Capital Metro Expansion and Improvement, Texas......... 4,200,000
Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, Dakota County, 1,500,000
Minnesota.............................................
Centre Area Transportation Intermodal Facility, 1,000,000
Pennsylvania..........................................
CFRTA LYNX Bus Fleet Expansion, Florida................ 3,000,000
Church Street Transportation Center, Pennsylvania...... 2,900,000
City of Albuquerque, New Mexico--Transit Vehicles...... 500,000
City of Anderson Intermodal Center Project, Indiana.... 250,000
City of Coralville Intermodal facility--Iowa........... 2,200,000
City of El Paso--Sun Metro Bus Replacement, Texas...... 4,000,000
City Utilities of Springfield bus facilities, Missouri. 3,000,000
Clallam Transit, Washington............................ 330,000
Colorado Transit Coalition--Colorado................... 6,000,000
Commuter Rail Hub Planning and Renovation of the 150,000
Historic Brigham City Train Depot, Utah...............
Corpus Christi Bus and Bus Facilities, Texas........... 200,000
Crawford Intermodal Transportation Facility, 1,000,000
Pennsylvania..........................................
Downtown Akron Transportation Center, Ohio............. 500,000
Easton Intermodal, Pennsylvania........................ 1,000,000
Everett Transit, Bus and Paratransit Vehicle 1,100,000
Replacement, Washington...............................
First District Bus Replacement and Facilities, Michigan 4,000,000
Foothills Community Action Partnership Foothills 700,000
Express Transit Expansion Project, Kentucky...........
Fort Wayne--Citilink, Indiana.......................... 250,000
Fresno FAX Low-Emission Bus Acquisition................ 1,000,000
Georgia GRTA Xpress Implantation Buses, Georgia........ 4,500,000
Gettysburg Bus and Bus Facilities, Pennsylvania........ 500,000
Grant Transit, Washington.............................. 450,000
Grays Harbor Transit, Transit Center Expansion, 1,000,000
Washington............................................
Grays Harbor Transit, Washington....................... 130,000
Greater Lynchburg Transit Company Vehicle Replacement, 1,000,000
Virginia..............................................
Greater Minnesota Transit Capital...................... 2,000,000
Greater Ouachita Port intermodal facility, Louisiana... 1,000,000
Greater Richmond Transit Company Bus Operations and 4,000,000
Maintenance Facility, Virginia........................
Greater Sacramento Regional Bus Replacement/Bus 3,000,000
Facility Expansion....................................
Hampton Roads Transit Bus Facilities, Virginia......... 4,500,000
Haverhill Intermodal Center Parking Improvements, 2,000,000
Massachusetts.........................................
Hazleton Intermodal, Pennsylvania...................... 3,000,000
Helena Transit Facility--Montana....................... 500,000
High Point International Furniture Market 2,400,000
Transportation Terminal, North Carolina...............
Honolulu Bus and Bus Facilities, Hawaii................ 8,000,000
Idaho Statewide ITS.................................... 200,000
Idaho Transit Coalition Bus Capital Investment......... 4,000,000
Illinois Statewide buses and facilities................ 10,000,000
Indy Go Buses and Bus Facilities, Indiana.............. 4,000,000
Inter-city Transit Companies, Meridian, Mississippi.... 350,000
Island Transit, Washington............................. 1,350,000
Ivy Tech State College Multi-Modal Facility, Indiana... 500,000
Jacksonville Transportation Authority Bus and Bus 750,000
Facilities, Florida...................................
Jamestown 2007 Natural Gas Bus purchase, Virginia...... 500,000
JATRAN bus replacement, Mississippi.................... 1,000,000
Jefferson County Transit, Washington................... 730,000
Kalispell Buses--Montana............................... 200,000
Kansas Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, Kansas........ 2,000,000
KCATA bus rapid transit, Missouri...................... 7,000,000
King County Airfield Transfer Area, Washington......... 1,200,000
King County Metro Park and Ride on First Hill, 1,200,000
Washington............................................
King County Metro, Bus Radio Replacement Program, 4,000,000
Washington............................................
Louisiana Statewide buses and facilities............... 6,250,000
LACMTA Bus Program--California......................... 3,000,000
Lafayette--Bus Replacement, Indiana.................... 1,500,000
Lafayette Louisiana Multimodal Transportation Facility. 750,000
Lancaster Intermodal, Pennsylvania..................... 4,000,000
Lechmere Intermodal Improvements, Massachusetts........ 1,390,000
Lewistown Bus Facility--Montana........................ 200,000
Lubbock/Citibus Low-Floor Buses, Paratransit Vans and 200,000
Facilities, and Passenger Amenities, Texas............
MARTA Automated Smart Card Fare Collection System, 1,750,000
Georgia...............................................
Mason County Transit, Washington....................... 300,000
Memphis Airport Intermodal Facility, Tennessee......... 2,500,000
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority 4,800,000
acquisition of clean buses, Georgia...................
Metro Transit Operators Coalition Bus Acquisition...... 1,000,000
Midland Bus Facilities, Texas.......................... 200,000
Mobile Waterfront Infrastructure Development, Alabama.. 1,500,000
Montgomery Bus Stop, Shelters and Bus GPS Tracking 500,000
System in Alabama.....................................
Montgomery County Intermodal, Pennsylvania............. 1,000,000
Mountain Line Bus--Montana............................. 1,750,000
Muncie Indiana Transit System.......................... 2,400,000
Nassau County Hub and Centre, New York................. 2,000,000
Nevada Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, Nevada........ 4,000,000
New Orleans Streetcar Project, Louisiana............... 340,000
Newark Penn Station Intermodal Improvements, New Jersey 2,000,000
North Dakota Statewide Transit......................... 2,250,000
OATS buses and bus facilities, Missouri................ 4,000,000
Ohio Statewide buses and facilities.................... 12,583,000
Pablo Bus Facility--Montana............................ 400,000
Pablo Buses--Montana................................... 300,000
Paducah Area Transit System in Paducah, Kentucky....... 2,100,000
Petersburg Transit Intermodal Facility, Virginia....... 750,000
Philadelphia Zoo Intermodal Transportation Center, 250,000
Pennsylvania..........................................
Poplar Transit Facility Renovation--Montana............ 160,000
Port Angeles International Gateway Project, Washington. 1,600,000
Port Authority of Allegheny County Bus Acquisition, 6,200,000
Pennsylvania..........................................
Potomac and Rappahannock Transit Commission Buses for 3,000,000
service expansion, Virginia...........................
Prospect and East 21st Street Intermodal Transportation 1,750,000
Center, Ohio..........................................
Public Bus Transfer and Parking Facility, Montana...... 2,500,000
Pullman Multi-Modal Transit Center, Pennsylvania....... 1,000,000
Pullman Transit, Washington............................ 50,000
Puyallup Transit Center Park and Ride, Washington...... 1,000,000
Regional Bus and Bus Facilities: Intermodal Terminals, 3,000,000
including Gateway TRAX station, Utah..................
Renaissance Square, Rochester, New York................ 8,000,000
Reno and Sparks Intermodal Transportation Terminals and 1,000,000
Related Development, Nevada...........................
Replacement Buses and Bus Related Equipment, Nebraska.. 2,000,000
Rhode Island Public Transit Authority Elmwood Avenue 3,600,000
Maintenance Facility Improvements.....................
Rhode Island Public Transit Authority Transit Security 400,000
Improvements..........................................
Rhode Island Statewide Vehicle Replacement............. 2,000,000
Richmond Highway Public Transportation Initiative, 4,800,000
Virginia..............................................
RiverSphere Multimodal Facility, Louisiana............. 500,000
Rural Bus Program, Hawaii.............................. 5,000,000
San Antonio--New Buses, Bus Facility Improvements, and 200,000
Bus-Related Projects, Texas...........................
San Antonio VIA Metropolitan Transit bus upgrade, Texas 2,500,000
San Joaquin Regional Hybrid Bus Acquisition............ 1,000,000
Sandy Transit Bus Facility, Oregon..................... 750,000
Shenango Valley Shuttle Service, Pennsylvania.......... 500,000
Silver Spring Transit Center, Maryland................. 6,000,000
Skagit Transit Bus Acquisition, Washington............. 850,000
Skagway intermodal facility, Alaska.................... 2,000,000
SMART Multi-Modal Transit Center and Bus Maintenance 1,000,000
Facility, Oregon......................................
Sound Transit, Eastgate Transit Access, Washington..... 3,000,000
South Bend--TRANSPO, Indiana........................... 1,000,000
South East Missouri Transportation Service, Missouri... 2,000,000
St. Cloud MTC Buses and Facilities..................... 1,000,000
Stamford Urban Transitway Phase II, Connecticut........ 5,000,000
StarTran Farebox Technology Upgrades--Nebraska......... 1,000,000
State of Arkansas--Bus and Bus Facilities for Urban, 8,000,000
Rural, and Elderly and Disabled Agencies..............
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, North Carolina....... 5,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, South Dakota......... 1,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, Utah................. 4,250,000
Statewide Bus Replacement, Iowa........................ 5,000,000
Sun-Tran Operations and Maintenance Facility Expansion, 500,000
Utah..................................................
Syracuse University, Bus Purchase for the Connective 1,500,000
Corridor Project, New York............................
The UEL Bus Stop, University of Minnesota Twin Cities 100,000
Transitway, Minnesota.................................
TN Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities.................... 10,000,000
Town of Normal Multimodal Transportation Center, 4,000,000
Illinois..............................................
Transit Center 9400 South Sandy, Utah.................. 1,000,000
Trolley Plaza, Alabama................................. 250,000
Tucson SunTran Alternative Fuel Bus Replacement, 3,000,000
Arizona...............................................
Tucson SunTran Bus Storage and Maintenance Facility, 10,000,000
Arizona...............................................
Twin Transit, Washington............................... 160,000
UNI Multimodal Project, Cedar Falls, Iowa.............. 3,500,000
Union Depot, downtown Saint Paul, Minnesota............ 750,000
Union Station Intermodal Trade and Transit Center, 2,500,000
Pennsylvania..........................................
University of Montana bus maintenance facility......... 500,000
Uptown Crossings Joint Development Transit Project, 2,000,000
Cincinnati, Ohio......................................
Utah Intermodal Transit Hubs, Utah..................... 500,000
Valley Transit, Washington............................. 550,000
Vehicle Acquisition, South Carolina.................... 4,000,000
West Side Transit Facility, Albuquerque, New Mexico.... 1,500,000
West Valley City Intermodal Terminal, Utah............. 750,000
Westminster College Intermodal Transportation 250,000
Facilities Expansion for Shuttle Buses, Utah..........
WI Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities.................... 10,000,000
Williamsport Trade and Transit Centre Expansion, 1,350,000
Pennsylvania..........................................
Winston-Salem Union Station Intermodal Facility, North 500,000
Carolina..............................................
WMATA Bus Purchase..................................... 3,000,000
WV Statewide buses and facilities...................... 5,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metro Area Transit Intermodal Facility, Nebraska.--The
Committee directs that amounts made available in fiscal year
2003 for the Metro Area Transit Intermodal Facility in Nebraska
shall be made available for Metro Area Transit bus and bus
facilities in Nebraska.
Illinois Statewide Buses.--The Committee provides
$10,000,000 to the Illinois Department of Transportation [IDOT]
for section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee
expects IDOT to provide at least $5,000,000 for Downstate
Illinois replacement buses in Bloomington, Champaign-Urbana,
Danville, Decatur, Peoria, Pekin, Quincy, River Valley,
Rockford, Rock Island, Springfield, Madison County, Rides MTD,
South Central MTD, and Macomb, including $375,000 for the
Springfield MTD night service project. Further, the Committee
expects IDOT to provide appropriate funds for bus facilities in
Bloomington, Galesburg, Macomb, Peoria, and Rock Island,
including $500,000 for the Champaign Day Care Center/Park-n-
Ride and $500,000 for the Macomb maintenance facility.

fixed guideway modernization

The Committee recommends a total of $1,307,473,000 for the
modernization of existing rail transit systems. The Committee
recommendation continues the practice under TEA21, as extended,
to distribute the funds by formula. The following table
itemizes the fiscal year 2006 rail modernization allocations by
State:

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION
APPORTIONMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Urbanized Area Apportionment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK Anchorage, AK--Alaska Railroad $2,447,682
AZ Phoenix--Mesa, AZ 2,702,494
CA Antioch, CA 2,283,656
CA Concord, CA 13,454,313
CA Lancaster-Palmdale, CA 2,302,895
CA Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 39,377,991
CA Mission Viejo, CA 1,533,025
CA Oxnard, CA 1,277,412
CA Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 4,237,757
CA Sacramento, CA 3,480,443
CA San Diego, CA 14,899,234
CA San Francisco-Oakland, CA 72,810,098
CA San Jose, CA 13,697,671
CA Thousand Oaks, CA 703,060
CO Denver-Aurora, CO 3,624,749
CT Hartford, CT 1,770,497
CT Southwestern Connecticut 40,368,155
DC Washington, DC-VA-MD 75,266,485
FL Jacksonville, FL 117,185
FL Miami, FL 20,987,023
FL Orlando, FL 177,265
FL Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 136,551
GA Atlanta, GA 29,144,217
HI Honolulu, HI 1,262,500
IL Chicago, IL-IN 147,020,421
IL Round Lake Beach-McHenry-Grayslake, IL-WI 2,443,470
IN South Bend, IN-MI 873,462
LA New Orleans, LA 3,187,354
MA Boston, MA-NH-RI 77,008,637
MA Worcester, MA-CT 1,084,251
MD Baltimore Commuter Rail 19,915,968
MD Baltimore, MD 10,169,242
MI Detroit, MI 351,848
MN Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 6,966,819
MO Kansas City, MO-KS 35,433
MO St. Louis, MO-IL 4,662,439
NJ Atlantic City, NJ 1,815,046
NJ Northeastern New Jersey 90,528,199
NJ Trenton, NJ 1,535,704
NY Buffalo, NY 1,362,251
NY New York 383,840,412
NY Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY 2,281,439
OH Cleveland, OH 13,099,541
OH Dayton, OH 5,666,531
OR Portland, OR-WA 4,670,275
PA Harrisburg, PA 860,071
PA Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 98,261,778
PA Pittsburgh, PA 20,750,639
PR San Juan, PR 2,368,682
RI Providence, RI-MA 2,606,655
TN Chattanooga, TN-GA 93,358
TN Memphis, TN-MS-AR 252,004
TX Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 6,503,095
TX Houston, TX 8,102,952
VA Virginia Beach, VA 1,393,348
WA Seattle, WA 25,486,839
WI Madison, WI 824,891
WI Milwaukee, WI 312,858
------------------
Total Apportioned 1,294,398,270
Oversight 13,074,730
------------------
Grand Total 1,307,473,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The most current validated National Transit Database
statistics, which is the data applied in the actual fiscal year
2005 fixed guideway mod apportionments, were used. No changes
were discerned between the apportionment formula in the Senate
reauthorization bill and current law.

Fixed Guideway Modernization Oversight.--The Committee is
concerned regarding complaints from industry representatives
that formula funds from the fixed guideway modernization
program are being mishandled by some transit agencies. The
Committee has long been concerned that large amounts of funds
are being funneled, predominantly, to American's largest
cities, unencumbered by Federal controls or oversight. The
Committee therefore directs the Office of Inspector General
[OIG] to undertake an investigation of the fixed guideway
modernization program, to include an assessment of: FTA's
statutory oversight role, including initiation of budgetary
audits; FTA's discretionary oversight role; and a review of at
least six transit agencies currently receiving modernization
funds, from all three tiers of funding, and an audit of how
resources have been expended during, at least, a 5-year period.
The OIG should keep the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees informed of its progress as the investigation moves
forward and should submit the final report to the Committees by
July 1, 2006.

NEW STARTS

The bill provides $1,386,522,000 for the new starts
program. These funds are available for major investment
studies, preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition,
project management, oversight, and construction for new systems
and extensions. Under section 3009(g) of TEA21, there is an 8-
percent statutory cap on the amount made available for
activities other than final design and construction--that is,
alternatives analysis, environmental impact statements,
preliminary engineering, major investment studies, and other
predesign and preconstruction activities.
The accompanying bill continues a provision that rejects
the FTA interpretation that once a project exceeds $25,000,000,
it is subject to FTA review and evaluation and therefore FTA
must approve it for advancement. Further, there is no limit of
funding on alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering, or
final design, and a project seeking more than that amount for
such activities does not need an early systems work agreement,
as FTA has interpreted to be required under subsection (g)(1).
The Committee is aware that numerous projects seeking a FFGA
have significant unobligated balances because FTA has delayed
awarding these grants without articulating any rationale. The
Committee, therefore, directs FTA to release expeditiously
previously appropriated funds for all new start projects
identified in this and prior Appropriations Acts that remain
unobligated and have not been reallocated by the Congress, upon
the request of the grantee and the satisfaction of statutory
requirements.
The Committee recommends the following allocations of new
starts funds in fiscal year 2006:
Alaska and Hawaii ferry projects, $10,296,000;
Baltimore Central Light Rail Double Track Project,
Maryland, $12,420,000;
Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT, Arizona, $90,000,000;
Charlotte South Corridor Light Rail Project, North
Carolina, $55,000,000;
City of Miami Streetcar, Florida, $2,000,000;
City of Rock Hill Trolley Study, South Carolina,
$400,000;
Commuter Rail, Albuquerque to Santa Fe, New Mexico,
$500,000;
Commuter Rail, Utah, $9,000,000;
CORRIDORone Regional Rail Project, Pennsylvania,
$1,500,000;
CTA Douglas Blue Line, Illinois, $45,150,000;
CTA Ravenswood Brown Line, Illinois, $40,000,000;
Dallas Northwest/Southeast Light Rail MOS, Texas,
$12,000,000;
Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project, Virginia,
$26,000,000;
East Corridor Commuter Rail, Nashville, Tennessee,
$6,000,000;
East Side Access Project, New York, $340,000,000;
Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, Ohio,
$24,774,513;
Gainesville-Haymarket VRE Service Extension, Virginia,
$1,450,000;
Hartford-New Britain Busway, Connecticut, $6,000,000;
Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS 2, New Jersey, $100,000,000;
Kansas City, MO, Southtown BRT, $12,300,000;
Metra, Illinois, $42,180,000;
Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail Extension,
California, $80,000,000;
Houston METRO, Texas, $12,000,000;
Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit Extension, California,
$7,160,000;
Mid-Jordan Light Rail Transit Line, Utah, $500,000;
Mission Valley East, California, $7,700,000;
New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor, New Jersey,
$3,315,000;
North Corridor Interstate MAX Light Rail Project, Oregon,
$18,110,000;
North Shore Connector, Pennsylvania, $55,000,000;
Northeast Corridor Commuter Rail Project, Delaware,
$1,425,000;
Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail Project, Minnesota,
$2,000,000;
Oceanside Escondido Rail Project, California,
$12,210,000;
Regional Fixed Guideway Project, Nevada, $3,000,000;
Rhode Island Integrated Commuter Rail Project, Rhode
Island, $6,000,000;
San Francisco BART Extension to San Francisco
International Airport, California, $81,860,000;
San Francisco Muni Third Street Light Rail Project,
California, $10,000,000;
San Juan Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico, $10,200,000;
Schuylkill Valley Metro, Pennsylvania, $2,000,000;
Seattle Sound Transit, Washington, $80,000,000;
Second Avenue Subway, New York, $25,000,000;
Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project, Santa
Clara County, California, $5,000,000;
Silver Line Phase III, Massachusetts, $4,000,000;
Sounder Commuter Rail, Washington, $5,000,000;
Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project (T-REX), Colorado,
$80,000,000;
Triangle Transit Authority Regional Rail System (Raleigh-
Durham), North Carolina, $18,000,000;
Washington County Commuter Rail Project, Oregon,
$15,000,000;
West Corridor Light Rail, Colorado, $5,000,000.
Limited Extensions of Discretionary Funds.--There have been
occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of
capital investment funds. These extensions are granted on a
case by case basis and, in nearly all instances, are due to
circumstances that were unforeseen by the project's sponsor.
The availability of these particular funds is intended for one
additional year, absent further congressional direction. The
Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds provided in
fiscal year 2003 or previous Acts for the following new starts
projects: Albuquerque/Greater Albuquerque, New Mexico Mass
Transit and Light Rail Las Vegas, Nevada, Resort Corridor Fixed
Guideway; Indianapolis Northeast-Downtown Corridor project;
Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee [KRM] Rail Extension project;
Maryland, [MARC] Commuter Rail Improvements; Wilmington, DE,
Downtown Transit Corridor Project; and Wilmington, DE, Train
Station Improvements.
New Starts Project Ratings.--The Congress has consistently
urged the FTA to continually improve the process for evaluating
projects in the new starts program. This March, the FTA
Administrator released a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to industry
leaders, notifying them of changes to the ratings and
evaluation process for this program. Regrettably, no similar
letter was sent to the Congress.
One of the key changes proposed in this letter was to
adjust the rating thresholds for the cost-effectiveness score.
While improving the way in which the financial capabilities of
a project are measured is beneficial, the Committee is troubled
by the manner in which FTA and DOT have implemented such
changes. The letter was sent approximately 1 month and 1 week
following the submission of the President's fiscal year 2006
budget request. If key changes to the ratings process were
forthcoming, a mention of this fact in the New Starts Report,
or a withholding of the cost-effectiveness rating for projects
in the report until a later time, would seem more seem sensible
than releasing public ratings of projects, only to change the
implication of these ratings 5 weeks later. FTA must recognize
that local transit agencies depend on the credibility of the
Government's ratings with local officials and citizens; FTA, in
what appears to be an irresponsible display of indecisiveness,
seemed to show many that this is not always the case.
In addition, the Committee must also point out that transit
agencies, much like State DOTs or highway agencies, depend on
the stability and certainty of Federal standards when using
Federal funding for a project. Solid planning is essential to
the success of capital projects as large as those in the new
starts process. In fact, adding certainty has been at the
center of the administration's SAFETEA proposal. FTA, following
no legal modification proceedings, announced a significant
ratings change that would affect countless projects in the
planning stages. This announcement was made with little
preparation for how this change would impact projects in the
final stages of the new starts process, such as those in final
design or nearing that stage. No time period for when these new
ratings would be implemented was given and many project
sponsors were left feeling undercut by a changing process that
was completely unforeseen. In fact, the Assistant Secretary for
Budget and Programs, in testimony to the Committee, stated that
the projects in the pipeline would be ``grandfathered'' and
would not have to abide by the new ratings change. This
response, however, proved to be inaccurate.
Confusion and different implementation interpretations is
not the way that the Federal Government should be assisting
local governments. DOT and FTA need to clearly articulate, not
only to the transit community but also to formally notify the
Congress, what the revised ratings standards are and how they
will be executed, including a specific implementation timeframe
and a detailed list of what projects will be affected. In
addition, DOT should apply new internal procedures for the
notification of new ratings or evaluation changes in the
program, as well as procedures clearly articulating how any new
changes would be communicated to those involved--the transit
agencies, the Congress, DOT officials--in a timely manner that
takes into account an implementation timeframe for the new
variations. This should be done as soon as possible and the
Secretary should notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations when this has been accomplished. The Committee
expects that, if these new ratings have already been
implemented, that should be incorporated in the Supplementary
New Starts Report, due next month.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano Project.--The Committee
remains aware of the continuing safety and operational issues
at San Juan, Puerto Rico's Tren Urbano transit project. Since
FTA entered into the initial FFGA with the transit authority in
1996, the Committee has seen the project's costs more than
double, the operational schedule slip numerous times, and
officials managing the project imprisoned due to accounting
illegalities and fraud. The project is now operational;
however, the Committee remains concerned that significant
safety and performance issues remain, including an inadequate
safety incident reporting system. The Committee directs FTA to
be vigilant in its oversight of the transit agency and rail
project, by utilizing the discretionary oversight tools at
FTA's disposal, including safety oversight audits and a
continuation of PMO assessments. Further, the Committee urges
FTA to withhold Federal funds from the transit agency if any
significant safety non-compliance issues arise.
In addition, the Office of Inspector General has remained
closely involved in the oversight of this project and the
Committee encourages the OIG to continue this role and to
report any concerns to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations without delay.
Appropriations for Full Funding Grant Agreements.--The
Committee reiterates direction initially agreed to in the
fiscal year 2002 conference report that FTA should not sign any
FFGAs that have a maximum Federal share of higher than 60
percent.

MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005................. ................. ..............
Budget estimate, 2006................ $875,500,000 $690,000,000
House allowance...................... ................. ..............
Committee recommendation............. ................. ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The account funds planning, engineering, and construction
of new fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing
systems. Funds are also available for metropolitan and
statewide planning activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend funding for major capital
investment grants and instead has provided funding for the new
starts program and planning activities consistent with current
law in the absence of completion of the surface transportation
reauthorization bill.

JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005.................... $15,500,000 $108,500,000
Budget estimate, 2006................... .............. ..............
House allowance......................... 26,250,000 148,750,000
Committee recommendation................ 20,541,000 101,292,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The program makes competitive grants to qualifying
metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental
authorities, agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Grants may
not be used for planning or coordination activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $121,832,715 for the Job Access
and Reverse Commute Grants program. Of the total recommended
amount of funding, $20,540,996 is appropriated from the general
fund and $101,291,719 is a limitation on obligations from the
mass transit account of the highway trust fund. The budget
request includes funding for job access grants within the
proposed formula grants and research account.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 150 exempts limitations previously made available
on obligations for programs of the FTA under 49 U.S.C. 5338.
Section 151 allows funds under this Act, Federal Transit
Administration, Capital investment grants not obligated by
September 30, 2008 to be made available for other projects
under 40 U.S.C. 5309.
Section 152 allows funds appropriated before October 1,
2005, that remain available for expenditure to be transferred.
Section 153 prohibits mass transit trust funds that are
made available for Federal transit assistance programs from
being transferred or outlaid to the General Fund of the United
States Treasury and also requires that obligations incurred to
carry out a Federal Transit program, project or activity that
is funded from both the Mass Transit Account and the General
Fund be liquidated from amounts appropriated from the General
Fund before any Mass Transit Account funds may be expended to
satisfy obligations incurred for the program, project or
activity.
Section 154 allows unobligated funds for new projects under
Federal Transit Authority to be used during this fiscal year to
satisfy expenses incurred for such projects.
Section 155 allows funds made available for Alaska or
Hawaii ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities to be used to
construct new vessels and facilities, or to improve existing
vessels and facilities.
Section 156 allows unobligated transit funds to be used for
site-preparation and design purposes for a project in Vermont.
Section 157 allows funds designated in Public Law 108-447
and Public Law 108-199 for the King County Metro Park and Ride
on First Hill, Seattle, Washington, to be available to the
Swedish Hospital parking garage, Seattle, Washington, subject
to the same conditions and requirements of Section 125 of
Division H of Public Law 109-447.

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC]
is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the
Saint Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 981). The
SLSDC is a vital transportation corridor for the international
movement of bulk commodities such as steel, iron, grain, and
coal, serving the North American region that makes up one-
quarter of the United States population and nearly half of the
Canadian population. The SLSDC is responsible for the
operation, maintenance, and development of the United States
portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake
Erie.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $15,773,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 8,000,000
House allowance......................................... 16,284,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,284,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] was established by
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
662). Since 1987, the HMTF has supported the operations and
maintenance of commercial harbor projects maintained by the
Federal Government. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund and revenues from non-Federal sources finance the
operation and maintenance of the Seaway for which the SLSDC is
responsible.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $16,284,000 to fund
the operations and maintenance of the SLSDC. This amount is
$8,284,000 above the President's request and is $511,000 above
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

Maritime Administration

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for
programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as
amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). MARAD is also
responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime
industry in support of the Nation's security and economic
needs. MARAD prioritizes DOD's use of ports and intermodal
facilities during DOD mobilizations to guarantee the smooth
flow of military cargo through commercial ports. MARAD manages
the Maritime Security Program, the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift
Agreement Program and the Ready Reserve Force, which assure DOD
access to commercial and strategic sealift and associated
intermodal capacity. MARAD also continues to address the
disposal of obsolete ships in the National Defense Reserve
Fleet which are deemed a potential environmental risk. Further,
MARAD administers education and training programs through the
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six State maritime schools
that assist in providing skilled merchant marine officers who
are capable of serving defense and commercial transportation
needs. The Committee continues to fund MARAD in its support of
the United States as a maritime nation.

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $97,910,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 156,000,000
House allowance......................................... 156,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 156,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Security Program provides resources to
maintain a U.S. flag merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to
serve both the commercial and national security needs of the
United States. The program provides direct payments to U.S.
flag ship operators engaged in U.S. foreign trade.
Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in
active commercial service and are required to provide
intermodal sealift support to the Department of Defense in
times of war or national emergency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $156,000,000 for the Maritime
Security Program, consistent with the budget request.

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $108,602,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 113,650,000
House allowance......................................... 112,336,000
Committee recommendation................................ 118,649,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Operations and Training appropriation primarily funds
the salaries and expenses for MARAD headquarters and regional
staff in the administration and direction for all MARAD
programs. The account includes funding for the U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy, six State maritime schools, port and intermodal
development, cargo preference, international trade relations,
deep-water port licensing, and administrative support costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $118,649,000 for Operations and
Training for fiscal year 2006. The recommendation is $4,999,000
above the President's budget request and $10,047,000 above the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The Committee has included
$13,033,000 for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy to continue
with the major design and construction projects as identified
in the 10-year capital improvement plan.
Funds appropriated for Operations and Training are
sufficient to maintain the operating costs incurred by
headquarters and regional staffs in administering and directing
the Maritime Administration programs. The Committee
recommendation includes the necessary resources to cover the
costs of officer training at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy;
provide Federal financial support to the six State maritime
academies; support coordination efforts for U.S. maritime
industry activities under emergency conditions; and to promote
port and intermodal development activities.
Funds provided for this account are to be distributed as
follows: $59,854,000 for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy,
$10,611,000 for the State Maritime schools, and $48,184,000 for
MARAD operations, for a total of $118,649,000.
Marine Transportation System Information Advocate.--As the
lead agency for maritime matters within the Department of
Transportation and as a result of the February 2005
congressional report on the interoperability of information
resources among strategic ports, the Committee directs that
MARAD be designated as the Marine Transportation System [MTS]
Information Advocate to serve as the focal point for MTS
information management. In order to maintain this MTS
information, the Committee has included $10,000,000 of which
$3,000,000 is for the identification of and shared access to a
fault tolerant, secure, Federal facility capable of the
collection, storage, management, and assured delivery of this
critical information and $7,000,000 is for the planning and
preliminary development of an overarching information framework
to support this critical need.

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $21,443,072
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 21,000,000
House allowance......................................... 21,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 21,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Ship Disposal account provides resources to dispose of
obsolete merchant-type vessels of 150,000 gross tons or more in
the National Defense Reserve Fleet [NDRF] which the Maritime
Administration is required by law to dispose of by the end of
2006. Currently there is a backlog of more than 115 ships
awaiting disposal. Many of these vessels are some 50 years old
or more and pose a significant environmental threat due to the
presence of hazardous substances such as asbestos and solid and
liquid polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,000,000
for ship disposal. This amount is the same as the budget
request and $443,072 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
The Committee is very concerned about the progress,
management and oversight of the ship disposal program. The
initial deadline for MARAD to complete disposal of its obsolete
ship inventory was September 30, 1999, but this deadline was
extended to September 30, 2001, in the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). In
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001
(Public Law 106-398), the deadline was extended again to
September 30, 2006. Between fiscal years 2001 and 2005 almost
$80,000,000 has been appropriated for this program. Despite
adequate funding MARAD will not meet its extended deadline in
fiscal year 2006.
The Government Accountability Office [GAO] published a
report in March 2005 titled, ``Maritime Administration:
Improved Program Management Needed to Address Timely Disposal
of Obsolete Ships.'' In it, the GAO cites several impediments
to the successful completion of this effort, including MARAD's
lack of an integrated strategy to dispose of its obsolete ship
inventory and an inadequate identification of resources needed
to achieve its goals.
The Committee recognizes that MARAD informed Congress soon
after the disposal deadline was extended that it would not be
able to achieve complete disposal by the extended deadline
date, but is not satisfied with the reasons cited by MARAD for
the inadequate progress that has been made. The Committee urges
MARAD to be more transparent with Congress concerning the ship
disposal program's budget needs and progress being made.
As such, the Committee directs MARAD to submit a report to
the Committee on Appropriations on the progress being made to
dispose of the entire inventory of obsolete ships within the
National Defense Reserve Fleet. MARAD is directed to submit the
initial report no later than 3 months after the enactment of
this Act, and subsequent reports will be submitted every 6
months thereafter until this program is completed. These
reports should, at a minimum, detail the contracts that have
been awarded for this program, the progress being made toward
actual disposal by each contractor, and impediments that may
hinder the completion of this program. The Committee continues
to urge MARAD to consider alternative means of disposal such as
artificial reefing, deep-water sinking and donations to
historic organizations when possible.

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $4,726,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 3,526,000
House allowance......................................... 3,526,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,726,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, commonly referred to
as, ``Title XI,'' provides for a Federal Government guarantee
of private-sector debt for ship construction and shipyard
modernization. This program fosters and sustains a U.S.
shipbuilding and repair industry which helps ensure that the
United States remains a maritime nation.
As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-508), this account includes the subsidy costs
associated with the loan guarantee commitments made in 1992 and
beyond (including modifications of direct loans or loan
guarantees that resulted from obligations or commitments in any
year), as well as the administrative expenses of this program.
The subsidy amounts are estimated on a present value basis and
administrative expenses are estimated on a cash basis.
Funds for administrative expenses for the Title XI program
are appropriated to this account, and then transferred by
reimbursement to Operations and Training to be obligated and
outlayed.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,726,000 for
the Title XI, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program. This amount is
$1,200,000 above the administration's 2006 budget request and
the same as the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the Committee
directs the Maritime Administration to submit to the Committee
on Appropriations a report detailing the expenditure of funds,
progress made and current status of the Maritime Guaranteed
Loan Program's efforts to develop and acquire a comprehensive
computer-based financial monitoring system. The Committee
believes that such a system will enable MARAD to better monitor
and analyze the financial condition of recipients of Title XI
funds.
Credit Watch.--The Committee is pleased that MARAD has re-
established ``Credit Watch.'' This process ensures greater
protection of the government's financial interest in the Title
XI program by providing more accountability for companies
experiencing financial difficulties. The Committee is aware
that as of June 30, 2004, there were 25 of the 70 participants
in the Title XI program on ``Credit Watch.'' The Committee
directs MARAD to continue and even strengthen this process.
Measures such as this are vital to the stability of the Title
XI program.
As such, the Committee directs the Maritime Administration
to submit a report within 30 days of enactment of this Act
detailing the number of companies that are currently on
``Credit Watch.'' The report should, at a minimum, detail the
companies that fall into the three risk categories (high,
middle and low) and whether these companies are current in
submitting the required certifications and/or deposits into the
Reserve Fund. For those companies that are not current in their
deposits and/or certifications, MARAD should detail what
actions it is taking to mitigate their default risk and ensure
that such companies become current in their obligations.

NATIONAL DEFENSE TANK VESSEL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $74,400,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... -74,400,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization Act (Public Law
108-136) authorized the National Defense Tank Vessel
Construction Program to provide financial assistance for the
construction of five privately owned product tank vessels to be
available for national defense purposes in time of war or
national emergency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000
for the National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program. The
Committee has not included the administration rescission of
$75,000,000 from fiscal year 2005 funds which would have
eliminated this program.
Instead, the Committee supports the goal of this program to
revitalize commercial tank ship construction in the United
States. The program provides the last dollar in for U.S.-flag,
U.S.-crewed, and U.S.-built double-hulled, commercially-viable,
and militarily-useful product tankers. Vessels constructed
under this program will operate as part of the Maritime
Security Fleet.
Tankers constructed under this program will operate only in
the international shipping trades but the experience and skills
acquired through the program will also facilitate construction
in the United States of new vessels for the domestic or Jones
Act shipping trades.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 160 authorizes the Maritime Administration to
furnish utilities and services and make repairs to any lease,
contract, or occupancy involving Government property under the
control of MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this
provision shall be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous
receipts.
Section 161 prohibits obligations incurred during the
current year from construction funds in excess of the
appropriations and limitations contained in this Act or in any
prior appropriation Act.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration
[PHMSA] was established in the Department of Transportation on
November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research
and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-246). The
PHMSA is responsible for the Department's pipeline safety
program as well as oversight of hazardous materials
transportation safety operations. The Administration also is
dedicated to safety, including the elimination of
transportation-related deaths and injuries associated with
hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, and by
promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and
protect the environment.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005....................................................
Budget estimate, 2006................................... $17,027,000
House allowance......................................... 17,027,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,877,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds program support costs for the PHMSA,
including policy development, civil rights, management,
administration and agency-wide expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,877,000 for this account, of
which $645,000 is transferred from the Pipeline Safety Fund.
The Committee expects PHMSA to use these funds as reflected in
its budget justification.
The recommended level includes a reduction of $150,000 from
the budget estimate to account for the transfer of an attorney
to the Office of General Counsel for the Office of Emergency
Transportation litigation caseload.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFTEY

Appropriations, 2005....................................................
Budget estimate, 2006................................... $26,324,000
House allowance......................................... 26,183,000
Committee recommendation................................ 26,138,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The PHMSA oversees the safety of more than 800,000 daily
shipments of hazardous materials in the United States. PHMSA
uses risk management principles and security threat assessments
to fully assess and reduce the risks inherent in hazardous
materials transportation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $26,138,000 for hazardous
materials safety, of which $1,847,000 shall remain available
until September 30, 2007.
The Committee denies $186,000 for new positions to
administer activities related to shipment of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste to a private interim storage
facility.

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY FUND)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $69,211,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 73,165,000
House allowance......................................... 72,860,000
Committee recommendation................................ 73,165,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is designed to promote
the safe, reliable, and reliable sound transportation of
natural gas and hazardous liquids by pipelines.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $73,165,000, of which
$15,000,000 will be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund and of which $58,165,000 shall be derived from the
Pipeline Safety Fund.
The Committee remains concerned with the significant
increase included in the budget estimate for funds from the
oilspill liability trust fund. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
requires that these trust funds be used exclusively for
oilspill prevention and response activities, and the Committee
strongly encourages the OPS to allocate oversight activities
between the hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and to factor
the oilspill liability trust fund into the allocation formula
that determines the hazardous liquid pipeline user fee
assessment to accurately reflect the amount and type of
oversight activities being conducted by the office consistent
with the trust fund. Last year, the Committee directed that the
fiscal year 2006 budget justification should adequately address
this issue by containing an itemization of how these funds are
being allocated within the OPS. The Committee is troubled that
such information was not provided in the justification
materials supporting the budget request. The Committee
reiterates its direction to include an itemization of how funds
from the oilspill liability trust fund are being allocated
within the OPS in the fiscal year 2007 budget justification.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $198,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 200,000
House allowance......................................... 200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hazardness Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
of 1990 [HMTUSA] requires PHMSA to (1) develop and implement a
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor
public sector emergency response training and planning and
provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions
and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $200,000, the same as the budget
request, for activities related to emergency response training
curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section
117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee includes an obligation
limitation of $14,300,000 for the emergency preparedness grant
program.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2005 \1\................................ $4,310,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 6,274,000
House allowance......................................... 4,326,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,326,000

\1\ Fiscal year 2005 account represents the transfer of resources from
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation ($975,000) and the
Research and Special Programs Administration ($3,335,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration
[RITA] was established in the Department of Transportation,
effective November 24, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta
Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-
246). The mission of RITA is to focus the Department's multi-
modal and intermodal research efforts, while coordinating the
multifaceted research agenda of the Department.
RITA includes the University Transportation Centers, the
Volpe National Transportation Center and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics [BTS], which is funded by an
allocation from the Federal Highway Administration's Federal-
aid highway account.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,326,000 for Research and
Development for fiscal year 2006, which is $1,948,000 below the
budget request. The Committee directs the Department to
identify the proposed use of these funds through the operating
plan.
Research Coordination.--In 2003, the Government
Accountability Office [GAO] reviewed the Research and Special
Programs Administration [RSPA] ability to meet all legislative
and DOT requirements for planning, managing, and evaluating
research within the Department. The GAO found that RSPA lacked
a database or tracking system for research, and that the agency
had declining staff and resources devoted to the effort. RITA
was created to raise the profile and better focus research
within DOT, including coordination and evaluation of research,
as well as to advance the Department's overall transportation
technology agenda. The Committee is interested in learning
whether RITA is better equipped to overcome the challenges that
faced its predecessor and directs GAO to conduct an assessment
of RITA's ability to coordinate, facilitate and evaluate
research in DOT in a manner that makes the most efficient use
of resources and concentrates on the most important challenges
facing the transportation sector. In addition, GAO should
examine the strengths and weaknesses of RITA's transportation
statistics program. The Committee directs GAO to submit its
findings and recommendations to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations by March 30, 2006.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Limitation on obligations, 2005......................... $30,015,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 32,869,000
House allowance......................................... 33,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 26,281,610

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] is funded by
an allocation from the limitation on obligations for Federal-
aid highways. The Bureau compiles, analyzes, and makes
accessible information on the Nation's transportation systems;
collects information on intermodal transportation and other
areas as needed; and enhances the quality and effectiveness of
the statistical programs of the Department of Transportation
through research, the development of guidelines, and the
promotion of improvements in data acquisition and use.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $26,281,610 for BTS, which is
$6,587,390 less than the budget request and $3,733,390 less
than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The Committee
recommendation reflects the set-aside amount provided in the
Senate-passed surface transportation reauthorization bill,
SAFETEA. The Committee continues to limit BTS staff to no more
than 136 full-time equivalent staff years.
Form M.--The Committee is concerned that financial and
operating statistics data related to motor carriers are no
longer being collected. Last year, the conferees denied the
request to move this function from BTS to FMCSA; it was always
expected, however, that this data would continue to be
collected. The Committee believes that the collection of this
data can be useful in determining which motor carrier firms may
be in need of additional safety oversight as financially
distressed firms are often more inclined to defer equipment
maintenance. The Committee directs the Director to immediately
resume the motor carrier financial and operating statistics
survey.

Office of Inspector General

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $58,528,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 62,499,000
House allowance......................................... 62,499,000
Committee recommendation................................ 62,499,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of
Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective
organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise
audits and investigations relating to the programs and
operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and
recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations;
(3) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and (4) keep
the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding
problems and deficiencies.
OIG is divided into two major functional units: the Office
of Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and
Evaluations [PAIGAE] and the Office of Assistant Inspector
General for Investigations [AIGI]. The PAIGAE and AIGI are
supported by headquarters and regional staff.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $62,499,000 for
activities of the Office of Inspector General, which is
$3,971,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and the
same as the budget request. In addition, current law authorizes
the OIG to be reimbursed from Department of Transportation
operating agencies and from the National Transportation Safety
Board in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration......................... $1,200,000
Federal Highway Administration.......................... 3,524,000
Federal Transit Administration.......................... 2,000,000
National Transportation Safety Board.................... 500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee has included general provision in title VII
(Sec. 718) that requires all departments and agencies in this
Act to report quarterly to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on all sole source contracts, including the
contractor, the amount of the contract, the purpose of the
contract and the rationale for a sole-source procurement as
opposed to a market-based procurement. The departments and
agencies also are required to publish this information
quarterly in the Federal Register. The Committee directs the IG
to assess any conflicts of interest with regard to these
contracts and DOT.
Unfair Business Practices.--The bill maintains language
which authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud
and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition by air carriers and ticket agents.

Surface Transportation Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crediting
Appropriation offsetting
collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005.................. $21,080,000 $1,042,000
Budget estimate, 2006................. 24,388,000 1,250,000
House allowance....................... 26,622,000 1,250,000
Committee recommendation.............. 24,388,000 1,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on
January 1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission
Termination Act of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104-88). The Board
is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT and is
responsible for the regulation of the rail and pipeline
industries and certain non-licensing regulation of motor
carriers and water carriers.
STB's rail oversight activities encompass rate
reasonableness, car service and interchange, mergers, line
acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB's
jurisdiction also includes certain oversight of the intercity
bus industry and pipeline carriers, rate regulation involving
noncontiguous domestic water transportation, household goods
carriers, and collectively determined motor carrier rates.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,388,000
for activities of the Board, which is the same as the requested
amount and $3,308,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level. Included in the recommended amount is an estimated
$1,250,000 in fees to be collected, which will offset the
appropriated funding. The Board is authorized to credit the
fees collected to the appropriated amount as offsetting
collections reducing the general funds appropriation on a
dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are received and collected.

Administrative Provisions--Department of Transportation

Section 170 allows funds for maintenance and operation of
aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or
allowances, as authorized by law.
Section 171 limits appropriations for services authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level
IV.
Section 172 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and
expenses of more than 106 political and Presidential appointees
in the Department of Transportation, and prohibits political
and Presidential personnel to be assigned on temporary detail
outside the Department of Transportation or an independent
agency funded in this Act.
Section 173 prohibits funds for the implementation of
section 404 of title 23, U.S.C.
Section 174 prohibits recipients of funds made available in
this Act to release personal information, including a social
security number, medical or disability information, and
photographs from a driver's license or motor vehicle record
without express consent of the person to whom such information
pertains; and prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from
withholding funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a
State is in noncompliance with this provision.
Section 175 allows funds received by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal
Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities,
other public authorities, and private sources for expenses
incurred for training may be credited to each agency's
respective accounts.
Section 176 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
allow issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase
preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation.
Section 177 prohibits funds in this Act to make a grant
unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriation at least 3 full business
days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or
full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is
announced by the Department or its modal administration.
Section 178 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments,
minor fees and other funds received by the Department of
Transportation from travel management center, charge card
programs, subleasing of building space and miscellaneous
sources are to be credit to appropriations of the Department of
Transportation.
Section 179 allows that amounts from improper payments to a
third party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the
Department of Transportation shall be available to cover
expenses incurred in recovery of such payments.
Section 180 authorizes the transfer of unexpended sums from
``Minority Business Outreach'' to ``Office of the Secretary,
Salaries and expenses''.
Section 181 prohibits funds for the Office of the Secretary
of Transportation to approve assessments or reimbursable
agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal
administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or
agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for
congressional notification.
Section 182 limits funds for the fiscal year 2006 working
capital fund of the Department of Transportation.
Section 183 continues the provision designating the city of
Norman, Oklahoma, to be considered part of the Oklahoma City
Transportation urbanized area for fiscal year 2006.

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Departmental Offices

salaries and expenses

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $156,299,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 195,253,000
House allowance......................................... 157,452,000
Committee recommendation................................ 197,591,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Departmental Offices consists of the Office of the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary, the Office of International
Affairs, the Office of Domestic Finance, the Office of
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, the Office of Tax Policy,
the Office of Economic Policy, the Office of the General
Counsel, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the Office of
Public Affairs, Office of the Treasurer, and the Office of
Management. The Secretary of the Treasury has the primary role
in formulating and managing the domestic and international tax
and financial policies of the Federal Government. The
Secretary's responsibilities funded by the Salaries and
Expenses appropriation include: recommending and implementing
United States domestic and international economic and tax
policy; fiscal policy; governing the fiscal operations of the
Government; executing the Nation's financial sanction policies;
disrupting and dismantling terrorist financial infrastructure;
protecting the United States and international financial system
from terrorist financing, money laundering, and other financial
crimes; managing the public debt; managing international
development policy; representing the United States on
international monetary, trade and investment issues; overseeing
Department of the Treasury overseas operations; and directing
the administrative operations of the Department of the
Treasury. The majority of the Salaries and Expenses
appropriation provides resources for policy formulation and
implementation in the areas of domestic and international
finance, terrorist financing and financial crimes, tax,
economic, trade, financial operations and general fiscal
policy. This appropriation also provides resources to support
to the Secretary and policy components, and coordination of
departmental administrative policies in financial and personnel
management, procurement operations, and information systems and
telecommunications.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $197,591,000 for the Salaries and
Expenses appropriation of the Departmental Offices [DO] account
of the Department of the Treasury for fiscal year 2006. This
amount is $2,338,000 above the budget request and $41,292,000
above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Within the funds
provided under this account, the Committee has provided
$3,000,000 for information technology modernization; $100,000
for official reception and representation expenses; $258,000
for unforeseen emergencies; and $5,173,000 for the Treasury-
wide financial statement audits and other Treasury office and
bureau audits. Bill language also is included establishing a
staffing floor of 125 FTEs for the Office of Foreign Assets
Control [OFAC].
The Committee has established specific salaries and
expenses spending limitations for each program activity within
the Departmental Offices account. The Committee has included
authority for the Department to request funding transfers
between each of its program activities. The Department is
required to submit any such transfer requests to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations and receive approval prior
to the execution of any such transfer.
The following table compares the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level to the fiscal year 2006 budget estimate and the
Committee's recommendation for each office:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2006 Budget Committee
2005 enacted estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive direction............................................. $7,215,808 $16,656,312 $8,642,366
General counsel................................................. 7,142,400 .............. 7,851,946
Economic policies and programs.................................. 29,935,670 32,010,626 32,010,626
Financial policies and programs................................. 25,127,417 24,720,470 27,220,470
Financial crimes and policies and programs...................... 31,754,516 39,938,449 39,938,449
Treasury-wide management policies and programs.................. 15,986,722 16,843,447 16,843,447
Administration.................................................. 60,924,111 65,083,696 65,083,696
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Direction.--The Committee has not decided to
follow the budget request proposal to consolidate funding for
the office of general counsel under the executive direction
activity. The Committee is extremely troubled by the
performance of the Office of Legislative Affairs. The Committee
understands that a new Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs is pending confirmation and looks forward to working
with the new Assistant Secretary in improving the performance
of the office. The Committee has not included the budget
request of an additional $162,000 and one new FTE for the
Office of Legislative Affairs.
General Counsel.--The Committee has included additional
funds to support the hiring of one new FTE in the area of
intelligence law.
Infrastructure Protection Research.--The Committee has
included $2,500,000 in additional funds under the financial
policies and programs activity to continue critical
infrastructure protection research and development through the
``e-Cavern partnership.''
Financial Crimes.--The Committee has included funding for
OFAC under DO and has included funding to transfer permanently
23 FTE from OFAC to the Office of Intelligence and Analysis
[OIA] for fiscal year 2006. The Committee, however, continues
to be concerned that the diverse and broad operational
responsibilities of OFAC not be undermined by a dilution of
resources devoted to the entire mission of this office. As the
Agency charged with administering and enforcing economic
sanction programs for the United States Government, adequate
resources must be provided to this office. Accordingly, the
Committee has established a staffing floor of 125 full-time
equivalent positions for this Office. Further, the Committee
strongly urges the Department and administration to budget
additional resources to ensure OFAC has the capacity to carry
out its responsibilities.
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence [TFI].--The
Committee strongly supports the Office of Terrorism and
Financial Intelligence [TFI], which was created about 1\1/2\
years ago by the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004. A key
component of TFI, also created by the Congress, was the Office
of Intelligence and Analysis [OIA]. The Office of Intelligence
and Analysis was created to ensure that Treasury was equipped
with a first-rate intelligence capability to ensure that high-
level policy officials at Treasury and the administration would
benefit from Treasury's unique sources, insight and
capabilities on the very broad range of financial issues
important to the United States. For example, it is the sense of
the Committee that Treasury's solid relationships with Finance
Ministries and Central Banks around the world provide important
sources of information that could benefit policy makers on a
wide range of issues: issues ranging from the financing of
terrorism to potential debt crisis to trade and currency
issues. It is the sense of the Committee that this information
is currently not being captured, analyzed and disseminated in
any regular way and the Committee believes this is the role for
which the OIA was created; that is, to produce policy level
intelligence products for high level policy officials in
Treasury and the Administration. The creation of the OIA should
also cause Treasury to play a larger role in the Intelligence
Community than it has in the past. Treasury is a long-time
member of the National Security Council. The Committee believes
the creation of the OIA will provide Treasury with a better
voice at the Council, which will ultimately benefit the
country.
Unfortunately, the Committee is very concerned about the
apparent direction Treasury has taken in standing up the OIA.
The OIA seems to be primarily staffed with employees from
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control [OFAC] and the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN], both components
of TFI. Notably, Treasury has detailed 23 analysts from OFAC's
Foreign Terrorist Division. These analysts appear to be doing
nothing different in the OIA than they were doing at OFAC,
i.e., preparing evidentiary packages for terrorist designations
by OFAC. Removing these analysts from OFAC cripples its ability
to address its targeted sanctions regimes aimed at terrorists;
and, the development of these tactical evidentiary packages is
not the sort of high-level policy oriented intelligence product
the Committee believes the Congress had intended for the OIA.
The Committee understands that the administration has
recently nominated the Treasury's first Assistant Secretary for
Intelligence and Analysis to lead OIA. Pending Senate
confirmation, the Committee looks forward to working with this
new Assistant Secretary and expects her to carry out the duties
and responsibilities of OIA established by the Congress. While
the Committee understands the OIA is struggling to stand-up,
and that terrorist financing is correctly a priority in that
stand up, the Committee would benefit greatly from more
information TFI and the OIA have for the full implementation of
the Office. To that end, the Committee directs the Assistant
Secretary of Intelligence and Analysis to submit a report
within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act that
details how OIA will implement the purpose of the Office as
intended by the Congress. This report should address how OIA is
addressing all needs of the Treasury and other Administration
policy makers on financial issues and how the OIA is
distinguishing itself from the functions of the Department's
existing analytic units at Treasury's OFAC and FinCEN. The
Committee directs that this report contain a resource plan that
will enable the OIA to fulfill its mission.
Information Security.--The Government Accountability Office
[GAO] recently issued a report that found serious control
weaknesses that jeopardizes the security of sensitive financial
and taxpayer data and law enforcement data. According to the
April 15, 2005 GAO report, these weaknesses increase the risk
that sensitive taxpayer and Bank Secrecy Act [BSA] data will be
inadequately protected from unauthorized disclosure,
modification, use, or destruction. Further, these weaknesses
heighten the risk that Internal Revenue Service [IRS] and
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN] assets will be
inadequately protected and controlled to ensure the continuity
of operations when unexpected interruptions occur.
This report is especially alarming given the recent
breaches of personal information held by private data
collection agencies. The Committee is concerned about the GAO's
finding that taxpayer and BSA data may have been disclosed to
unauthorized individuals. The scope of this problem is
potentially immense since the IRS granted all 7,460 mainframe
users the ability to read and modify sensitive taxpayer and BSA
data, including information about citizens, law enforcement
personnel, and individuals subject to investigation.
Due to these findings, the Committee directs the Secretary
to correct immediately the problems identified by the GAO.
Further, the Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report
by no later than February 8, 2006 on the status of its
corrective actions.

DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITAL INVESTMENTS PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $32,002,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 24,412,000
House allowance......................................... 21,412,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,412,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The 1997 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
established this account, which is authorized to be used by or
on behalf of Treasury bureaus, at the Secretary's discretion,
to modernize business processes and increase efficiency through
technology investments, as well as other activities that
involve more than one Treasury bureau or Treasury's interface
with other Government agencies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,412,000
for department-wide systems and capital investment program.
This amount is equal to the budget request and $7,590,000 below
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $16,368,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 16,722,000
House allowance......................................... 17,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,722,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As a result of the 1988 amendments to the Inspector General
[IG] Act, the Secretary of the Treasury established the Office
of Inspector General [OIG] in 1989.
The OIG conducts and supervises audits, evaluations, and
investigations designed to: (1) promote economy, efficiency,
and effectiveness and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in
departmental programs and operations; and (2) keep the
Secretary and Congress fully and currently informed of problems
and deficiencies in the administration of departmental programs
and operations. The audit function provides program audit,
contract audit and financial statement audit services. Contract
audits provide professional advice to Agency contracting
officials on accounting and financial matters relative to
negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement
of contracts. Program audits review and audit all facets of
Agency operations. Financial statement audits assess whether
financial statements fairly present the Agency's financial
condition and results of operations, the adequacy of accounting
controls, and compliance with laws and regulations. These
audits contribute significantly to improved financial
management by helping Treasury managers identify improvements
needed in their accounting and internal control systems. The
evaluations function reviews program performance and issues
critical to the mission of the Department, including assessing
the Department's implementation of the Government Performance
and Results Act [GPRA]. The investigative function provides for
the detection and investigation of improper and illegal
activities involving programs, personnel, and operations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,722,000
for salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General.
The Committee has provided the same level as the budget request
to the Treasury Inspector General and $354,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level.

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $128,093,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 133,286,000
House allowance......................................... 133,286,000
Committee recommendation................................ 133,286,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
[TIGTA] was established by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act
of 1998 (Public Law 105-206). Funding was first appropriated
for this account in the fiscal year 2000 Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-58).
TIGTA conducts audits, investigations, and evaluations to
assess the operations and programs of the Internal Revenue
Service [IRS] and Related Entities, the IRS Oversight Board and
the Office of Chief Counsel to (1) promote the economic,
efficient and effective administration of the Nation's tax laws
and to detect and deter fraud and abuse in IRS programs and
operations; and (2) recommend actions to resolve fraud and
other serious problems, abuses, and deficiencies in these
programs and operations, and keep the Secretary and Congress
fully and currently informed of these issues and the progress
made in resolving them. TIGTA reviews existing and proposed
legislation and regulations relating to the programs and
operations of the IRS and Related Entities and makes
recommendations concerning the impact of such legislation and
regulations on the economy and efficiency in the administration
of programs and operations of the IRS and Related Entities. The
audit function provides program audit, limited contract audit
and financial audit services. Program audits review and audit
all facets of IRS and Related Entities in an effort to improve
IRS systems and operations, while ensuring fair and equitable
treatment of taxpayers. Contract audits focus on invoices/
vouchers submitted to the IRS to determine whether charges are
valid. The investigative function provides for the detection
and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving
IRS programs and operations and protects the IRS and Related
Entities against external attempts to corrupt or threaten their
employees.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $133,286,000
for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. This
amount is an increase of $5,193,000 above the fiscal year 2005
enacted level and the same as the budget request.

AIR TRANSPORTATION STABILIZATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,984,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 2,942,000
House allowance......................................... 2,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,942,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act,
Public Law 107-42, established the Air Transportation
Stabilization Board. The Board may issue up to $10,000,000,000
in loan guarantees.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,942,000 for
the Air Transportation Stabilization Program. This amount is
equal to the budget request and $958,000 above the fiscal year
2005 enacted level.

TREASURY BUILDING AND ANNEX REPAIR AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $12,217,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 10,000,000
House allowance......................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration
appropriation funds the repairs, selected improvements and
construction necessary to renovate and maintain the main
Treasury Building and the Treasury annex.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000
for the repair and restoration of the Treasury Building and
Annex, equal to the budget request and $2,217,000 less than the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
According to the budget request, this is the final year of
funding for this project. The Committee is hopeful that this is
the case despite the significant cost overruns and delays that
have plagued this project.

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $71,922,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 73,630,000
House allowance......................................... 73,630,000
Committee recommendation................................ 73,630,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN], a bureau
within the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and
Financial Intelligence, is the largest overt collector of
financial intelligence in the United States. FinCEN's mission
is to safeguard the financial system from the abuses of
financial crime, including terrorist financing, money
laundering and other illicit finance. FinCEN accomplishes its
mission by administering the Bank Secrecy Act, a collection of
statutes that form the Nation's anti-money laundering/counter-
terrorist financing regulatory regime. As the delegated
administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act, FinCEN is responsible
for the development and implementation of regulations, rules
and guidance issued under the Bank Secrecy Act. FinCEN also
oversees the work of eight Federal agencies that have been
delegated responsibility to examine various sectors of the
financial industry for compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act's
requirements. FinCEN is responsible for collecting,
maintaining, and disseminating the information reported by
financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act through a
government-wide access service. In coordination with Treasury's
Office of Intelligence and Analysis, FinCEN analyzes this
financial information and other information and intelligence to
develop both strategic and tactical analytical products that
support law enforcement, intelligence and regulatory agencies.
FinCEN is the United States' Financial Intelligence Unit [FIU]
and a founding member of the Egmont Group of Financial
Intelligence Units. As the United States FIU, FinCEN routinely
shares information and cooperates with other FIUs around the
world to address the global problems of terrorist financing,
money laundering, and other illicit finance.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request level of
$73,630,000 for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. This
amount is an increase of $1,708,000 above the fiscal year 2005
enacted level.
The Committee strongly supports the mission of FinCEN and
its program priorities in administering the Bank Secrecy Act
and safeguarding the U.S. financial system from money
laundering and illicit finance. The Committee believes that
FinCEN's mission is especially critical in supporting the
Department of Treasury's efforts in combating the financing of
terrorism. To that end, the Committee has provided the
resources necessary to support FinCEN's fiscal year 2006
program increases.
In support of FinCEN's mission, the Committee has provided
the additional program funding for the following areas as
requested in the budget request: (1) enhancing anti-money
laundering/terrorist regulatory structure, (2) strengthening
overall analytical support services, (3) expanding
international terrorist financing information exchange, and (4)
enhancing anti-money laundering data analysis and Bank Secrecy
Act e-filing.
The Committee also continues its support for FinCEN's
development of the ``BSA Direct'' initiative. BSA Direct is
expected to be fully deployed in the fall of 2005 and will
provide greater access and analytical ability for FinCEN and
its customers in administering the Bank Secrecy Act. The
Committee understands that this new system will help address
some of the information security problems with the current data
base system managed by the IRS. Accordingly, the Committee
directs the Director of FinCEN to report to the Committee on
any significant delays, deviations, or adjustments in costs. In
addition, the Committee has included report language under
departmental offices requiring the Secretary to monitor and
implement corrective actions related to the information
security problems found in the Government Accountability
Office's April 15, 2005 report on IRS information security over
taxpayer and Bank Secrecy Act data (GAO-05-482).

Financial Management Service

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $229,083,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 236,243,000
House allowance......................................... 236,243,000
Committee recommendation................................ 236,243,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

In 1940, the United States Department of the Treasury
established the Fiscal Service, which consisted of the Bureau
of Accounts, the Bureau of the Public Debt, and the Office of
the Treasurer. A 1974 reorganization of the Fiscal Service
created the Bureau of Government Financial Operations, which
was formed from a merger of the Bureau of Accounts and most
functions of the Office of the Treasurer. In 1984, the Bureau
of Government Financial Operations was renamed the Financial
Management Service [FMS]; the new name reflected Treasury's
renewed emphasis on achieving greater efficiency and economy in
government financial management.
FMS implements payment policy and procedures for the
Federal program agencies, issues and distributes payments,
promotes the use of electronics in the payment process, and
assists agencies in converting payments from paper checks to
electronic funds transfer [EFT]. FMS also provides debt
collection operational services to client agencies and
implements collections policy, regulations, standards and
procedures for the Federal Government and assists agencies in
converting collections from paper to electronic media.
Government-wide Accounting and Reporting.--FMS also
provides financial accounting, reporting, and financing
services to the Federal Government and the Government's agents
who participate in the payments and collections process by
generating a series of daily, monthly, quarterly and annual
Government-wide reports. FMS also works directly with agencies
to help reconcile reporting differences.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $236,243,000 for salaries and
expenses for FMS. This amount is the same as the budget request
and $7,160,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $82,336,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 62,486,000
House allowance......................................... 91,126,000
Committee recommendation................................ 91,126,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeland Security Act created the Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau [TTB] within the Department of the
Treasury and charged TTB with collecting revenue and protecting
the public.
TTB enforces the Federal laws and regulations relating to
alcohol and tobacco. Its responsibilities include maintaining a
sound revenue management and regulatory system that continues
to reduce the taxpayer burden, improve service, collect the
revenue due, prevent tax evasion and other criminal conduct,
and protecting the public and preventing consumer deception in
regulated commodities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $91,126,000 for TTB for fiscal
year 2006. This amount is an increase of $28,640,000 over the
budget request and an increase of $8,790,000 over the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level. The increase over the budget request
is due to the assumption of $28,640,000 in revenues from new
user fees. The new user fee legislative proposal is not
supported by the Committee.

Bureau of Engraving and Printing

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing [BEP] has been the
sole manufacturer of U.S. paper currency for almost 150 years.
The origin of the BEP is traced to an Act of Congress passed on
February 25, 1862, 12 Stat. 345, authorizing the Secretary of
the Treasury to issue a new currency--United States notes.
While this law was the cornerstone authority for the operations
of the engraving and printing division of the Treasury for many
years, it was not until an Act of June 20, 1874, 18 Stat. 100,
that the Congress first referred to this division as the
``Bureau of Engraving and Printing.'' The Bureau's status as a
distinct bureau within the Department of the Treasury was
solidified by section 1 of the Act of June 4, 1897, 30 Stat.
18, which placed all of the business of the BEP under the
immediate control of a director, subject to the direction of
the Secretary of the Treasury. The 1897 law is now codified in
31 U.S.C. 303.
The BEP designs, manufactures, and supplies Federal Reserve
notes, various public debt instruments, as well as financial
characters issued by the United States, such as postage and
internal revenue stamps. The BEP executes certain printings for
various territories administered by the United States,
particularly postage and revenue stamps.
The operations of the BEP are currently financed by means
of a revolving fund established in accordance with the
provisions of Public Law 656, August 4, 1950 (31 U.S.C. 181),
which requires the BEP to be reimbursed by customer agencies
for all costs of manufacturing products and services performed.
The BEP is also authorized to assess amounts to acquire capital
equipment and provide for working capital needs.
No direct appropriation is required to cover the activities
of the BEP.

Bureau of the Public Debt

ADMINISTERING THE PUBLIC DEBT

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $178,165,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 176,923,000
House allowance......................................... 176,923,000
Committee recommendation................................ 176,923,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Public Debt Service was formed in 1919 with the
appointment of the first Commissioner of the Public Debt. The
Public Debt Service took general charge debt operations
including debt accounting and securities issue and retirement,
which had been conducted by several independent divisions
within the Treasury. Acting under the authorization of the
Reorganization Act of 1939, the President created the Bureau of
the Public Debt, which was established as part of the Fiscal
Service in the Department of the Treasury effective June 30,
1940, (31 U.S.C. 306). In 1993, the Savings Bonds Division, a
separate organization, was made part of the Bureau.
This appropriation provides funds for the conduct of all
public debt operations and the promotion of the sale of U.S.
savings-type securities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request level of
$176,923,000 for the Bureau of the Public Debt for fiscal year
2006. This amount is an increase of $3,158,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level.
The Committee recommends adjusting the number of direct FTE
from 1,289 to 1,390 to reflect the Bureau's realignment of its
administrative functions. The Bureau of the Public Debt's
Office of Administration became a member of the Treasury
Franchise Fund in fiscal year 1999 and changed its name to the
Administrative Resource Center [ARC]. At that time the bureau
transferred ARC's 237 FTEs to the Treasury Franchise Fund. This
realignment does not affect the recommended appropriation for
Administering the Public Debt for fiscal year 2006.
The Committee also recommends adjusting the estimated
number of reimbursable FTE for the Treasury Franchise Fund from
713 to 559 to reflect the organizational changes in the Bureau
of the Public Debt.
Public Debt is presently realigning its core administrative
and policy functions by placing them in a new Office of
Management Services staffed by existing Public Debt personnel
currently assigned to ARC. This reorganization places Public
Debt on an equal footing with ARC's other customers, which
appropriately retain their core administrative and policy
functions, while purchasing administrative transaction services
from ARC. The reorganization provides Public Debt with a
clearer managerial accountability over two functions that are,
in fact, distinctly different--the Public Debt-specific
administrative functions including policy formulation
contrasted with a competitive, fee-for-service transaction-
based business.
ARC provides a full-range of administrative services to
Public Debt and offers a variety of services including
financial management on a reimbursable basis to other Federal
agencies.

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $55,078,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 7,900,000
House allowance......................................... 55,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 55,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund makes
investments in the form of grants, loans, equity investments,
deposits, and technical assistance grants to new and existing
community development financial institutions [CDFIs], through
the CDFI program. CDFIs include community development banks,
credit unions, venture capital funds, revolving loan funds, and
microloan funds, among others. Recipient institutions engage in
lending and investment for affordable housing, small business
and community development within underserved communities. The
CDFI Fund administers the Bank Enterprise Award [BEA] Program,
which provides a financial incentive to insured depository
institutions to undertake community development finance
activities. The CDFI Fund also administers the New Markets Tax
Credit Program, a program that provides an incentive to
investors in the form of a tax credit, which is expected to
stimulate private community and economic development
activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for the CDFI Fund,
which is $78,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and
$47,100,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommends
that the entire program, not just the New Markets Tax Credit
program, remain at the Department of the Treasury as opposed to
the administration's proposal of moving the program to the
Department of Commerce under the Strengthening America's
Communities Initiative.
The Committee is again concerned about the proposed
reductions to CDFI and the respective programs within CDFI.
These programs play an important role in providing financial
services to underserved communities in both urban and rural
communities across the country. However, the Committee is
concerned with the lack of third party assessment in regards to
the oversight of the Bank Enterprise Award Program. The
Committee directs the Government Accountability Office to
conduct a study of the Bank Enterprise Award Program, to be
completed by April 30, 2006, regarding the current status of
the program and BEA's impact on bank behavior as it relates to
providing financial services to underserved communities. The
Committee expects the BEA program to be funded at no less than
$11,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
The Committee also recommends a set-aside of $4,000,000 for
grants, loans, and technical assistance and training programs
to benefit Native America, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiian
communities in the coordination of development strategies,
increased access to equity investments, and loans for
development activities.

United States Mint

UNITED STATES MINT PUBLIC ENTERPRISE FUND

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Mint manufactures coins, sells numismatic
and investment products, and provides for security and asset
protection. Public Law 104-52 established the U.S. Mint Public
Enterprise Fund (the Fund). The Fund encompasses the previous
Salaries and Expenses, Coinage Profit Fund, Coinage Metal Fund,
and the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund. The Mint submits
annual audited business-type financial statements to the
Secretary of the Treasury and to Congress in support of the
operations of the revolving fund.
The operations of the Mint are divided into three major
activities: Circulating Coinage; Numismatic and Investment
Products; and Protection. The Mint is credited with receipts
from its circulating coinage operations, equal to the full cost
of producing and distributing coins that are put into
circulation, including depreciation of the Mint's plant and
equipment on the basis of current replacement value. Those
receipts pay for the cost of the Mint's operations, which
includes the costs of production and distribution. The
difference between the face value of the coins and these costs
are profit, which is deposited as seigniorage to the general
fund. In fiscal year 2004, the Mint transferred $665,000,000 to
the general fund. Any seigniorage used to finance the Mint's
capital acquisitions is recorded as budget authority in the
year that funds are obligated for this purpose and as receipts
over the life of the asset.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a spending level of $36,900,000
for circulating coinage and protective service capital
investments for the Mint. This amount is an increase of
$12,900,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and is
equal to the budget request.

Internal Revenue Service

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Internal Revenue Service history dates back to 1862. In
1953 following a reorganization of its function, its name
became the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. The IRS mission is
to provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping
them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by
applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all. The
IRS deals directly with more Americans than any other
institution, public or private. In 2004, the IRS collected over
$2,000,000,000,000 in revenue and processed more than 224
million tax returns at a cost of 48 cents for each $100
collected by the IRS. During the 2004 filing season, for the
first time, over half of all individual taxpayers (nearly 67
million) filed electronically. Also, in 2004, the Agency
provided assistance almost 85 million times through toll-free
telephone lines, correspondence or visits to its more than 400
offices nationwide. An important focus of recent years for the
IRS has been to undertake a major modernization of its systems
and business operations to better serve taxpayers and enforce
the law.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,679,261,000 for the Internal
Revenue Service. This is an increase of $443,175,000 above the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level and the same as the budget
request. The Committee has provided $6,893,000,000 for tax
enforcement activities, including $446,000,000 for enhanced tax
enforcement activities to address the Federal tax gap,
consistent with the concurrent budget resolution.
Tax Gap.--The IRS recently released preliminary results of
a 3-year study on the difference between what taxpayers are
supposed to pay and what they actually do pay, known as the
``tax gap.'' For tax year 2001, the research indicates that the
tax gap was between $311,000,000,000 and $353,000,000,000.
After IRS enforcement activities coupled with late payments are
included in this estimate, the net tax gap is between
$257,000,000,000 and $298,000,000,000. The Committee strongly
believes that the IRS must and can reduce the tax gap if the
IRS is given additional resources and is able to improve its
operational capabilities (most notably through the Business
Systems Modernization program).
The budget request aims to address the tax gap through a
significant boost in enforcement resources. The Committee
supports this effort and believes that the IRS must improve its
collection and examination activities. The Committee also
agrees with the IRS's guiding principle that service plus
enforcement equals compliance. However, the budget request
appears to be boosting enforcement at the expense of customer
service. While the Committee strongly supports the
administration's efforts to boost enforcement activities, it is
concerned about maintaining a reasonable overall balance
between the IRS's enforcement and service activities and fears
that reducing services will increase noncompliance among
taxpayers. According to the GAO, ``a sole focus on enforcement
will not likely be sufficient to further reduce the net tax
gap.'' GAO notes that ``providing quality services to taxpayers
is an important part of any overall strategy to improve
compliance and thereby reduce the tax gap.'' Therefore, the
Committee strongly believes in a multi-pronged effort to shrink
the tax gap and not one overly reliant on enforcement.
Operating Plan and Notification.--In addition to the normal
operating plan requirements detailed in the introduction in
this report, the Committee directs the IRS to include details
on any planned reorganization, job reductions or increases to
offices or activities within the Agency, and modifications to
any service or enforcement activity. Further, as discussed
below, the IRS should promptly notify the Committee if there
are any substantial changes of these plans. The Committee also
is interested in the expenditure of funds provided to support
IRS activities under the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement
[ICDE] program. Therefore, the Committee directs the IRS to
include details on the use of the ICDE funds and how it will
support IRS's core responsibilities.
Reorganization Plans.--Last year, the Committee expressed
its disappointment with the Agency's performance with regard to
reorganization plans resulting in substantial reductions-in-
force. The Committee expected the IRS to comply with this
language by not beginning any reorganization, realignment, or
restructuring of its workforce without prior consultation of
the Committee. Unfortunately, this year the Committee learned
of IRS's imminent plans to close taxpayer assistance centers
prior to IRS's understanding the complete effect of this
proposal on taxpayers, without providing adequate alternatives,
without consulting stakeholders, and prior to the start of the
Congress's fiscal year 2006 appropriations process. The
Committee has also recently learned that the IRS has offered
job swaps enabling eligible IRS employees to apply for early
retirement and/or buyouts by trading jobs with taxpayer
assistance employees whose positions are proposed for
elimination. Accordingly, the Committee directs the IRS to
consult with the Committee prior to elimination, consolidation,
or reorganization of its workforce, and prohibits the IRS from
proceeding with matters relating to such job movement prior to
the Committee's action on the IRS budget.
IRS Staffing Plans.--The Committee continues to support
adequate staffing levels for effective tax administration and
supports the staffing plans for the Internal Revenue Service
facilities in the communities of Martinsburg and Beckley, WV.
Therefore, the Committee urges the IRS, within the constraints
of the fiscal year 2006 funding levels, to make no staffing
reductions at the Martinsburg National Computing Center and the
programmed level at the Finance Center in Beckley, WV. Further,
the Committee directs the IRS to provide an annual report to
the Committee on its efforts to protect and increase staffing
levels at the Martinsburg and Beckley IRS facilities.
Taxpayer Services in Alaska and Hawaii.--Given the remote
distance of Alaska and Hawaii from the U.S. mainland and the
difficulty experienced by Alaska and Hawaii taxpayers in
receiving needed tax assistance by the national toll-free line,
it is imperative that the Taxpayer Advocate Service Center in
each of these States is fully staffed and capable of resolving
taxpayer problems of the most complex nature. The Committee
directs the Internal Revenue Service to continue to staff each
Taxpayer Advocate Service Center in each of these States with a
Collection Technical Advisor and an Examination Technical
Advisor in addition to the current complement of office staff.

PROCESSING, ASSISTANCE, AND MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $4,056,857,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 4,136,578,000
House allowance......................................... 4,181,520,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,136,578,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides for all functions related to
processing of tax returns, including electronic filing,
accounting for tax revenues, issuing refunds and tax notices,
with concentrated efforts in the area of accurate and timely
processing of tax returns, related documents and payments. The
appropriation provides services to the taxpayer before a return
is filed by interpretation of the tax law through published
guidance, technical advice and other technical services. This
appropriation includes agency-wide administration services,
including facilities services, rent, space and housing needs,
employee customer support, and procurement services; managing
internal performance of IRS personnel, including recruitment of
highly skilled personnel, expanded training opportunities to
enhance expert skills, conducting background investigations;
managing activities of strategic planning, financial resources,
EEO and diversity; and, offering information access by IRS-wide
communication and liaison programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,136,578,000 for Processing,
Assistance, and Management, which is $79,721,000 above the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level and the same as the budget
request. Bill language is included providing $4,100,000 for the
tax counseling for the elderly program and $8,000,000 for low-
income taxpayer clinic grants.
Taxpayer Services.--The Committee is concerned about the
proposed taxpayer service reductions due to the IRS's inability
to explain the potential impact of these changes on taxpayers.
Reducing taxpayer services, especially for the Nation's most
vulnerable and needy populations, is puzzling, especially given
the trends in the Nation's demographics, which indicate a
growing elderly population and immigrant population. Yet,
instead of increasing and improving taxpayer services for these
populations, the IRS's budget proposes to cut services that
these populations rely upon.
The Committee also is concerned that the proposed service
cuts lack specificity and the IRS has not developed concrete
plans to provide adequate alternative services that would
replace the proposed service cuts. The Government
Accountability Office [GAO] noted in testimony on April 14,
2005 that ``IRS has not finalized the details on where
reductions in taxpayer service would occur.''
Clearly, the IRS can provide alternative services at a more
cost-effective and efficient manner. Recent GAO testimony
states that the IRS may be able to ``maintain the overall level
of assistance to taxpayers by changing the menu of services
offered, offsetting reductions in some areas with new and
improved services in other areas.'' Nevertheless, the IRS has
failed to develop a comprehensive plan that would ensure
adequate alternative and improved services to taxpayers. For
example, the IRS is re-directing taxpayers from taxpayer
assistance centers [TAC] to volunteer income tax assistance
[VITA] sites. However, both the GAO and the Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration [TIGTA] have identified
significant problems with the accuracy of tax preparation
services provided at VITA sites. Further, while the IRS is
encouraging more taxpayers to use volunteer sites for return
preparation, resources devoted to these activities are
declining. Staffing for IRS's Stakeholder Partnerships,
Education and Communication [SPEC] office has declined by 63
FTEs over the past 2 years.
In addition, the IRS has justified some of its proposed
cuts based on reduced usage of such services. However, some of
the reduction in usage was caused by the IRS's own internal
policies. For example, beginning in fiscal year 2003, the IRS
established guidelines to reduce tax return preparation in the
taxpayer assistance centers [TAC] by 20 percent. This goal was
reiterated in the fiscal year 2005-2006 Wage & Investment
Strategy and Program Plan. By directing the reduction of such
services, the reduction in demand and usage became a self-
fulfilling prophecy and not one justified by reduced taxpayer
needs or demands for such services.
The Committee also questions the IRS's estimated cost
savings from reducing some of their services. For example, the
IRS announced on May 27, 2005 that it planned to close 68 TACs
across the Nation. However, the Committee is highly skeptical
of the projected savings from closing these walk-in centers
since only three of the 68 TACs are stand-alone facilities
while the remainder are co-located with other IRS offices.
Due to the Committee's concerns, the Committee has included
an administrative provision that prohibits the use of funds
provided in this Act for purposes of reducing any taxpayer
service function or program until the Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration [TIGTA] has completed a study
detailing the impact of the IRS's plans to reduce services on
taxpayer compliance and taxpayer assistance. The Committee also
requests TIGTA to review the accuracy of the estimated cost-
savings of the reduced services.
Further, the Committee directs the IRS to undertake a
comprehensive review of its current portfolio of taxpayer
services and develop a 5-year plan that outlines the services
it should provide to improve services for taxpayers. This plan
should detail how it plans to meet the service needs on a
geographic basis (by State and major metropolitan area),
including any proposals to realign existing resources to
improve taxpayer access to services, and address how the plan
will improve taxpayer service based on reliable data on
taxpayer service needs. As part of this review, the Committee
strongly urges the IRS to use innovative approaches to taxpayer
services, such as virtual technology and mobile units. The IRS
also should expand efforts to partner with State and local
governments and private entities to improve taxpayer services.
For example, about three-fourths of the Nation's 100 largest
cities have some coordinated effort around the Earned Income
Tax Credit by providing outreach and free tax preparation
services. This plan should be developed in consultation with
the IRS Oversight Board and the National Taxpayer Advocate and
submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees by
no later than March 1, 2006.
Stakeholder Partnerships, Education and Communication.--The
Stakeholder Partnerships, Education and Communication [SPEC]
office plays a central role in assisting taxpayers deal with
the complexity of the tax law and reducing IRS workload through
education and taxpayer service. SPEC administers such tax
return preparation programs to assist low-income people, those
with limited English proficiency [LEP], disabled people, and
the elderly. Further, the GAO reported that one method of
improving compliance through customer service is to educate
taxpayers about confusing or commonly misunderstood tax
requirements. GAO noted that one method to reduce confusion
among taxpayers is to test IRS forms and instructions before
use. Unfortunately, the GAO found that in 2003, the IRS had
tested revisions to only five individual forms and instructions
from July 1997 through June 2002 although hundred of forms and
instructions had been revised in 2001 alone. Accordingly, the
Committee directs the IRS to provide additional resources for
SPEC for fiscal year 2006 and to use some of these additional
resources to address GAO's findings and improve quality and
performance at its volunteer income tax preparation sites.
User Fees.--The Committee has held discussions with the
authorizing committee on potential legislative actions that
would re-direct revenues generated by existing user fees from
the general fund to the IRS. Currently, the IRS is required to
return a share of the revenues generated from their user fees
to the general fund instead of retaining a larger portion or
all of the user fees for the services the IRS provides to its
customers. The Committee strongly supports the authorizing
committee on efforts that would allow the IRS to retain a
larger portion or all of the revenues generated by user fees.
The Committee also strongly supports the use of these
additional funds for purposes of improving taxpayer service
(such as preventing the closure of needed face-to-face services
like taxpayer assistance centers) and increasing examination
and collection efforts on corporate entities.

TAX LAW ENFORCEMENT

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $4,363,539,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 4,725,756,000
House allowance......................................... 4,541,466,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,725,756,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Tax Law Enforcement [TLE] provides equitable application
and enforcement of the laws, identifies possible non-filers,
investigates violations of criminal statutes; supports the
Statistics of Income program; conducts research to identify
compliance issues; and supports the Earned Income Tax Credit
program.
TLE's Compliance services funds services provided to a
taxpayer after a return is filed to identify and correct
possible errors or underpayment. Included in this activity are
staffing, training and support for: (1) compliance services
operational management; (2) centralized automated collection
system [ACS] and collection by correspondence in service
centers; (3) field investigations and collection efforts
associated with delinquent taxpayer and business entity
liabilities; (4) documents matching; (5) examination of
taxpayer returns at service centers; (6) field exams to
determine corresponding tax liabilities; (7) enforcement of
criminal statutes related to violations of internal revenue
laws, other financial crimes and interagency crime and drug
enforcement programs; (8) processing of reports for currency
transactions over $10,000; (9) case settlement through the
appeals process; (10) litigation; and (11) taxpayer advocate
case processing.
The Research and Statistics of Income activity funds
research and statistical analysis support for the IRS. It
provides annual income, financial, and tax data from tax
returns filed by individuals, corporations, and tax-exempt
organizations. Likewise it provides resources for market-based
research to identify compliance issues, for conducting tests of
treatments to address non-compliance, and for the
implementation of successful treatments of taxpayer non-
compliant behavior.
The Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC] activity program
provides for expanded customer service and public outreach
program, strengthened enforcement activities, and enhances
research efforts to reduce over claims and erroneous filings.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides the budget request
level of $4,725,756,000 for tax law enforcement for fiscal year
2006. This amount is $362,217,000 above the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. Bill language is included providing up to
$1,000,000 for research. The Committee also included bill
language from the budget request that provides up to
$55,584,000 for the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement
Program. Bill language also is included allowing the IRS to
transfer up to $10,000,000 to the Processing, Assistance, and
Management or Information Systems accounts to manage the earned
income tax credit compliance program and to reimburse the
Social Security Administration for the cost of implementing
section 1090 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
New Enforcement Initiatives.--The Committee strongly
supports the IRS's new enforcement initiatives on attacking
corrosive non-compliance activity driving the tax gap,
detecting and deterring corrosive corporate non-compliance,
increasing individual taxpayer compliance, curtailing
fraudulent refund crimes, and combating abusive transactions by
entities with special tax status. Overall, the IRS proposes to
spend $264,632,000 on these new initiatives, of which
$180,864,000 will be funded out of the Tax Law Enforcement
account and of which the remainder will be funded out of the
Processing, Assistance, and Management and Information Systems
accounts. An administrative provision has been included that
requires the IRS to report on the implementation of these new
initiatives.
National Research Program.--The Committee strongly supports
the work of the National Research Program [NRP] to increase
understanding about the tax gap. Some of the major objectives
of the NRP include improving fairness of tax administration and
improving the IRS's ability to detect noncompliance and develop
appropriate cost-effective treatments for prevention and early
intervention. While NRP's most recent analysis of the tax gap
has provided some preliminary useful information on
noncompliance, there remain significant gaps on information on
the impact of taxpayer services on compliance and treatments
for prevention and early intervention. Further, the GAO has
expressed concerns about some areas of the tax gap research
that relied on outdated data and methodologies. Accordingly,
the Committee directs the IRS's Research, Analysis and
Statistics Office to broaden its efforts on understanding the
impact of taxpayer services on compliance and to make this a
priority area for the NRP. The Committee also directs the IRS
to develop plans for obtaining more contemporary information on
compliance.
The Committee understands that the IRS used new software
technology to gain information on schedule D filings. The
Committee encourages the IRS to assess the usefulness of new
software technology and consider using it where appropriate.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,577,768,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,597,717,000
House allowance......................................... 1,575,146,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,597,717,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides for Service-wide Information
Systems [IS] operations and maintenance and investments to
enhance or develop business applications for IRS' business
programs. This appropriation includes staffing,
telecommunications, hardware and software (including
commercial-off-the shelf software), and contractual services.
Staffing develops and maintains millions of lines of
programming code supporting all aspects of the tax-processing
pipeline; as well as operating and administering the Service's
hardware infrastructure and a variety of management information
systems. In addition this appropriation covers the modification
and enhancement of existing systems or processes, providing
changes in systemic functionality, and establishing bridges
between current production systems and the new modernization
architecture being developed as part of the Service-wide
Business Systems Modernization efforts.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides the budget request
level of $1,597,717,000 for Information Systems for fiscal year
2006. This amount is $9,129,000 below the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. Bill language is included allowing $75,000,000
of these funds to remain available until September 30, 2007.
BSM Office.--The Business Systems Modernization Office
[BSMO] is funded through this appropriation for support costs.
Due to the importance of this office, especially as it shifts
more program management functions from the prime contractor to
the Agency, it is critical that the IRS provides adequate
resources to this office. IRS has recently taken steps to
implement a human capital strategy to address the staffing
needs for this office. Accordingly, the Committee supports the
budget request level of $45,000,000 for this office for fiscal
year 2006. Further, the Committee directs the IRS to provide
the necessary hiring flexibilities in order to recruit and hire
the skilled staff needed for this office and any additional
resources necessary to implement fully its human capital
strategy for BSMO.

BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $203,360,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 199,000,000
House allowance......................................... 199,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 199,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for revamping business practices and
acquiring new technology. The Agency is using a formal
methodology to prioritize, approve, fund, and evaluate its
portfolio of business systems modernization investments. This
methodology is designed to enforce a documented, repeatable,
and measurable process for managing investments throughout
their life cycle. The process is reviewed by the Government
Accountability Office on a regular basis as part of the
submission requirements for expenditure plans to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations. The expenditure plan
approval process prior to the use of appropriated funds
continues for fiscal year 2006.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides the budget request
level of $199,000,000 for Business Systems Modernization [BSM]
for fiscal year 2006. This amount is $4,360,000 below the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Bill language is included
requiring an expenditure plan for these funds.
The Committee strongly believes that BSM is the IRS's
highest management and administrative priority and requires
focus and attention from top management. The Committee
recognizes that the success or failure of BSM will directly
impact the IRS's ability to perform its functions in both
customer service and enforcement.
The Committee commends the IRS for taking steps to correct
long-standing and significant problems with BSM. For example,
the IRS has wisely scaled-back and right-sized the program to
focus on the core components of BSM--namely, the Customer
Account Data Engine [CADE] project--and begun an effort to move
program management, systems engineering, and business
integration operations from its prime contractor to the Agency.
The Committee strongly agrees with the IRS for making CADE its
top priority for BSM. IRS has also deployed initial phases of
several modernized systems during the past year, including
CADE, Modernized e-File, and e-Services. Lastly, the IRS has
developed a new BSM program improvement framework, which covers
all identified issues and allows the IRS to identify,
prioritize, and resolve these issues.
Despite these improvements during the past year, BSM
continues to be classified as ``high risk'' by the Government
Accountability Office [GAO]. Further, the Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration [TIGTA] continues to classify
BSM as the IRS's top management challenge. Due to these
concerns, the Committee remains seriously concerned about the
costs, scheduling, performance, and management of BSM. Since
its inception almost 6 years ago, the Congress has appropriated
about $1,900,000,000 for BSM. Even with this significant
investment, BSM has continually experienced cost overruns,
missed scheduling milestones, and produced less than expected
performance deliverables. According to GAO, 12 BSM project
segments have experienced cost increases and/or schedule delays
against short-term and long-term commitments. And while IRS
recently delivered two BSM projects, CADE Releases 1.1 and 1.2,
at the estimated cost and on or before the scheduled completion
dates, these achievements would not have occurred if the IRS
had re-baselined the cost and schedule estimates.
Further, even though the Agency has experienced some recent
success with BSM, much more work remains to be done. For
example, the initial deployment of CADE will allow IRS to use
this system to process less than 1 percent (or 2 million) of
all tax returns filed this year and is only able to handle the
most basic of tax forms (1040EZ). However, IRS has scheduled to
release CADE Release 2 and plans to be able to process about 33
million tax returns by 2007 (still far short of the over 200
million tax returns received by IRS each filing season), but no
detailed plans or schedules are available for the remaining
phase of this project. Further, the Committee is anxious about
the deployment of the Filing and Payment Compliance [F&PC]
project since it is expected to increase IRS's capacity to
treat and resolve the backlog of delinquent taxpayer cases and
improve voluntary taxpayer compliance.
According to GAO, the significant delays and substantive
changes to BSM indicate a need for IRS to revisit its long-term
goals, strategies, and plans for BSM that are consistent with
the budgetary outlook and IRS's management capabilities. Due to
these concerns, the Committee directs the IRS to develop a
coherent and comprehensive vision for BSM's future beyond the
year 2007. Therefore, for CADE and each of the other
modernization projects, the Committee directs the IRS to
determine (1) what additional functionality needs to be
developed to cover the remaining tax returns, (2) how much it
will cost to develop this functionality, and (3) when this
functionality will be made available. Moreover, the IRS should
provide the Committee with specific goals and timetables,
consistent with the new vision for BSM's future.
The Committee strongly supports the new efforts of BSMO,
led by its new Associate Chief Information Officer [CIO], to
correct the long-standing and significant problems with the
program. The Committee believes that the new Associate CIO is
taking the right steps in addressing the BSM's problems,
including improving oversight and management of the program.
The Committee also supports the BSMO's efforts in improving
implementation of performance-based contracting for the
program. The Committee strongly urges the IRS to implement
fully performance-based contracting practices for managing BSM
task orders to ensure that contractor costs are being
adequately controlled and the contractor is delivering products
that fully satisfy the requirements and contract
specifications.

HEALTH INSURANCE TAX CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $34,562,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 20,210,000
House allowance......................................... 20,210,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,210,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides operating funds to administer
the advance payment feature of a new Trade Adjustment
Assistance health insurance tax credit program to assist
dislocated workers with their health insurance premiums. The
tax credit program was enacted by the Trade Act of 2002 (Public
Law 107-210) and became effective in August 2003.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides the budget request
level of $20,210,000 for the Health Insurance Tax Credit
Administration in fiscal year 2006. This amount is $14,352,000
below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee has included four administrative provisions
carried in prior appropriations acts and six new administrative
provisions. The administrative provisions are as follows:
The bill continues a provision allowing the IRS to transfer
up to 5 percent of any appropriation made available to the
Agency in fiscal year 2006 to any other IRS account, with the
exception of the Tax Law Enforcement account, which is limited
to 3 percent. The IRS is directed to follow the Committee's
reprogramming procedures outlined earlier in this report.
The bill continues a provision maintaining a training
program in taxpayers' rights and cross-cultural relations.
The bill continues a provision requiring the IRS to
institute and enforce policies and procedures, which will
safeguard the confidentiality of taxpayer information.
The bill continues a provision directing that funds shall
be available for improved facilities and increased manpower to
support a 1-800 help line service for taxpayers.
The bill includes a new provision prohibiting the use of
funds in this Act to reduce taxpayer services until TIGTA
completes a review on the impact of IRS's proposed reductions
on taxpayer compliance and taxpayer assistance and their plans
to provide alternative services, and submits such study to the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The Committee
directs TIGTA to consult with the National Taxpayer Advocate
and IRS Oversight Board on this review.
The bill includes a new provision designating not less than
$6,447,000,000 for tax enforcement to address the tax gap and
an additional $446,000,000 for enhanced tax enforcement
activities. This provision is consistent with section 404(b)(2)
of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2006
(House Report 109-62).
The bill includes a new provision requiring the IRS to
submit a report not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act on tax enforcement.
The bill includes a new provision designating not less than
$166,249,000 for the Taxpayer Advocate Service [TAS]. The
Committee directs that 85 percent or $141,311,650 of these
funds be funded out of tax enforcement and the remainder out of
taxpayer service functions. This percentage split is consistent
with the fiscal year 2005 budget function allocations. Further,
this amount does not include the normal overhead expenses that
IRS provides outside of the TAS account. Accordingly, the
Committee directs the IRS to continue providing overhead
support from accounts outside of TAS.
The bill includes a new provision requiring the IRS to
submit its fiscal year 2007 budget justification in the same
format provided under this Act. While the Committee appreciates
the IRS's effort to align and integrate performance goals and
measures with budget resources, the proposed budget structure
under the request is overly simplistic and reduces the
Committee's ability to ensure accountability on the expenditure
of appropriated funds. The Committee is willing to engage in
discussions with the IRS and Office of Management and Budget on
improving the budget structure but this discussion should occur
prior to the submission of the budget request.
The bill includes a new provision eliminating the cap on
the amount of funds the IRS is allowed to retain from user
fees. This cap was established under the fiscal year 1995
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations
Act (Public Law 103-329). The Committee believes this cap is
obsolete since the IRS has never reached this cap.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Administrative Provisions

The Committee continues 10 administrative provisions
carried over from prior appropriations acts and one new
administrative provision. The administrative provisions are as
follows:
Section 210 authorizes certain basic services within the
Treasury Department in fiscal year 2006, including purchase of
uniforms; maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of
insurance for official motor vehicles operated in foreign
countries; and contracts with the Department of State for
health and medical services to employees and their dependents
serving in foreign countries.
Section 211 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between
Departmental Offices, Office of Inspector General, Financial
Management Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Bureau of the
Public Debt appropriations under certain circumstances.
Section 212 authorizes transfer, up to 2 percent, between
the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration under certain circumstances.
Section 213 requires the purchase of law enforcement
vehicles be consistent with Departmental vehicle management
principles.
Section 214 prohibits the Department of the Treasury and
the Bureau of Engraving and Printing from redesigning the $1.00
Federal Reserve Note.
Section 215 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to
transfer funds from Salaries and Expenses, Financial Management
Service, to the Debt Collection Fund as necessary to cover the
costs of debt collection. Such amounts shall be reimbursed to
the Salaries and Expenses account from debt collections
received in the Debt Collection Fund.
Section 216 amends Section 122 of Public Law 105-119 (5
U.S.C. 3104 note), by striking ``7 years'' and inserting ``8
years''.
Section 217 requires prior approval for the construction
and operation of a museum by the United States Mint.
Section 218 prohibits the merger of the United States Mint
and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing without prior approval
of the committees of jurisdiction.
Section 219 requires a report from the Secretary of the
Treasury related to currency manipulation.
Section 220 prohibits the merger of FinCEN with
Departmental Offices.

TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $31,915,207,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 29,147,486,000
House allowance......................................... 33,670,898,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,758,734,000

program description

The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was
established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public
Law 89-174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the
principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned
with the Nation's housing needs, fair housing opportunities,
and improving and developing the Nation's communities.
In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan
insurance programs that help families become homeowners and
facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and
homeownership subsidy programs for low-income families who
otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat
discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair
housing opportunity; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate
supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid neighborhood
rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of
our urban centers from blight and decay.
HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the
marketplace and fosters programs and research that stimulate
and guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but
better communities and living environments.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends for fiscal year 2006 an
appropriation of $34,758,734,000 for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. This is $2,843,527,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level and $5,611,248,000 above the budget
request.

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005 \1\................................ $14,765,920,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\............................... 15,845,194,187
House allowance \1\..................................... 15,631,400,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 15,636,064,000

\1\ Include an advance appropriation of some $4,200,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-
based (voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing
assistance is one of the principle appropriations for Federal
housing assistance and provides rental housing assistance to
over 2 million families. Further, it funds incremental vouchers
to assist non-elderly disabled families, to provide vouchers
for tenants that live in projects where the owner of the
project has decided to leave the section 8 program, or for
replacement of units lost from the assisted housing inventory
(Tenant Protection vouchers), etc. Under these programs,
eligible low-income families pay 30 percent of their adjusted
income for rent, and the Federal Government is responsible for
the remainder of the rent, up to the fair market rent or some
other payment standard. This account also provides funding for
the Contract Administrator program and Family Self-Sufficiency
[FSS]. Under FSS, families receive job training and employment
that should lead to a decrease in their dependency on welfare
programs and move towards economic self-sufficiency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$15,636,064,000 for fiscal year 2006, including $4,200,000,000
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1,
2006. These funds are $870,144,000 above the fiscal year 2005
level. Of these amounts, the Committee has allocated
$14,089,756,000 for the renewal of all expiring section 8
contracts; $192,000,000 for section 8 preservation contracts
through tenant protections; $48,000,000 for family self-
sufficiency contracts; $1,295,408,000 for administrative fees;
$5,900,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund; and
$5,000,000 for transfer to the Affordable Housing and Economic
Development.
This account provides funding for section 8 tenant-based
housing programs based on a budget-based approach that seeks to
ensure funding for vouchers in use while permitting public
housing agencies [PHAs] to fund vouchers up to the authorized
level. This account funds housing for over 2 million families.
Moreover, this level of funding will ensure that PHAs have
adequate funds for all vouchers-in-use. The Committee expects
that many PHAs will be able to pay the cost of all vouchers up
to the legal authorized level.
In addition, the account funds incremental vouchers to
assist non-elderly disabled families, vouchers for tenants that
live in projects where the owner of the project has decided to
opt-out of the section 8 project-based program, or for the
replacement of other units lost from the assisted housing
inventory. The Committee remains concerned over the increased
costs of section 8 rents over the last few years and what that
could mean to this program in the future. The Committee
believes lax administration has resulted in the spiraling costs
of this program and the unacceptably high costs of rents for
low-income housing.
The Committee is optimistic that the budget-based approach
will ensure a more rigorous rent policy and fiscally
responsible approach. As a result, the Committee directs HUD to
report semi-annually on rent increases for affordable, low-
income housing throughout the Nation, including the cost to the
government due to its failure to promote or implement a policy
for developing low-income housing, especially in tight rental
housing markets. The Committee also directs HUD to report no
later than June 30, 2006 on the effectiveness of this budget-
based approach to vouchers, including the extent to which
available housing units are lost because of new cost
adjustments as well as the impact of this policy on extremely
low-income families (those at or below 30 percent of median
income for an area).
The Committee has also broadened the base for determining
the funding for section 8 vouchers for each PHA by eliminating
the 3-month May through July snapshot of voucher costs and
replacing it with the most recent 12-month period that provides
accurate and reliable data. The legislation also includes up to
$45,000,000 for HUD to award funds to PHAs that were unfairly
disadvantaged by the 3-month snapshot and from excessive costs
due to portability over the last year. This funding should
eliminate the need for any central fund.
The Committee includes $192,000,000 for tenant protection
assistance. This represents some $183,000,000 less than the
budget request is some $9,304,000 more than the fiscal year
2005 level. The administration has assumed the full
implementation of a demolition rule for ``obsolete'' public
housing. This rule will not be implemented in time to obligate
these funds, especially since HOPE VI remains a viable option
for this housing. This funding does include up to $12,000,000
for section 8 assistance to cover the cost of judgments and
settlement agreements.
The Committee also remains concerned that HUD is not
committed to maintaining section 8 project-based housing and
may be encouraging owners to opt out of the program. This would
be a tremendous mistake since affordable housing needs are
growing while the stock of affordable low-income housing is
shrinking. HUD is directed to report no later than June 30,
2006 on the status of HUD's efforts to retain section 8
project-based housing, including a 5-year analysis of units
lost and retained, by year, State, and locality. HUD is also
directed to provide an analysis of all efforts made by HUD to
preserve low-income section 8 units. The Committee also directs
GAO to assess HUD's efforts and success in preserving HUD-
assisted low-income housing, especially section 8 project-based
housing, including recommendations on how better to preserve
this housing. This report shall be submitted to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than July 15,
2006.
The Committee recommends $1,295,408,000 for administrative
fees for PHAs. These funds are to be allocated on a pro-rata
share based on the fiscal year 2005 allocation. These funds are
intended to ensure the success of the section 8 voucher
program, but can be used to provide related low-income housing,
including development costs.
The Committee provides $48,000,000 for Family Self-
Sufficiency coordinators [FSS]. These funds are designed to
promote self-sufficiency by moving from welfare to work. The
Department was unable to justify its request for $55,000,000.
Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to provide an assessment
on the use of FSS funds over the last 5 years and projected
future needs. The Committee also directs the HUD Inspector
General to assess the use of FSS funds over the last 5 years.
The Committee includes $5,900,000 to transfer to HUD's
Working Capital Fund which is needed for HUD to complete an
effective IT system to track HUD funding.
The Committee includes $5,000,000 to transfer to the
Affordable Housing and Economic Development Technical
Assistance Board.
The administration continues to urge the adoption of its
block grant proposal and asserts that PHAs will have the needed
flexibility to meet local needs and conditions and to respond
to local rental costs in a more responsible manner. However,
the proposal fails for, among other things, the following
reasons: (1) the proposed funding is inadequate to support
current section 8 utilization; and (2) the proposal would
eliminate the current section 8 requirement that three-quarter
of all vouchers go to extremely low-income families who are
often the elderly, disabled and those most in need of
affordable housing.
These flaws in the section 8 proposal could result in very
low and extremely low-income families and households having to
live in substandard housing at unsustainable rents or else
become homeless which would be a greater burden and cost on the
social safety net than the current use of vouchers. In
addition, the proposal could result in PHAs lowering the
payment standard for housing or increasing the rent burden on
families. In either case the result could be a disaster and a
retreat on a long-term Federal commitment designed to eliminate
the concentration of low-income families in the worst and
poorest communities.
The Committee believes that a section 8 block grant
proposal could work if the program receives adequate funding
and required, as with current policy, PHAs to provide at least
three-quarters of all vouchers to extremely low-income
families. Nevertheless, this is a very controversial housing
policy recommendation that deserves the full attention of the
House and Senate Banking Committees as well as the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,557,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 2,500,000,000
House allowance......................................... 2,493,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,500,000,000

The Committee recommends a rescission of $1,500,000,000, a
reduction of $1,000,000,000 from the budget request and
$7,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2005 rescission level. The
administration has been unable to demonstrate there are
adequate ``excess'' section 8 funds available for rescission,
which has been the source for prior year rescissions. Instead,
the administration appears likely to rescind funds from
congressional priority programs such as the Homeless Assistance
programs, HOME, HOPE VI section 202 housing for elderly and
section 811 Housing for Persons with Disabilities. As a result,
because both HUD and OMB have recommended this rescission from
section 8 funds, to the extent there are inadequate ``excess''
section 8 funding for the rescission, the next source of
rescission funding is to be obtained from up to 10 percent of
HUD Salaries and Expenses and up to 10 percent of OMB funding.
Only after this source of funds are exhausted can unobligated
funds from other HUD programs be used to satisfy this
rescission.

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $5,298,200,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 5,072,100,000
House allowance......................................... 5,088,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,072,100,000

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Section 8 project-based rental assistance provides a rental
subsidy to a private landlord that is tied to a specific
housing unit as opposed to a voucher which allows a recipient
to seek a unit, subject primarily to certain rent caps. Amounts
in this account include funding for the renewal of expiring 8
project-based contracts, including section 8, moderate
rehabilitation, and single room occupancy [SRO] housing.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides a total of $5,072,100,000 for the
annual renewal of project-based contracts, of which up to
$147,200,000 is for the cost of contract administrators,
$1,000,000 is for the Working Capital Fund, and $5,000,000 is
for the Affordable Housing and Economic Development Technical
Assistance Board. This funding is equal to the budget request
and $226,172,000 below the fiscal year 2005 level. As discussed
in the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance account, GAO is directed
to assess the status of HUD's efforts to preserve assisted
housing.

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $2,579,200,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 2,327,200,000
House allowance......................................... 2,600,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,327,200,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for modernization and capital
needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing
authorities), including management improvements, resident
relocation and homeownership activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,327,200,000
for the public housing capital fund, which is the same as the
budget request and $252,000,000 below the fiscal year 2005
enacted level.
Of the amount made available under this section, up to
$45,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public
housing, and $15,000,000 is for the Neighborhood Networks
Initiative in public housing. Funds for the Neighborhood
Networks Initiative are provided to establish and operate
computer centers in and around public housing. These funds are
intended to allow residents of public housing develop the
technology skills that are increasingly important in the 21st
century workplace. Per the budget request, $8,820,000 is
available from this account to pay for the costs of
administrative and judicial receiverships and $13,230,000 shall
be transferred to the Working Capital Fund.
HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, but is provided up to $17,000,000 for
emergency capital needs.
The bill includes up to $20,000,000 for the demolition,
relocation, and site remediation for obsolete and severely
distressed public housing units.

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $2,438,336,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 3,407,300,000
House allowance......................................... 3,600,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,557,300,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the payment of operating
subsidies to some 3,050 public housing authorities (except
Indian housing authorities) with a total of over 1.2 million
units under management in order to augment rent payments by
residents in order to provide sufficient revenues to meet
reasonable operating costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,557,300,000
for the public housing operating fund, which is $1,118,964,000
above the fiscal year 2005 level and $150,000,000 more than the
budget request. The Committee includes $5,000,000 for the
Affordable Housing and Economic Development Technical
Assistance Board.
HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937. The bill includes language from the fiscal
year 2004 appropriations bill that prohibits the use of
operating funds to pay for the operating expenses for a prior
fiscal year.
The Committee is very concerned regarding the
administration's proposed Operating Fund rule. A number of
public housing agencies [PHAs] have raised substantial concerns
that the proposed Operating Fund rule is a violation of the
requirements that governed the negotiation rulemaking process
which began as long ago as 1998. As with any rulemaking
process, OMB has the authority to make changes to any proposed
regulation in the interest in the government. However, the
Committee believes that this authority is constrained when the
negotiated rulemaking process is required by statute,
especially, as in this case, Congress has invested substantial
funds to ensure a comprehensive regulation. As a result, the
Committee expects the final rule to reflect the negotiated
agreement by the parties to the rulemaking to the greatest
extent possible. Because of the funding levels involved, the
Committee expects a reasonable phase-in period for PHAs that
have to absorb the greatest reductions or greatest increases in
their annual operating funds. The Committee notes that the
initial agreement for this negotiated rulemaking process was
that no additional funds would be obligated in total beyond the
existing funding level at the time of initial rulemaking,
except for inflation.
The Committee also transfers $5,000,000 to the Affordable
Housing and Economic Development Technical Assistance Board.

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $142,848,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance......................................... 60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 150,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ``Revitalization of severely distressed public
housing'' [HOPE VI] account makes awards to public housing
authorities on a competitive basis to demolish obsolete or
failed developments or to revitalize, where appropriate, sites
upon which these developments exist. This is a focused effort
to eliminate public housing which was, in many cases, poorly
located, ill-designed, and not well constructed. Such
unsuitable housing has been very expensive to operate, and
difficult to manage effectively due to multiple deficiencies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $150,000,000
for the ``HOPE VI'' account, which is $150,000,000 above the
budget request and $7,152,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level.
The administration also sought to eliminate this program by
rescinding $142,848,000 of the fiscal year 2005 funding. The
Committee urges the Department to reconsider the elimination of
the HOPE VI program, and consider a restructured HOPE VI
program that is more efficient, cost-effective and still
capable of leveraging other funds for rebuilding often
distressed communities in which these ``HOPE VI'' projects are
located.
This is an important program that has revitalized many
distressed properties as well as being the anchor for the
revitalization of many communities in which these properties
are located. The Committee acknowledges that many of the funds
appropriated for this program have yet to be expended as
projects are delayed and remain in the pipeline due to the
complexities related to the funding of these types of projects
as well as local controversies between interested local
parties. Nevertheless, the program has proven to be very
successful in transforming the lives of the assisted families
and in rebuilding often distressed communities.
The Committee also looks forward to working with the
administration in reducing the backlog of projects through a
simplification of the project process.

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $621,984,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 582,600,000
House allowance......................................... 600,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 622,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the native American housing block grants
program, as authorized under title I of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
[NAHASDA]. This program provides an allocation of funds on a
formula basis to Indian tribes and their tribally designated
housing entities to help them address the housing needs within
their communities. Under this block grant, Indian tribes will
use performance measures and benchmarks that are consistent
with the national goals of the program, but can base these
measures on the needs and priorities established in their own
Indian housing plan.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $622,000,000 for the Native
American Housing Block Grant, of which $2,000,000 is set aside
for a credit subsidy for the section 601 Loan Guarantee
Program. The Committee recommendation is $39,400,000 above the
budget request and $16,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level. The Committee includes $5,000,000 for the Affordable
Housing and Economic Development Technical Assistance Board.
The Committee continues to believe that training and
technical assistance in support of NAHASDA should be shared,
with $2,200,000 to be administered by the National American
Indian Housing Council [NAIHC] and $4,500,000 by HUD in support
of the inspection of Indian housing units, contract expertise,
training and technical assistance in the training, oversight,
and management of Indian housing and tenant-based assistance.
The Committee also is concerned about the significant amount of
funds that are carried over and expects HUD to facilitate the
use of these funds in a timely manner.
The Committee is very concerned with both the policy and
method by which HUD revised the eligibility requirements under
which HUD allocates the Native American Housing Assistance
Block Grant [NAHASDA]. On April 19, 2004, HUD issued its
NAHASDA funding for fiscal year 2004 by using ``multi-race''
census data for making funding allocations as opposed to
funding tribes based on members of a ``single race''. While
this may be a legitimate approach, HUD's allocation is based on
census date that relies on self-certification. Equally
troubling is the fact that HUD failed to use ``notice and
comment'' rulemaking in making such a substantial policy
change. This concern is reinforced by the fact that HUD was
unable to reach a consensus among tribal groups on this policy
change. Consequently, while the Committee is not looking to
challenge the policy change at this time, the Committee does
direct HUD to reassess this decision through notice and comment
rulemaking. The Committee also directs HUD to establish
oversight procedures to ensure that tribal members are
qualified for purposes of the NAHASDA tribal funding
allocations.

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $4,960,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 2,645,000
House allowance......................................... 2,645,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for
Indian families, Indian tribes and their tribally designated
housing entities who otherwise could not acquire housing
financing because of the unique status of Indian trust land. As
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account
includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees
authorized under this program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 in program subsidies to
support a loan guarantee level of $145,345,000. This is $40,000
more than both the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and
$2,355,000 more than the budget request.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND

[Including tranfer of funds]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005.................. $992,000 $37,403,000
Budget estimate, 2006................. 882,000 35,000,000
House allowance....................... 882,000 35,000,000
Committee recommendation.............. 1,000,000 37,403,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for
native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing
finance because of the unique status of the Hawaiians Home
Lands as trust land. As required by the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs associated
with the loan guarantees authorized under this program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 in program subsidies to
support a loan guarantee level of $37,403,000. The subsidy
level is $8,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 level and
$118,000 more than the budget request.

Community Planning and Development

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $281,728,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 268,000,000
House allowance......................................... 290,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 287,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]
Program is designed to provide States and localities with
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive
strategies for meeting the housing needs of persons living with
HIV/AIDS and their families.
Statutorily, 90 percent of appropriated funds are
distributed by formula to qualifying States and metropolitan
areas on the basis of the number and incidence of AIDS cases
reported to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by March
31 of the year preceding the appropriation year. The remaining
10 percent of funds are distributed through a national
competition.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $287,000,000
for this program, which is $5,272,000 above the fiscal year
2005 enacted level and $19,000,000 above the budget request.
The Committee also requires HUD to allocate these funds in a
manner that preserves existing HOPWA programs to the extent
these programs are determined to be meeting the needs of
persons with AIDS.

OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $23,808,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance......................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development was
established to ensure that the Department has a comprehensive
approach to rural housing and rural economic development
issues. The account includes funding for technical assistance
and capacity building in rural, underserved areas, and grants
for Indian tribes, State housing finance agencies, State and
local economic development agencies, rural nonprofits and rural
community development corporations to pursue strategies
designed to meet rural housing and economic development needs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for the Office of
Rural Housing and Economic Development for fiscal year 2006 to
support housing and economic development in rural communities
as defined by USDA and HUD. This funding level is $192,000
above the fiscal year 2005 level and $24,000,000 above the
budget request.
The Committee does not accept the administration's
recommendation to eliminate funding for this program. The
Committee believes that the Office of Rural Housing and
Economic Development plays an important role in HUD's community
development activities. Twenty-five percent of nonmetropolitan
homes are renter-occupied, and the high cost of housing burdens
those in rural areas, as it does in urban communities.
Furthermore, the Committee notes that the programs of the
Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development are
sufficiently different from the housing programs administered
by the Department of Agriculture to warrant separate
appropriations.
HUD is directed to administer this program according to
existing regulatory requirements. It is expected that any
changes to the program shall be made subject to notice and
comment rulemaking.
The Committee is aware of potential housing shortages in
rural areas around the country where military bases are likely
to receive a large influx of troops after the completion of the
BRAC process. The Committee encourages regional HUD offices to
work with local communities in addressing these housing
shortages and recognizes the importance of the availability of
low income housing for soldiers who are eligible. Currently,
soldiers who receive the Basic Allowance for Housing [BAH] must
include their receipts from BAH into their general calculations
of their family's income for the purposes of determining the
family's eligibility for low-income housing assistance. Because
of uncertainties regarding the availability of housing for
these families as well as concerns about the soundness of the
eligibility policy, the Committee directs GAO to submit a
report by June 30, 2006 to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the impact of the current rent eligibility
policy on the ability of soldiers to obtain decent and
affordable housing as well as the possible impact of reversing
the policy of using BAH in a family's housing assistance
eligibility calculations.

community development fund

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $4,671,328,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance......................................... 4,243,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,323,610,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award
block grants to units of general local government and States
for the funding of local community development programs. A wide
range of physical, economic, and social development activities
are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local
level, but the law enumerates general objectives which the
block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. Grant recipients are required to use at least 70
percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit
low- and moderate-income persons.
Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community
development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective
formulas, one of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age
of housing stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting
designated amounts for special purpose grants and Indian
tribes.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,323,610,000
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2006. This is
an increase of $4,323,610,000 above the budget request for
fiscal year 2006 and $347,718,000 below the fiscal year 2005
enacted level.
The administration has proposed to eliminate the Community
Development Block Grant [CDBG] program by consolidating CDBG
activities, and most of the set-asides within the Community
Development Fund, into a new economic development block grant,
the Strengthen America's Communities initiative. The proposal
would move this proposed block grant to the Department of
Commerce. Under the proposal, some 18 programs, including CDBG,
HUD Brownfields program, and the Rural Housing and Economic
Development program, would be terminated and/or merged into the
new block grant. Proposed funding for all these programs would
total $3,700,000,000 instead of the overall $5,640,000,000
which funded these programs in fiscal year 2005. This
represents a reduction of $1,940,000,000 or 34.2 percent from
fiscal year 2005 levels. In addition, the administration has
proposed the transfer of Youthbuild to the Department of Labor.
CDBG and the other programs in the Community Development Fund
were funded at $4,700,000,000 in fiscal year 2005, with CDBG
funded at $4,150,000,000. The Committee has rejected the entire
proposal since it would undermine HUD's mission and essentially
strip HUD's scope of activities to almost only housing
programs.
As evidenced by CDBG's universal support by States and
communities throughout the Nation, CDBG is an integral part of
HUD's mission and essential to the ability of States and
communities to address their local housing and economic
community development needs. What is especially troubling is
that at the end of 2004, HUD, OMB and related interest groups
agreed to a consensus document to address weaknesses in the
CDBG program by creating an Outcome Measurement System to
establish new benchmarks and better oversight. HUD currently is
implementing these new benchmarks. Consequently, the Committee
strongly believes that the elimination of CDBG runs counter,
not only to HUD's mission, but to the recent reform measures
endorsed by OMB.
The Committee has included $3,767,410,000 for community
development block grants [CDBG]. Set-asides under this account
include $69,000,000 for native Americans; $3,000,000 for the
Housing Assistance Council; $2,000,000 for the National
American Indian Housing Council; $15,000,000 for the Self Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program; $4,200,000 for the National
Council of La Raza; $30,000,000 is for Capacity Building for
Community Development and Affordable Housing for LISC and the
Enterprise Foundation; and $32,400,000 for section 107 grants,
including $3,000,000 to support Alaska Native-Serving
Institutions and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions;
$2,600,000 for competitive grants awarded to Tribal Colleges
and Universities to build, expand, renovate, and equip their
facilities; $1,000,000 for community development work study,
$9,000,000 for historically black colleges and universities, of
which up to $1,000,000 is for technical assistance, $2,000,000
for Community Outreach Partnerships, and $6,000,000 for
Hispanic-serving institutions. The Committee includes
$8,800,000 for assistance authorized under the Hawaiian
Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 under section 107. The
administration proposed to fund this program in a separate
account. Finally, $3,000,000 is transferred to the working
capital fund and $10,000,000 is transferred to the Affordable
Housing and Economic Development Technical Assistance Board.
The Committee also includes $55,000,000 for the Youthbuild
program of which $5,000,000 is to develop programs in
underserved and rural areas. The Committee remains concerned
regarding the overall quality of the Youthbuild program and
objects to its transfer to the Department of Labor without
adequate assurances that the program will be administered with
comprehensive oversight. The concept of Youthbuild is
exceptional; namely, providing disadvantaged youth with
training and job opportunities in the housing construction
marketplace. Within this program, these young people develop
marketable housing skills that result in the construction of
housing for low-income families.
Unfortunately, HUD has never administered the Youthbuild
program with adequate oversight. This has resulted in an uneven
record and questionable evidence regarding the success of the
program. While the Committee believes that some of the local
Youthbuild programs are of exceptional quality, there is
inadequate evidence of the overall quality of the program. The
Committee also believes that the success of such a program can,
in part, be measured by local support, including financial
support. Ultimately, a program of this nature should be able to
attract adequate non-Federal financial support to the extent
that the need for Federal funds are substantially reduced; such
funds can then be redirected to other small, but worthy,
programs that will then be able to leverage Federal funds into
a larger success. As a result, the Committee directs GAO
comprehensively to assess and report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by June 30, 2006 on Youthbuild's
overall success, including its ability to attract local support
and funding.
The Committee also funds the Economic Development
Initiative at $290,000,000 and the Neighborhood Initiatives
program at $40,000,000.
The Economic Development Initiatives are as follows:
$400,000 for Bean's Cafe in Anchorage, Alaska for the
expansion of its kitchen;
$150,000 for the Alaska Botanical Garden in Anchorage,
Alaska for expansion and renovation of its infrastructure;
$750,000 for the Bering Straits Native Corporation in Nome,
Alaska for Cape Nome Quarry upgrades;
$950,000 for the Western Alaska Council, Boy Scouts of
America in Anchorage, Alaska for construction of the Boy Scouts
High Adventure Base Camp near Talkeetna, Alaska;
$750,000 for the City of Ketchikan, Alaska for construction
of the Tongass Coast Aquarium;
$1,000,000 for Alaska Pacific University for the
construction of a building;
$500,000 for the People's Regional Learning Center in
Bethel, Alaska to construct a vocational school and
dormitories;
$500,000 for the Dillingham City School District in
Dillingham, Alaska, to repair the gymnasium in the Dillingham
middle/high school;
$400,000 for Construction and outfitting of the University
of South Alabama's Mitchell School of Business Library in
Mobile, Alabama;
$400,000 for construction and outfitting of the New
Centurions, Inc. New Life for Women Shelter in Etowah County,
Alabama;
$250,000 for the Greenville Family YMCA for child care
facility acquisition, renovation, and construction in
Greenville, Alabama;
$300,000 for the City of Evergreen for expansion of the
Evergreen Conecuh County Library in Evergreen, Alabama;
$400,000 for the Fayette County Commission for the Fayette
County Industrial Park in Fayette County, Alabama;
$200,000 for the Hayneville/Lowndes County Library
Foundation for construction of a new library in Hayneville,
Alabama;
$350,000 for the Jasper Area Family Services Center for
construction of the Center in Jasper, Alabama;
$300,000 for the City of Tuskegee for Downtown
Revitalization in Tuskegee, Alabama;
$400,000 for the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind's
Tuscaloosa Regional Center in Tuscaloosa, Alabama;
$250,000 for the City of Montgomery to develop the
Montgomery Riverwalk in Montgomery, Alabama;
$250,000 for the Cleveland Avenue YMCA for facility
expansion in Montgomery, Alabama;
$200,000 for the Wilcox County Industrial Development
Authority for planning and development of its Industrial/
Commercial Park;
$300,000 for the City of Guin for planning and development
of its Industrial/Commercial Park;
$300,000 for the Central Arkansas Resource Conservation and
Development Council in Helena, Arkansas for the construction of
the Phillips County Agricultural Storage Facility;
$200,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Ouachita County,
Arkansas for the construction of recreational facilities;
$200,000 for the City of Conway, Arkansas for downtown
revitalization;
$200,000 for Audubon Arkansas for the development of the
Audubon Nature Center at Gillam Park in Little Rock, Arkansas;
$250,000 for the 10th and Mission Affordable Family Housing
& Commercial Space Project, for the development of housing
units and commercial space, Mercy Housing, San Francisco;
$200,000 for the City of Inglewood to construct a Senior
Center;
$200,000 for the San Francisco Museum and Historical
Society Old Mint Restoration Project, San Francisco;
$600,000 for the City of Oakland, CA for the Fox Theater
Restoration;
$200,000 for the City of Redding, CA for the Stillwater
Business Park;
$200,000 for the West Angeles Community Development
Corporation, CA for the development of the West Angeles Plaza;
$200,000 to the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, CA,
for the First Time Home Buyer Loan Program;
$200,000 for the San Francisco Fine Arts Museums, CA, for
M.H. de Young Memorial Museum construction;
$200,000 for the Agua Caliente Cultural Museum, Palm
Springs, CA for construction;
$300,000 for the City of Denver, Denver Rescue Mission for
the Acquisition and Renovation of Emergency and Transitional
Housing for Colorado's Homeless population;
$450,000 for the City of Hartford for the Hartford
Homeownership Initiative;
$200,000 for the City of Hartford for the renovation of the
Mark Twain House Building;
$300,000 for the City of Ansonia for the renovation of the
Ansonia Armory;
$250,000 for the City of West Haven, CT, for the
redevelopment of residential housing;
$250,000 for the City of Stamford, CT, for renovations to
the Yerwood Community Center;
$250,000 for the Town of Southbury, CT, for renovations to
the Bent of the River Audubon Center;
$200,000 for the City of Hartford, CT, for neighborhood
restoration activities undertaken by the Southside Institutions
Neighborhood Alliance;
$250,000 for the Ministry of Caring, House of Joseph II, in
Wilmington, DE for the renovation/operation of the facility;
$200,000 to the St. Michaels School and Nursery,
Wilmington, DE, for expansion of the school;
$200,000 to the Wilmington Senior Center, Wilmington, DE,
for the completion of the renovation of the Lafayette Court
Senior Apartments project;
$250,000 for Easter Seals Delaware & Maryland's Eastern
Shore for the construction of the new Easter Seals Facility in
Georgetown, Delaware;
$200,000 for the Wilmington Music School for the Music
School Expansion in Wilmington, Delaware;
$200,000 to the City of Lewes for the Lewes Canalfront Park
in Lewes, Delaware;
$500,000 for Orange County, FL for Central Receiving Center
to renovate single occupancy rooms;
$500,000 for the Lowry Park Zoological Society, Tampa, FL
for business development initiative;
$300,000 for the Central Florida YMCA to expand and
renovate the Wayne Densch YMCA Family Center;
$250,000 for Miami Dade College and the construction of a
library at their Hialeah, Florida campus;
$250,000 for Nova Southeastern University for the Center
for Collaborative Bio-Medical Research;
$600,000 for the City of Coral Gables, Florida for the
Biltmore Complex Restoration Project;
$400,000 for the City of Orlando, Florida for the Parramore
Neighborhood Revitalization Project;
$250,000 for Miami Dade County, Florida for the Miami
Performing Arts Center;
$250,000 for the American Beach Property Owners'
Association, Fernandina Beach, Florida for the Historic Evans
Rendezvous Cultural Center Restoration Project;
$200,000 for the City of Gainesville, Florida for the
Downtown Revitalization Project;
$200,000 for the Florida Memorial University, Miami,
Florida: West Augustine Initiative;
$200,000 for Mercer University, Macon, Georgia for Critical
Personnel Development Program [CPDP];
$200,000 for Atlanta, Georgia Intergenerational Resource
Center for a senior housing project;
$200,000 for Warner Robins, Georgia Museum of Aviation,
expansion of aviation flight and technology center;
$200,000 for City of Moutri, Georgia for a community and
economic development initiative;
$200,000 for Morehouse School of Medicine for West End
Community Development;
$500,000 for Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, Georgia for the
Atlanta Symphony Center expansion;
$650,000 for the Boys & Girls Club of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI,
for planning, design and construction of the Nanakuli Boys &
Girls Club;
$300,000 for Pa'a Pono Miloli'I construct a community and
youth center;
$300,000 for the Children's Justice Center Foundation to
construct and renovate the child counseling center on Oahu;
$300,000 for the Maui Economic Development Board to
renovate the enterprise building;
$300,000 for the Kauai YMCA to construct facilities;
$200,000 for the Lanai Youth Center to acquire and
construct activity facilities;
$200,000 for the County of Hawaii for the renovation of a
Caregiver and Senior Resource Center;
$300,000 for Hale Mahaolu Ehiku to construct affordable
rental housing for senior citizens;
$1,000,000 for the City of Clinton, Iowa, for redevelopment
of Liberty Square;
$400,000 for the City of Waterloo, Iowa, for the
acquisition and rehabilitation of the Cedar Valley TechWorks
facility;
$300,000 for the City of Des Moines, Iowa, for the
Riverpoint West development;
$300,000 for the City of Fort Dodge, Iowa for the Lincoln
Neighborhood housing initiative;
$1,000,000 to the Iowa Department of Economic Development
for the Main Street Iowa program for restoration of structures
on main streets throughout the State;
$750,000 to Polk County, Iowa for the purchase and
rehabilitation of housing for low income people;
$200,000 to the Heartland Hill Habitat for Humanity in
Brehmer County, Iowa for the renovation of deteriorated housing
for low income housing;
$300,000 to the City of Council Bluffs, Iowa for downtown
historic building renovation;
$1,000,000 for Ada County, Idaho for development of the
Family Justice Center and the Detox Center;
$1,000,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development
Association for the implementation of the Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial Plan;
$1,000,000 for Boise State University for construction of
the Center for Environmental Science and Economic Development;
$1,000,000 for the Idaho Migrant Council for planning,
design, and construction of the Burley Community Center,
Burley, Idaho;
$500,000 for the Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition in
Springfield, IL, for the Looking for Lincoln economic
development and tourism initiative;
$800,000 for the Peace and Education Coalition in Chicago,
IL, for construction of a new facility to serve San Miguel
Schools in the City's Back of the Yards neighborhood;
$300,000 to the Haymarket Center in Chicago, IL, for
construction and establishment of the McDermott Addiction
Center;
$200,000 for the Quincy Public Library in Quincy, IL, for a
newspaper digitization and community education project;
$200,000 for the United Way of Decatur and Mid-Illinois in
Decatur, IL, for construction and rehabilitation of housing
facilities for the homeless and disabled;
$250,000 to the Chicago Historical Society for construction
of a new Chicago History Exhibition and redevelopment of
current facilities;
$200,000 for Home Sweet Home Ministries--Threshold program
located in the City of Bloomington, IL for the construction of
an additional housing facility;
$250,000 for the City of Northfield, IL for construction of
pedestrian and bicycle paths as well as other infrastructure
improvements to the Northfield Park District;
$200,000 for the Township of North Hurricane, IL for
construction of a multi-purpose building within Precinct 1 of
the Township;
$500,000 for the City of Muncie, Indiana to revitalize the
downtown urban park;
$250,000 for Daviess County, Indiana, to implement the Web
Portal Technology Development Initiative in Daviess County
schools;
$250,000 for the City of Anderson, Indiana to expand the
Fiber Optic Network;
$250,000 for the City of Indianapolis, IN for the Link
Savoy Housing Development;
$200,000 for the City of Evansville, IN for the Center City
Industrial Park;
$200,000 for the City of Fort Wayne, IN for the Fort Wayne
Technology Center;
$1,000,000 for the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Kansas
City for the construction of the Heathwood Community Center for
Children and Families in Wyandotte County, KS;
$500,000 for Sedwick County, KS for the construction of a
Technical Education and Training Center;
$300,000 for the City of Fort Scott, KS for the
redevelopment of underground infrastructure in the Central
Business District;
$200,000 for the City of Topeka, KS for renovating and
updating Heartland Park Topeka;
$500,000 for the City of Mission, Kansas to ensure the
future viability of business and residential districts near the
Rock Creek Project;
$500,000 for the City of Fairview, Kansas to ensure the
future viability of business and residential districts near the
Rock Creek Project;
$600,000 for the Kentucky Commerce Cabinet to develop a
visitor center at the Big Bone Lick State Park;
$200,000 for McCracken County Fiscal Court to construct an
Emergency Services Building;
$200,000 for Clinton County to develop and construct a
Welcome Center;
$250,000 for Alexandria Central Economic Development
District, to develop the Alexandria Riverfront Development;
$250,000 for Ascension Parish, to develop the Lamar Dixon
Exposition Center;
$500,000 for the Audubon Nature Institute for the Audubon
Living Science Museum and Wetlands Center in New Orleans,
Louisiana;
$500,000 for Lafourche Parish for waterfront development
along Bayou Lafourche in Ascension, Assumption and Lafourche
Parishes, Louisiana;
$280,000 for the City of North Adams, MA for the renovation
of the historic Mohawk Theater;
$280,000 for the City of Holyoke, MA for renovations to the
Picknelly Adult and Family Education Center;
$200,000 for the City of Medford, MA for the redevelopment
of Medford Square;
$280,000 for the Main South Community Development
Corporation, Worcester, MA for the redevelopment of the
Gardner-Kilby-Hammond Neighborhood;
$260,000 for the City of Lawrence, MA for the redevelopment
of the Lawrence In-Town Mall site;
$250,000 for the Bird Street Community Center, Boston, MA
for facility renovations;
$200,000 for Straight Ahead Ministries of Westboro, MA for
the acquisition and renovation of facilities in Hubbardston,
MA;
$200,000 for Girls Incorporated of Lynn, MA for building
renovations;
$300,000 for the Maryland Food Bank in Baltimore for
construction and equipping of new food distribution center;
$500,000 for the Mother Teresa Health Clinic and Social
Service Center, Maryland;
$450,000 for the East Baltimore Development Project,
Maryland;
$500,000 for Patterson Park/Library Square Revitalization,
Maryland;
$400,000 for Goucher College, Community Service Center,
Maryland;
$200,000 for the American Visionary Arts Museum, Maryland;
$200,000 for the Our Daily Bread Employment Center,
Maryland;
$325,000 for the City of Brewer Administrative Building
Redevelopment;
$300,000 for the Franco-American Heritage Center,
Renovation Project;
$325,000 for the Bangor Waterfront Park on the Penobscot
River for the City of Bangor;
$350,000 for the Town of Milo, Maine for the development of
the Eastern Piscataquis Industrial Park;
$350,000 for the Town of Van Buren: Van Buren Regional
Business Park;
$350,000 for Western Maine Community Action: Keeping
Seniors Home program;
$300,000 for the University of New England: George and
Barbara Bush Cultural Center for construction and equipment;
$200,000 for the City of Portland, Portland Public Library
Renovation and Expansion Project;
$100,000 for the Penobscot Marine Museum Maine-Mawooshen:
One Country, Two Worlds Project--Construction of exhibit;
$300,000 for the Westbrook Housing Authority: Larrabee
Village Supportive Services for construction and design of
facilities for the elderly & disabled;
$600,000 for The Enterprise Group of Jackson, MI for the
Armory Arts redevelopment project;
$600,000 to the Arab Community Center for Economic and
Social Services [ACCESS] in Dearborn, MI for expansion of a
museum;
$600,000 to the City of Detroit, MI for redevelopment of
the Far East Side neighborhood;
$350,000 to the City of Saginaw, MI to provide for the
revitalization of Northeast Saginaw;
$300,000 for the State of Michigan for costs associated
with the relocation of the A.E. Seaman Mineral Museum;
$300,000 for Focus: Hope in Detroit, MI for the upgrades to
the cogeneration microgrid;
$250,000 for the Goodwill Inn Homeless Shelter in Traverse
City, MI for construction of a new shelter;
$200,000 to the Harbor Habitat for Humanity in Benton
Harbor, MI for costs associated with infrastructure in the
construction of new homes;
$200,000 for the Hmong American Mutual Assistance
Association in Minneapolis, Minnesota to complete the HAMAA
Community Center;
$200,000 for the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians in Red
Lake, Minnesota to construct criminal justice complex project;
$200,000 for the Chicanos Latinos Unidos En Servicio
[CLUES] in St. Paul, Minnesota for facility construction;
$200,000 for Redwood County, Minnesota for the Material
Recovery/Waste to Energy Facility at Lamberton, Minnesota;
$300,000 to purchase a new site for an affordable housing
development for low-income seniors in Mora, MN;
$500,000 for the Liberty Memorial Association in Kansas
City, MO for construction and renovation;
$250,000 for the St. Louis Bosnian Chamber of Commerce for
construction of a community center in St. Louis, MO;
$250,000 for the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Kansas City,
MO for RBI construction;
$250,000 for the Winston Churchill Memorial in Fulton, MO
for construction and renovation;
$250,000 for Covenant House Missouri for construction of
homeless youth center in St. Louis, MO;
$250,000 for Truman State University for construction of
Speech and Hearing Clinic in Kirksville, MO;
$250,000 for City of Springfield, MO for renovation of the
Springfield Commercial Club Building;
$750,000 to the Family Support Services Center for Autistic
Children for construction of a Center to serve families with
autistic children in St. Charles County, Missouri;
$500,000 to the University of Missouri for Hickman House
preservation, renovation and improvements project in Howard
County, Missouri;
$500,000 to the Salvation Army Northland Community Center,
to construct a family center and community room Clay County,
Missouri;
$1,000,000 to the Kansas City Neighborhood Alliance for
capital improvements in Kansas City, Missouri;
$1,000,000 to Better Living Communities for capital
improvements for Salisbury Park neighborhood housing
development in St. Louis, Missouri;
$500,000 to the St. Louis Housing Authority for
neighborhood housing development of the Cochran Gardens Public
Housing Site in St. Louis, Missouri;
$750,000 to the City of Kansas City for Swope Community
Builders for the Linwood Housing project, Kansas City,
Missouri;
$500,000 to the Missouri Soybean Association for test plots
for the Life Sciences Research Development and
Commercialization Project in Boone County, Missouri;
$500,000 to the Mark Twain Neighborhood Association for
capital improvements in St. Louis, Missouri;
$750,000 to the Students in Free Enterprise World
Headquarters for capital improvements (equipment) in Greene
County, Missouri;
$250,000 to the Advanced Technology Center for construction
of Laser/photronics lab complex and classroom in Mexico,
Missouri;
$750,000 to the Youzeum for construction of youth health
museum in Boone County, Missouri;
$400,000 to City of Kennett for downtown revitalization in
Kennett, Missouri;
$500,000 in the City of Oxford, Mississippi for the
Innovation and Outreach Center;
$500,000 in the City of Madison, Mississippi, for the
Historic Madison Gateway Project;
$500,000 in the City of Tchula, Mississippi for the Tchula
New Town Infrastructure Project;
$1,000,000 for the Mississippi Museum of Art in Jackson,
Mississippi, for renovations and improvements;
$900,000 for the Education Building for the Jackson Zoo in
Jackson, Mississippi, to construct an educational building;
$800,000 for the Lafayette County Courthouse in Oxford,
Mississippi, to restore and renovate their historic c. 1872
courthouse;
$800,000 for the Hinds Community College Performing Arts
Center in Utica, Mississippi, to construct a performing arts,
multi-purpose building;
$1,000,000 for the Mississippi Film Enterprise Zone in
Canton, Mississippi, to create an art film enterprise facility;
$800,000 for the Delta Interpretive Center in Greenville,
Mississippi for construction of an education and cultural
interpretive facility;
$500,000 for the Mississippi University for Women Facility
Restoration in Columbus, Mississippi, for facility improvements
and restoration;
$500,000 for the Simpson County, Mississippi Courthouse for
renovations and improvements;
$500,000 for the Jackson Public School-Belhaven College
H.T. Newell Field Complex Partnership for facility improvements
and construction in Jackson, Mississippi;
$400,000 for the City of Collins, Mississippi, to build a
multi-purpose civic center;
$200,000 for the St. Ambrose Leadership College,
Mississippi, for restoration of a historic building for
housing;
$300,000 for construction funds for the Hancock County
Community Emergency Operations Center;
$500,000 for the renovation of the Robert O. Wilder
Building at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Mississippi;
$200,000 for the Liberty House Foundation, for construction
expenses in Ft. Harrison, MT;
$350,000 for the Rocky Mountain Development Council, to
continue the PenKay Eagles Manor Renovation in Helena, MT;
$250,000 for the Rocky Boy Reservation's utilization of
Malmstrom Air Force Base's excess housing;
$250,000 for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in Missoula,
MT for the infrastructure needs of their new headquarters
facility;
$250,000 for the Center for St. Vincent Healthcare's Center
for Healthy Aging in Billings, MT;
$200,000 for the Child and Family Intervention Center to
renovate the Garfield School Building in Billings, MT;
$200,000 for the Yellowstone Boys and Girls Ranch's
Education Facilities Expansion in Billings, MT;
$200,000 for the Carter County Museum's Highway to Hell
Creek project facilities expansion in Ekalaka, MT;
$400,000 for the Big Sky Economic Development Corporation
for acquisition and rehabilitation for low-income housing in
Billings, MT;
$200,000 for the Missoula Aging Services building
renovation in Missoula, MT;
$200,000 to the St. Vincent Center for Healthy Aging for
construction in Billings, MT;
$300,000 to the Daly Mansion Preservation Trust for the
renovation of the Daly Mansion in Hamilton, MT;
$250,000 to CommunityWorks for the construction of the
ExplorationWorks Museum in Helena, MT;
$200,000 to the Montana Technology Enterprise Center for
the construction of lab facilities in Missoula, MT;
$400,000 for Renovations to the Core Sound Waterfowl Museum
in Harkers Island, NC;
$450,000 for the New River Community Partners Museum
Development Project in Sparta, NC;
$200,000 for Catawba Science Museum to renovate and expand
exhibitions in Hickory, NC;
$200,000 for Military Business Park Development in
Fayetteville, NC;
$250,000 for the City of Wilmington, NC, for the Downtown
Park & Open Space Initiative;
$250,000 for the City of Fayetteville, NC, for the Military
Business Park;
$250,000 for the City of Asheville, NC, for the Veterans
Memorial Restoration;
$250,000 for the Northwest Ventures Communities, Minot, ND
for the construction of the Northwest Career and Technology
Center;
$200,000 for the United Tribes Technical College in
Bismarck, ND for the construction of family housing;
$350,000 for the City of Killdeer, ND to construct a
community activity center;
$400,000 for the City of Rugby, ND to support construction
and other projects within two North Dakota REAP Zones;
$300,000 for the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch, Minot, ND for
facilities at their Minot location;
$350,000 for the NDSU Research and Technology Park in
Fargo, ND for the Advanced Technology Career Training Center;
$300,000 for the Bismarck-Mandan Development Association,
Bismarck, ND for the construction of the National Energy
Technology Training and Education Facility;
$200,000 for the Minot Area Community Development
Foundation, Minot, ND for the Prairie Community Development
Center;
$200,000 for the Turtle Community College, Belcourt, ND for
the Turtle Mountain Vocational Educational Center;
$1,000,000 for Metro Community College's Health Careers and
Science Building in the City of Omaha;
$200,000 for Thurston County Courthouse renovation in the
City of Pender;
$200,000 for the Boys and Girls Home of Nebraska's Columbus
Family Resources Center in the City of Columbus;
$200,000 for the Willa Cather Pioneer Memorial and
Educational Foundation's Moon Block restoration project in the
City of Red Cloud;
$200,000 for Clarkson College's Central Student Service
Center Facility in the City of Omaha;
$200,000 for University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Enterprise
Development in Rural Nebraska in the City of Lincoln;
$950,000 for a parking facility as part of the Joslyn Art
Museum Master Plan, in Omaha, Nebraska;
450,000 for Families in Transition, Manchester, New
Hampshire for the Mothers and Children: Staying Together
Recovery Center;
350,000 for New Hampshire Community Technical College
System, Conway, New Hampshire for the Consortium-Based Academic
Center;
200,000 for Gibson Center, Madison, New Hampshire for the
preservation of senior housing at Silver Lake Landing;
$500,000 for the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund,
manufactured housing park program;
$200,000 for the Monadnock, NH, Township home owner
initiative;
$400,000 for the Derry, NH, Senior Center project;
$600,000 for the Manchester, NH, YWCA project;
$400,000 for the Nashua, NH, Downtown Riverfront
Opportunity Program;
$400,000 for the Student Conservation Association service
center, New Hampshire;
$250,000 for the City of Pleasantville, NJ for the
construction and renovation of the Pleasantville Marina;
$200,000 for the City of Paterson, NJ for the design and
renovation of the Silk City Senior Nutrition Center;
$200,000 for the St. Joseph's School of the Blind in Jersey
City, NJ for the construction of a new facility;
$300,000 for the Rutgers-Camden Business Incubator, Camden
NJ for the expansion of the business incubator;
$1,130,000 for Presbyterian Medical Services for their Head
Start Facility in Santa Fe, New Mexico;
$750,000 for the Albuquerque Mental Health Housing
Coalition, Inc. for the renovation of the Sunport Plaza
Apartments in Albuquerque, New Mexico;
$620,000 for Eastern New Mexico State University in
Portales, New Mexico for scientific instructional equipment;
$200,000 for Otero County, NM, Veteran's Museum
Construction;
$350,000 for City of Carlsbad, NM, Battered Family Shelter
Construction;
$250,000 for Helping Hands Food Bank of Deming, NM,
Construction;
$350,000 for City of Sunland Park, NM, Community Center
Construction;
$250,000 for Sandoval County, NM, Community Health
Alliance, Construction and Equipment;
$200,000 for City of Portales, NM, Rehabilitation of the
Yam Movie Palace;
$300,000 for the Pahrump Senior Center, Pahrump, NV, for
senior transportation;
$500,000 for the Nathan Adelson Hospice, Henderson, NV, for
an adult day care center;
$200,000 for the Ridge House, Reno, NV, for client housing;
$500,000 for the University of Nevada-Reno to provide a
Small Business Development Center;
$500,000 for the City of Las Vegas, Nevada for the
renovation of the old Post Office;
$350,000 for the City of Reno, Nevada to provide Fourth St.
Corridor Enhancements;
$300,000 for the City of Pahrump/Nye County, Nevada
Fairgrounds Project;
$500,000 for Wadsworth, Nevada to provide a Community
Center;
$200,000 for the City of Sparks, Nevada for the Deer Park
Facility Renovation Project;
$250,000 for the City of Reno, Nevada to provide a Food
Bank of Northern Nevada Regional Distribution Facility Project;
$200,000 to the YWCA of Niagara, NY for the computer lab
expansion;
$250,000 to Alianza Dominicana of New York City, NY for
expansion of the Triangle building;
$200,000 to SUNY Plattsburgh, NY for the expansion of the
Adirondack-Champlain Community Fiber Network;
$250,000 to the El Museo del Barrio in New York City, NY
for capital improvements;
$200,000 to the Central New York Community Arts Council of
Utica, NY for the expansion of the Stanley Theater;
$200,000 to the City of Canandaigua, NY for the
construction of a regional tourism center;
$200,000 for the Graduate College of Union University,
Schenectady, NY to establish a freestanding campus;
$200,000 for the Robert H. Jackson Center, Jamestown, NY
for auditorium restoration;
$200,000 for the Griffiss Local Development Corporation,
Rome, NY for development of a multi-tenant technology office
complex;
$200,000 for the Nassau County Museum of Art, Roslyn
Harbor, NY for building restoration;
$200,000 for the Veterans Outreach Center, Rochester, NY
for renovation and expansion of employment and training
facilities;
$200,000 for the City of Canton, Ohio for the New Horizons
Park land and site acquisition, demolition, or facilities
construction;
$200,000 for Wright Dunbar, Inc., Dayton, Ohio, to
construct the Gateway to Paul Laurence Dunbar Memorial;
$500,000 for the Dayton Development Coalition, Ohio for
land and site acquisition, demolition, site preparation and
facilities construction;
$300,000 for The Preston Fund for SMA Research, Beachwood,
Ohio, for the construction and development of Preston's
H.O.P.E.;
$300,000 for the Defiance County Senior Service Center,
Defiance, Ohio, for construction;
$250,000 for the Ukrainian Museum-Archives, Cleveland,
Ohio, for Phase II Development and construction;
$250,000 for The Scioto Society, Inc., Chillicothe, Ohio
for the Tecumseh! Capital Improvement Project;
$270,000 for the Lorain County Community College Great
Lakes Business Growth and Development Center;
$200,000 for the City of Jackson's Day Care Center;
$260,000 for Wilberforce University Ohio Private
Historically Black University Residence Hall Project;
$270,000 for the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio
[SWACO] Pyramid Resource Center;
$220,000 for the City of Ardmore, OK, to construct the
Ardmore Community Resource Center;
$220,000 for Norman Economic Development Corporation,
Norman, OK, to construct an engineering incubator;
$200,000 for the City of Ponca City, OK, to construct a
museum building and information center for the statue of Ponca
Chief Standing Bear;
$220,000 for the United States-Mexico Cultural Education
Foundation to establish the Center for North American
Sustainable Economic Development at the University of Oklahoma,
Norman, OK;
$220,000 for the Native American Cultural Center and
Museum, Oklahoma City, OK, for construction of the American
Indian Cultural Center;
$200,000 for the City of Midwest City, OK to construct a
community outreach center;
$200,000 for the City of Lakeview, Oregon to develop
geothermal resources;
$200,000 for Marion-Polk Food Share in Salem, Oregon to
improve and renovate an emergency food distribution center;
$200,000 for the City of Pendleton, Oregon to improve and
renovate round-up facilities;
$500,000 for construction of an education building at the
Blue Mountain Community College's Northeastern Oregon
Collaborative University Center, Hermiston, Oregon;
$250,000 for construction of the Downtown/Riverfront Access
Project by the City of The Dalles for the Port of The Dalles,
Oregon;
$200,000 for construction of a Teen Activity Center at the
Santo Community Center in Medford, Oregon;
$200,000 for the City of Carbondale, Pennsylvania for the
South Main Street Economic Development Initiative which is
designed to reduce blight along the City's Main Street
Corridor;
$200,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Corry to acquire a brownfield site in downtown Corry,
Pennsylvania;
$200,000 for Weatherly Borough, Pennsylvania to acquire and
redevelop the Lehigh Valley Railroad Shops and Weatherly Steel
Plant complex in the heart of Weatherly, PA;
$200,000 for Indiana County, Pennsylvania to acquire the
Wayne Avenue Property in Indiana;
$200,000 for Armstrong County, Pennsylvania for remediation
and infrastructure development on a 14.2 acre of brownfield
property in Apollo Borough;
$200,000 for Perry County, Pennsylvania to develop an
industrial park in New Bloomfield;
$200,000 for People for People, Inc. for planning and
project development efforts for the Triangle redevelopment
project;
$200,000 for the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, to
develop the Alta Vista Business Park, a mixed-use business park
on a former strip mine site adjacent to I-70, in Washington
County, Pennsylvania;
$300,000 for the Allegheny County Airport Authority in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania for site preparation and
construction of its North Field Development project;
$200,000 for Gaudenzia, Inc. in Norristown, Pennsylvania to
renovate and expand its residential facilities;
$200,000 for Our City Reading in Reading, Pennsylvania to
rehabilitate abandoned houses and provide down payment
assistance to home buyers;
$200,000 for the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania for the
revitalization and construction of Lancaster Square;
$200,000 for the Greater Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Business
and Industry in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania for acquisition,
planning, and redevelopment of the historic Irem Temple;
$200,000 for the Greene County Department of Planning and
Economic Development in Greene County, Pennsylvania for
construction and site development of a multi-phased business
park on the grounds of the Greene County Airport;
$200,000 for Impact Services Corporation in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania to renovate, redevelop, and convert an existing
building into low-income housing units;
$200,000 for the Shippensburg University Foundation in
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania for construction of Phase III of the
Shippensburg Regional Conference Center;
$200,000 for the Partnership CDC in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania for acquisition, renovation and rehabilitation of
affordable housing for moderate- and low-income families;
$200,000 for the Allentown Art Museum in Allentown,
Pennsylvania to expand and modernize its facilities;
$200,000 for the Pittsburgh Zoo in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
for the planning, site development, and construction of Phase I
of its expansion project;
$200,000 for Universal Community Homes in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania for conversion of parcels of land into housing
units for low- and moderate-income families;
$350,000 for the Cranston Public Library in Cranston, Rhode
Island for building renovations;
$250,000 for Jamiel Park in Warren, Rhode Island for
facility improvements;
$200,000 for the Town of West Warwick, Rhode Island for the
development and construction of a river walk;
$200,000 for Meeting Street School in Providence, Rhode
Island for the construction of the Bright Futures Early
Learning Center;
$200,000 for Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center in
Providence, Rhode Island for building acquisition and
renovations;
$200,000 for the Pastime Theatre in Bristol, Rhode Island
for building improvements;
$200,000 for Family Service of Rhode Island in Providence,
Rhode Island for building purchase and renovations;
$200,000 for St. Mary's Home for Children in North
Providence, Rhode Island for building renovations;
$200,000 for Stand Up for Animals in Westerly, Rhode Island
for building construction;
$300,000 for the acquisition and renovation of the Seniors
Helping Others volunteer center in South Kingstown, RI;
$300,000 for the expansion and renovation of the Pawtucket
Day Child Development Center, Pawtucket, RI;
$300,000 for the renovation and expansion of the John E.
Fogarty Center to provide services and programs for children
and adults with disabilities, North Providence, RI;
$200,000 for the City of Woonsocket, RI for the
redevelopment of the Hamlet Avenue Mill site;
$200,000 to provide for equipment and construction of the
Arlington Branch of the Cranston Public Library, Cranston, RI;
$280,000 for the South Carolina School for the Deaf and
Blind in Spartanburg, SC for dormitory renovation;
$220,000 for Crisis Ministries Homeless Shelter in
Charleston, SC for facilities renovation;
$250,000 for the City of Aberdeen, South Dakota to
construct a Recreation and Cultural Center;
$250,000 for the Children's Home Society in Sioux Falls to
expand its at-risk youth facility;
$400,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Brookings, SD for
Facilities Expansion;
$200,000 to the Children's Home Society of Sioux Falls, SD
for At-Risk Youth Facilities Expansion;
$200,000 to the City of North Sioux City, SD for Community
Library Expansion;
$200,000 to the Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, SD for the
Theater and Lecture Hall Project;
$200,000 to the Wakpa Sica Historical Society of Fort
Pierre, SD for the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place;
$200,000 to the Rapid City Area Economic Development
Partnership of Rapid City, SD for the Technology Transfer and
Entrepreneur Center Project;
$200,000 to Miner County Revitalization of Howard, SD for
the Rural Learning Center Project;
$750,000 for the City of Clinton, Tennessee to renovate the
Green McAdoo Cultural Center;
$400,000 for the Second Harvest Food Bank of Middle
Tennessee in Nashville, Tennessee for the expansion of its
distribution center;
$300,000 for the Chattanooga African American Chamber of
Commerce, Tennessee to construct the Martin Luther King
Business Solutions Center;
$600,000 for the Carroll County Watershed Authority in
Carroll County, Tennessee for land acquisition;
$200,000 for the Big South Fork Visitors Center in
Cumberland County, Tennessee to develop new visitors
facilities;
$500,000 for Technology 2020 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee to
support the East Tennessee Nanotechnology Initiative;
$250,000 for Smith County, Tennessee for construction and
infrastructure improvements to the Health, Senior, and
Education complex;
$400,000 for the Dallas Women's Museum in Dallas, Texas to
conduct renovations;
$200,000 for the Houston Hispanic Forum of Houston, Texas
to provide the historic preservation and renovation of the
Houston Light Guard Armory into the Hispanic Cultural and
Educational Center;
$200,000 for Polk County, Texas to restore the Polk County
Annex;
$200,000 to the Arlington Chamber of Commerce in Arlington,
Texas to establish the Arlington Entrepreneur Center;
$200,000 to the City of Fort Worth, Texas for the Central
City revitalization initiative;
$200,000 to the World Congress on Information Technology in
Austin, Texas for convention center renovations;
$200,000 to the City of Commerce, Texas for a new city hall
facility;
$200,000 to the City of Hillsboro, Texas for the district
warehouse development project;
$200,000 to the City of Dallas, Texas for the Dallas Fair
Park Commercial District;
$300,000 to the City of Lufkin, Texas for the convention
center initiative;
$200,000 for the Los Fresnos Texas Boys and Girls Club, Los
Fresnos, TX for planning, design and facility construction;
$600,000 for the City of Provo, Utah to build the Provo
Community Arts Center in the City of Provo;
$200,000 for the City of Hyrum, Utah to build the Hyrum
Library and Museum Complex in the City of Hyrum;
$1,000,000 for Sandy City, Utah, for the revitalization of
the city's original historic district;
$1,200,000 for the City of Blanding's College of Eastern
Utah--San Juan Campus, for the construction of a library
community multipurpose building;
$800,000 for Summit County, Utah, for improvements to the
Utah Olympic Park facilities;
$250,000 for the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in
Staunton, Virginia to continue undertaking initial design of
the Library;
$250,000 for the Radford University Business and Technology
Park in Radford, Virginia to begin site preparation and
schematic design of the Park;
$200,000 for the George L. Carter Home Regional Arts and
Crafts Center in Hillville, Virginia to restore the historic
home to serve as a regional Appalachian arts and crafts center;
$200,000 for the Suffolk Museum of African-American History
in Suffolk, Virginia to renovate the former Phoenix Bank of
Nansemond for the Museum of African-American History;
$500,000 for the Christopher Newport News University Real
Estate Foundation for the Warwick Boulevard Commercial Corridor
Redevelopment Project in Newport News, Virginia;
$200,000 for the Mariners' Museum for the USS Monitor
Center in Newport News, Virginia;
$200,000 for the Total Action Against Poverty to restore
and revitalize the Dumas Center for Artistic and Cultural
Development in Roanoke, Virginia;
$200,000 for the Appalachia Service Project for its Home
Repair Program in Jonesville, Virginia;
$750,000 for the Preservation Trust of Vermont, Burlington,
VT for the Village Revitalization Initiative;
$750,000 for the Vermont Broadband Council, Waterbury, VT
for high speed broadband deployment;
$450,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board,
Montpelier, VT for development of affordable housing in
Townsend, VT;
$300,000 for Project Independence, Bennington, VT for
renovation of the Harwood Hill Farm Facility;
$250,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board to
build low-income housing and reconstruct downtown Enosburg, VT;
$250,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board to
construct senior housing in South Burlington, VT;
$250,000 for the Visiting Nurse Association of Chittenden
and Grand Isle Counties, VT to construct a low-income parent
and child center in Burlington, VT;
$200,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board to
rehabilitate and construct affordable rental housing in
Bradford, VT;
$300,000 for the City of Roslyn, WA, for the Old City Hall
and Library Renovation Project;
$325,000 for the Wing Luke Asian Museum in Seattle, WA for
an expansion project;
$500,000 for North Helpline in Seattle, WA for new facility
site acquisition;
$500,000 for the Fremont Public Association in Seattle, WA
for the Housing for the Homeless project;
$500,000 for the Asian Counseling and Referral Service in
Seattle, WA for facility construction;
$325,000 for the Urban League in Seattle, WA for
construction of the Northwest African American Museum;
$500,000 for the Seattle Art Museum in Seattle, WA for
construction of the Olympic Sculpture Park;
$325,000 for the Seattle Aquarium Society in Seattle, WA
for the renovation and expansion of the Seattle Aquarium;
$500,000 Northeast Community Center Association in Spokane,
WA for a capital improvement project;
$400,000 for Easter Seals Washington in Seattle, WA for
construction of a camp and respite lodging facility;
$500,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of King County, WA for
renovations to the Greenbridge Community Center;
$325,000 for the Spokane Symphony in Spokane, WA for
renovations to the Fox Theater;
$200,000 for the City of LaCrosse, WI to construct the
Center for Manufacturing Excellence;
$300,000 for the City of Appleton, WI for construction of
affordable housing units at the Appleton Wire Works factory
site;
$270,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Racine, WI for to redevelop brownfields space for the Racine
Industrial Park;
$200,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Milwaukee, WI to redevelop a vacant school and provide for the
Bronzeville Cultural Center;
$200,000 for the City of Kenosha, WI for construction
related to the Columbus Neighborhood Affordable Housing
Project;
$200,000 for West End Development Corporation in Milwaukee,
WI to rehabilitation a commercial building as part of the North
27th Street Project;
$230,000 for the City of Green Bay, WI, for the Green Bay
Waterfront construction and revitalization project;
$200,000 for the City of Milwaukee, WI for construction of
the Menominee Valley Partners Stormwater Park;
$200,000 for City of Necedah, WI to construct a facility
for the Juneau County Business Incubator;
$250,000 for the City of Milwaukee, WI for rehabilitation
associated with the 30th Street Industrial Corridor-Esser Paint
site;
$1,000,000 for construction, related activities, and
programs at the Scarborough Library at Shepherd University, WV;
$1,000,000 for the Wheeling Park Commission for the
development of training facilities at Oglebay Park, West
Virginia;
$2,000,000 for West Virginia University for the development
of a facility to house forensic science research and academic
programs;
$1,000,000 for the Kanawha Institute for Social Research
and Action, West Virginia, for renovations to the Empowerment
Center in West Dunbar, which will house an array of self-
sufficiency programs for low- to moderate-income individuals;
$900,000 for the Sustainable Agriculture Research &
Extension Center [SAREC] in Goshen County Wyoming for
construction of a community center building;
$1,100,000 for the Wyoming Substance Abuse Treatment and
Recovery Center [WYSTAR] in Sheridan, Wyoming to expand its
substance abuse treatment facility for women with children; and
$1,000,000 for the Central Wyoming College Foundation in
Riverton, Wyoming to construct the Intertribal Education &
Community Center.
The Neighborhood Initiative programs awards are as follows:
$3,000,000 for 21st Century Parks Inc. in Louisville,
Kentucky, to develop the ``City of Parks'' Project;
$100,000 for the Technical Exploration Center [TEC] of
Husson College: Expand the Service Capacity of TEC;
$5,000,000 for planning, development and acquisition for
the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy, for the West Riverfront
Redevelopment project, Detroit, Michigan;
$200,000 for the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency in St.
Paul, Minnesota to provide supportive housing for homeless
youth;
$5,000,000 for the Grace Hill Neighborhood Health Centers,
Inc. Shall be spent on primary prevention activities with no
less than $4,000,00 spent on remediation and abatement
activities of housing in St. Louis, Missouri;
$500,000 for Mississippi State University costs for
facility restoration and development;
$300,000 for the Stennis Institute of Government capacity
development initiative in Starkville, Mississippi, for the
enhancement of economic development capabilities;
$200,000 for the Housing Education and Economic Development
Center in Jackson, Mississippi, for the enhancement of housing
and economic development programs;
$200,000 for the Historical Preservation at Alcorn State
University, Alcorn State, Mississippi, for the restoration
project of existing historic buildings;
$800,000 for Mississippi School of the Arts in Brookhaven,
Mississippi for construction, renovation and operations of
activities;
$220,000 for Rural Enterprises Institute of Oklahoma to
continue the HUD Employer Assisted Housing Project;
$200,000 for Union County, Oregon to support economic
development and tourism activities for the Wallowa Union
Railroad;
$200,000 for Umatilla County, Oregon to support economic
development and infrastructure improvements;
$200,000 to the City of Scranton, Pennsylvania for the
North Main Avenue redevelopment project;
$200,000 for Oxford Mainstreet, Inc, Oxford, PA to
revitalize the downtown commercial district;
$200,000 to Camp Fire USA Lone Star Council in Dallas,
Texas for their Texas pubic housing initiative;
$200,000 for the City of Eagle Mountain, Utah for community
development and park facilities improvements in the City of
Eagle Mountain;
$1,500,000 for the Washington State Farmworker Housing
Trust in Seattle, WA for the Washington Farmworker and Housing
Homeownership;
$500,000 for the Enterprise Foundation in Seattle, WA for
the Washington Greenbuilding Initiative; and
$1,000,000 for construction, related activities, and
programs at the Scarborough Library at Shepherd University, WV.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
guaranteed loans Program costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005.............. $275,000,000 $5,952,000
Budget estimate, 2006............. ................. .................
House allowance................... ................. .................
Committee recommendation.......... 275,000,000 6,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal
loan guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and
non-entitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring
real property, rehabilitation of publicly owned real property,
housing rehabilitation, and other economic development
activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 for
program costs associated with the section 108 loan guarantee
program. This amount is $48,000 above the fiscal year 2005
enacted level and $6,000,000 more than the budget request. The
administration recommended no funding for this program. While
the program has had an uneven history, it does afford some
communities the ability to leverage private capital for large
projects through a pledge of future CDBG funds.
Of the funds provided, $6,000,000 is for credit subsidy
costs to guarantee $275,000,000 in section 108 loan commitments
in fiscal year 2006, and $1,000,000 is for administrative
expenses to be transferred to the salaries and expenses
account.

BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $23,808,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 15,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Brownfields Redevelopment
program. This program provides competitive economic development
grants in conjunction with section 108 loan guarantees for
qualified brownfields projects. Grants are made in accordance
with Section 108(q) selection criteria. The program supports
the cleanup and economic redevelopment of contaminated sites.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000
for this program. This amount is $8,808,000 less than the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level and $15,000,000 above the budget
request. The administration requested no funding for this
program. This program has been instrumental in the
redevelopment of many communities and the administration has
not provided an adequate justification for its elimination.

home investment partnerships program

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,899,680,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,941,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,900,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,900,000,000

program description

Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as
amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
This program provides assistance to States and units of local
government for the purpose of expanding the supply and
affordability of housing to low- and very low-income people.
Eligible activities include tenant-based rental assistance,
acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and
ownership housing and, also, construction of housing. To
participate in the HOME program, State and local governments
must develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy.
There is a 25 percent matching requirement for participating
jurisdictions which can be reduced or eliminated if they are
experiencing fiscal distress. Funding for the American Dream
Downpayment Assistance initiative is also provided through the
HOME program. This initiative provides downpayment assistance
to low income families to help them achieve homeownership.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,900,000,000
for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, including
$50,000,000 for the American Dream Downpyment Fund. This amount
is $320,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and
$41,000,000 less than the budget request.
The Committee includes $10,000,000 for technical
assistance, the same amount as provided in fiscal year 2005. Of
this amount, $7,000,000 is for qualified non-profit
intermediaries to provide technical assistance to Community
Housing and Development Organizations [CHDOs]. The remaining
$3,000,000 is for intermediaries to provide technical
assistance to HOME participating jurisdictions. The Committee
includes another $5,000,000 transfer for the Affordable Housing
and Economic Development Technical Assistance Board. It is
expected that the Board will assist nonprofits in developing
uniform and, model approaches to housing economic development.
The Committee objects to any proposal by the Department that
ties the use of HOME funds for homeownership to the allocation
of funds under the American Dream Downpayment Fund.
The Committee includes $50,000,000 for the administration's
American Dream Downpayment Fund. The Committee supports
expanding homeownership opportunities, but is concerned that
this program may be helping families with excessive credit risk
and who may not be the best candidates for homeownership. The
Committee requests that HUD report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on the rate of default by those in
the program as well as the numbers of participants who have
missed their mortgage payments by 30 days, by 60 days and by 90
days and/or who have received some form of relief to keep their
mortgages current. This report is due no later than July 31,
2006. The Committee supports efforts the Department may
undertake to educate communities on how to use HOME funds to
expand homeownership, and encourages the Department to use its
technical assistance funds towards this end. The Committee also
is concerned about HUD's ability to obligate these downpayment
funds and directs the Department to report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in the obligation rate as
well as program status by June 30, 2006.
Of the amount provided for the HOME program, $42,000,000 is
for housing counseling assistance. The Committee does not fund
housing assistance counseling in a new account, as proposed by
the administration. The Committee views homeownership
counseling, including pre- and post-purchase counseling, as an
essential part of successful homeownership. The Committee
expects that this program will remain available to those
participating in all HUD's homeownership programs. The
Committee continues to urge HUD to utilize this program as a
means of educating homebuyers on the dangers of predatory
lending, in addition to the administration's stated purpose of
expanding homeownership opportunities.

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,240,511,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,440,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,340,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,415,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to
break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons
and families to permanent housing. This is done by providing
rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and
permanent housing, and supportive services to homeless persons
and families. The emergency grant is a formula funded grant
program, while the supportive housing, section 8 moderate
rehabilitation single-room occupancy program and the shelter
plus care programs are competitive grants. Homeless assistance
grants provide Federal support to one of the Nation's most
vulnerable populations. These grants assist localities in
addressing the housing and service needs of a wide variety of
homeless populations while developing coordinated Continuum of
Care [CoC] systems that ensure the support necessary to help
those who are homeless to attain housing and move toward self-
sufficiency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,415,000,000 for homeless
assistance grants. This amount is $174,489,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level and $25,000,000 below the budget
request. Of the amount provided, $238,000,000 is to fund fully
Shelter Plus Care renewals on an annual basis, $11,674,000 is
for technical assistance and data analysis, $1,000,000 is for
the Department's working capital fund, and $5,000,000 is for
the Affordable Housing and Economic Development Technical
Assistance Board. Bill language also is included that (1)
requires not less than 30 percent of the funds appropriated,
excluding renewal costs, for permanent housing; (2) requires
the renewal of all expiring Shelter Plus Care contracts on an
annual basis if the contract meets certain requirements; (3)
requires a 25 percent match for social services; and (4)
requires all homeless funding recipients to coordinate and
integrate their programs with other mainstream and targeted
social programs. No funding is provided for the Prisoner Re-
Entry initiative.
The Committee continues to be committed to ending chronic
homelessness over 10 years and supports the President's stated
goal of achieving this goal by 2012. To that end, the Committee
supports Federal, State, and local efforts to increase the
supply of permanent housing until the need is met at an
estimated 150,000 units. Accordingly, the Committee again
includes bill language that requires the Department to spend a
minimum of 30 percent of funds appropriated under this account
for permanent housing. The Department is now meeting the 30
percent requirement and in the fiscal year 2003 competition,
almost 53 percent of homeless funds were spent on housing.
The Committee supports the efforts of the U.S. Interagency
Council on Homelessness [ICH] to assist State and local
communities develop 10-year plans to end homelessness. The
Committee, however, is concerned about the coordination between
these 10-year plans and HUD's continuum of care [CoC] system.
Specifically, it is unclear how these two efforts complement
each other in addressing the goal of ending chronic
homelessness. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department
to provide a report on how it is coordinating the CoC system
with the 10-year plans. This report should be developed in
consultation with the ICH and submitted to the Committee by no
later than February 28, 2006.
In order to improve efforts in addressing homelessness, it
is critical for providers and government officials to have
reliable data. To address this matter, the Committee began an
effort in 2001 that charged the Department to collect homeless
data through the implementation of a new Homeless Management
Information System [HMIS]. The implementation of this new
system would allow the Department to obtain meaningful data on
the Nation's homeless population and develop annual reports
through an Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR]. While this
initiative has been delayed through a variety of factors,
including participation resistance from some CoC communities,
HUD recently reported that a majority of communities are now
implementing or operating an HMIS. The Department has
encouraged the participation of HMIS through financing and
incentives through the annual, competitive CoC Notice of
Funding Availability [NOFA] process. Nevertheless, the
Committee strongly urges the Department to ensure full
participation by all CoCs in the HMIS effort and consider
future CoC funding to be contingent upon participation in HMIS
and AHAR. Due to the Committee's continued interest in the
Department's data collection and analysis efforts, the
Committee again directs HUD to report on its progress by no
later than March 10, 2006.
The Committee also reiterates the directive included in the
conference report for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
(House Report 108-792) regarding out-year costs of renewing
HUD's permanent housing programs. Therefore, the Department
should include 5-year projects, on an annual basis, for the
cost of renewing the permanent housing component of the
Supportive Housing Program and the Shelter Plus Care program in
its fiscal year 2007 budget justifications.
The Committee appreciates the Department's sustained
commitment to meeting the needs of homeless families. Although
one-third of homeless people are members of homeless families,
about half of the persons served by HUD homeless programs are
members of homeless families.
Nevertheless, the Committee encourages HUD to explore
further ways in which it might improve its assistance to
homeless families, with the goal of ending family homelessness.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to (1)
develop a typology of homeless families' use of the
homelessness system, including an assessment as to the extent
there are chronically homeless families, their characteristics,
and the strategies effective in meeting their needs; (2)
explore new outcome measures for programs serving homeless
families, including measuring length of stay in the homeless
system and recidivism to the homeless system (both of which
should be declining if programs are becoming more effective in
serving families); and (3) undertake research to ascertain the
impact of various service and housing interventions in ending
homelessness for families.
The Committee commends the Department's efforts in
coordinating its homeless programs with the Department of
Education to ensure homeless children receive the assistance
and resources to escape poverty. The Committee especially
commends and supports the Department for its recent efforts to
ensure HUD-funded shelters protect the education rights of
homeless children. Specifically, the Committee supports HUD's
recent directive that required each Continuum of Care to
provide a list of homeless shelters serving children to the
State Coordinator for the Education of Homeless Children and
Youth. The Committee believes that this action will allow for
the dissemination of information on children's education rights
according to all applicable Department of Education
requirements to families with children in these facilities.
The Committee notes the value of collecting data related to
beneficiaries of the HUD Homeless programs and activities to
create sound policy and financial decisions with limited
Federal resources. The Committee also notes that there was
confusion about whether HUD, in its Homeless Management
Information Systems [HMIS] Data and Technical standards notice
(68 FR 43430-1), included an exemption for domestic violence
shelters from participating in HMIS. The Committee is aware
that concerns remain about the HMIS process and safeguards for
the personally identifying information of victims of domestic
violence and encourages the Secretary to continue to work with
domestic violence groups as well as the Continuums of Care
[CoC] to address this issue.

Housing Programs

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $741,024,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 741,000,000
House allowance......................................... 741,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 742,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the elderly
under section 202. Under this program, the Department provides
capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition,
rehabilitation, or construction of housing for seniors.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $742,000,000
for the Section 202 program, an increase of $976,000 over the
fiscal year 2005 level and an increase of $1,000,000 over the
budget request. Of these funds, $53,000,000 is for service
coordinators and for the continuation of existing congregate
service grants; up to $30,000,000 for the conversion of
projects to assisted living housing for substantial
rehabilitation an for emergency capital repairs; $20,000,000
for grants to nonprofits for architectural and engineering
work, site control and planning activities. The Committee also
includes $2,500,000 for the Affordable Housing and Economic
Development Technical Assistance Board and $2,500,000 for the
Working Capital Fund.
According to a 2003 GAO report, section 202 has reached
only 8 percent of very low income elderly households. The
Committee believes that greater resources should be devoted to
the section 202 program and continues to encourage the
Department to make this program more of a priority, including
better targeting to extremely low-income elderly households.
Further, the Department needs to facilitate the construction of
section 202 projects. Finally, many of the existing 202 units
have serious repair needs that are not being adequately
addressed by the Department.

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $238,080,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 119,900,000
House allowance......................................... 238,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 240,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the persons
with disabilities under section 811. Under this program, the
Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the
acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for
persons with disabilities. Up to 25 percent of the funding may
be made available for tenant-based assistance under section 8.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $240,000,000
for the Section 811 program, an increase of $1,920,000 over the
fiscal year 2005 level and $120,100,000 over the budget
request. HUD is directed to ensure that all tenant-based
assistance made available under this account shall remain
available for persons with disabilities upon turnover. The
Committee has limited the amount of funds that may be used for
incremental section 8 vouchers to $5,000,000. The Committee
includes a transfer of $2,500,000 for the Affordable Housing
and Economic Development Technical Assistance Board. In
addition, Section 811 funds may be used for inspections by
HUD's Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC] and for related
inspection activities. HUD is directed to submit a budget to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before
funding any REAC inspections.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BOARD

Appropriations, 2005....................................................
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $45,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Affordable Housing and Economic Development Technical
Assistance Board was created to provide technical assistance
through a board of qualified and respected national nonprofits
to local nonprofits across the Nation that participate in
programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development [HUD]. Most HUD programs are governed by rules and
regulations that are often overly complex for small local
nonprofits. This program provides funding for a board of
national nonprofits to use their expertise to assist local
nonprofits in making HUD's affordable housing and economic
development programs a success.

COMMITTEE RECOMENDATION

The Committee recommends $45,000,000 in funding for a new
Affordable Housing and Economic Development Technical
Assistance Board that is designed to provide funding for a
board of qualified and respected national nonprofits to assist
local nonprofits in the management of programs and activities
funded through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
These funds are transferred from the Section 8 Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance program, the Section 8 Project-Based Rental
Assistance program, the Native American Housing Block Grant
program, the Community Development Block Grant program, the
HOME program, the Homeless Assistance program, the Section 202
Housing for the Elderly program and the Section 811 Housing for
Persons with Disabilities program. The Board shall consist of
LISC, the Enterprise Foundation, and the Centre for Management
and Technology. The Board shall be assisted by an advisory
board including groups such as the Housing Assistance Council,
the Corporation for Supportive Housing, the National Alliance
to End Homelessness, the National Council of La Raza, the
National Urban League, the National American Indian Housing
Council, the National Association for the Mentally Ill, and the
American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. The
Committee expects the board to assist local nonprofits in
developing local affordable housing and economic development
programs, especially with regard to the programs from which the
funds are transferred. In particular, the Committee expects the
board to develop uniform policies and best practices with
regard to these programs and activities.

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

(RESCISSION)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides amendment funding for housing
assisted under a variety of HUD housing programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $26,400,000 for HUD-assisted,
State-aided, non-insured rental housing projects.

FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized
HUD to establish a revolving fund for the collection of rents
in excess of the established basic rents for section 236
projects. Subject to appropriations, HUD is authorized to
transfer excess rent collection received after 1978 to the
Flexible Subsidy Fund.

COMMITTEE RCOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve
as the repository for the excess rental charges appropriated
from the Rental Housing Assistance Fund; these funds will
continue to offset flexible subsidy outlays and other
discretionary expenditures to support affordable housing
projects. The language is designed to allow surplus funds in
excess of allowable rent levels to be returned to project
owners only for purposes of the rehabilitation and renovation
of projects.

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $12,896,000
Budget request, 2006.................................... 13,000,000
House allowance......................................... 12,896,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing
Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for
the construction, design, and performance of manufactured
homes. All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal
standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs
of administering the Act.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $13,000,000 to support the
manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust
Fund account. The amount recommended is the same as the budget
request and $104,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level.
The Committee thanks the Department for submitting line-
item expenses for the manufactured housing program in its
proposed fiscal year 2006 budget request, and encourages the
HUD to continue doing so in its future budgets. In addition,
the Committee encourages HUD to continue to prioritize its
expenditures for this program in accordance with the
appropriate sections of the Manufactured Housing Improvement
Act of 2000.

federal housing administration

mutual mortgage insurance program account

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005................................ $50,000,000 $185,000,000,000 $354,051,000
Budget estimate, 2006............................... 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 355,000,000
House allowance..................................... 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 355,000,000
Committee recommendation............................ 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 355,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

general and special risk program account

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005................... $50,000,000 $35,000,000,000 $225,945,000 $9,920,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................. 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 231,400,000 8,800,000
House allowance........................ 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 231,400,000 8,800,000
Committee recommendation............... 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 231,400,000 8,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

program description

The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the
mortgage and loan insurance activity of about 40 HUD mortgage/
loan insurance programs which are grouped into the mutual
mortgage insurance [MMI] fund, cooperative management housing
insurance [CMHI] fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and
the special risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and
accounting control purposes, these are divided into two sets of
accounts based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized
insurance programs of the mutual mortgage insurance fund and
the cooperative management housing insurance fund constitute
one set; and the general risk insurance and special risk
insurance funds, which are partially composed of subsidized
programs, make up the other.
The amounts for administrative expenses are to be
transferred from appropriations made in the FHA program
accounts to the HUD ``Salaries and expenses'' accounts.
Additionally, funds are also appropriated for administrative
contract expenses for FHA activities.

committee recommendation

The Committee has included the following amounts for the
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on
guaranteed loans of $185,000,000,000 a limitation on direct
loans of $50,000,000, and an appropriation of $355,000,000 for
administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee
recommends $35,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans,
a limitation on direct loans of $50,000,000, and
$355,000,000,000 for administrative expenses, of which
$351,000,000 shall be transferred to HUD ``Salaries and
Expenses'', up to $4,000,000 shall be transferred to the Office
of the Inspector General.
In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct
loan programs in 2006 for multifamily bridge loans and single
family purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain
properties owned by the Department. Temporary financing shall
be provided for the acquisition and rehabilitation of
multifamily projects by purchasers who have obtained
commitments for permanent financing from another lender.
Purchase money mortgages will enable governmental and nonprofit
intermediaries to acquire properties for resale to owner-
occupants in areas undergoing revitalization.
The Committee has not included the administer's proposed
FHA Zero Downpayment program where all fees and costs would be
rolled into the mortgage as opposed to the current requirement
that a homebuyer provide a downpayment equal to 3 percent of
the mortgage principal. The Committee believes that this
proposal poses substantial financial risks to the FHA Single
Family Mortgage Insurance program by assisting high-risk
families in purchasing homes where the new homeowners have no
stake in these houses and also have no financial cushion to pay
for any big ticket costs such as a failed furnace or leaky
roof. From a historical perspective, FHA was almost bankrupt in
the late 1980's due to defaults from housing families with high
loan-to-value ratios. Not only did this practice hurt the
credit worthiness of these families but, equally troubling, the
large number of defaults helped to tip marginal neighborhoods
into becoming distressed areas where the FHA foreclosures
helped to drive down the value of other housing in these
neighborhoods.
From a historical perspective, the substantially same
policy almost bankrupted FHA in the late 1980's and
economically hurt neighborhoods because large numbers of
defaults in marginal neighborhoods often result in diminished
property values for the entire neighborhood. Recent audits of
the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund have indicated that
these policies likely would undermine the long-term financial
soundness of the fund. For example, the HUD IG audit of FHA's
financial statements for fiscal years 2004 and 2003 demonstrate
a substantial increase in the default rate over the last 5
years from 2.99 percent in fiscal year 2000 to 6.9 percent in
fiscal year 2004. Moreover claims have increased from some
$5,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 to some $8,500,000,000 in
fiscal year 2004, a 54 percent increase while insurance-in-
force decreased 13 percent to $430,000,000 during the same
period. FHA is clearly becoming a lender of last resort, taking
on the most risky mortgages, especially those likely to
default. HUD's other initiative is to provide payment
incentives to assist persons with bad credit to obtain housing
(these persons would pay higher rates of interest at the
beginning which would decline as a homeowner demonstrates an
ability to pay the mortgage). This policy would also undermine
the FHA MMIF.
The Committee also is concerned that HUD should assist in
the education of potential homebuyers who plan to use FHA
mortgage insurance as part of the purchase process. While the
requirements for an appraisal are clear, HUD needs to educate
homebuyers regarding the value of requiring a home inspection
before a purchase is complete. In too many cases, homebuyers
waive this option, thus exposing them to unforeseen and
unexpected physical deficiencies in the purchased home. This
especially is troubling with moderate- and low-income
homebuyers who barely have enough funds to close on the house.
Without a home inspection, these purchasers may find themselves
responsible for such high-cost items as a new roof, furnace or
other significant structural liabilities. In these cases, the
cost to repair the home and pay for the mortgage may far exceed
the financial ability of the homebuyer, thus putting the home
at risk of foreclosure.

Government National Mortgage Association

guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005:

Limitation on guaranteed loans

$200,000,000,000

Administrative expenses

10,609,000

Budget estimate, 2006:

Limitation on guaranteed loans

200,000,000,000

Administrative expenses

11,360,000

House allowance:

Limitation on guaranteed loans

200,000,000,000

Administrative expenses

10,700,000

Committee recommendation:

Limitation on guaranteed loans

200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
11,360,000

program description

The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA],
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA
is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United
States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended.
GNMA is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee
the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that
are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of
mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal
Housing Administration, the Rural Housing Service, or the
Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA's guarantee of mortgage-
backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the
United States.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments of
mortgage-backed securities of $200,000,000,000. This amount is
the same level as proposed by the budget request. The Committee
also has included $11,360,000 for administrative expenses, the
same as the budget request and an increase of $751,000 above
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

Policy Development and Research

research and technology

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $45,136,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 69,738,000
House allowance......................................... 60,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 48,000,000

program description

Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970,
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to undertake programs of research,
evaluation, and reports relating to the Department's mission
and programs. These functions are carried out internally and
through grants and contracts with industry, nonprofit research
organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements
with State and local governments and other Federal agencies.
The research programs seek ways to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness, and equity of HUD programs and to identify
methods to achieve cost reductions. Additionally, this
appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation and monitoring
activities and to conduct housing surveys.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends $48,000,000 for research and
technology activities in fiscal year 2006. This amount is
$2,864,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and
$21,738,000 below the budget request. Of this funding,
$5,000,000 is for the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in
Housing [PATH] program. Language is included to ensure the
funding of existing cooperative agreements in fiscal year 2006.
The Committee expects the PATH program to continue its cold
climate housing research with the Cold Climate Housing Research
Center in Fairbanks, Alaska. The Committee also supports the
continuing research on promising technologies for the
manufactured housing industry.
In addition, because in the past HUD has used this office's
broad authority to administer new and unauthorized programs,
the Office of Policy Development and Research is denied
demonstration authority except where approval is provided by
Congress in response to a reprogramming request.

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

fair housing activities

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $46,128,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 38,800,000
House allowance......................................... 46,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,000,000

program description

The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding
for both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the
Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].
The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local
agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale,
rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of
brokerage services. The major objective of the program is to
assure prompt and effective processing of title VIII complaints
with appropriate remedies for complaints by State and local
fair housing agencies.
The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by
section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1987, as amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed
to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to
public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating
or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair
housing opportunities.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommendation provides $46,000,000, of which
$25,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP]
and no more than $21,000,000 is for the fair housing
initiatives program [FHIP].
The Committee emphasizes that State and local agencies
under FHAP should have the primary responsibility for
identifying and addressing discrimination in the sale, rental,
and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage
services. It is critical that consistent fair housing policies
be identified and implemented to insure continuity and
fairness, and that States and localities continue to increase
their understanding, expertise, and implementation of the law.

Office of Lead Hazard Control

LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $166,656,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 119,000,000
House allowance......................................... 166,656,000
Committee recommendation................................ 167,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act under which HUD is authorized to make grants to
States, localities and native American tribes to conduct lead-
based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities in
private low-income housing. This has become a significant
health hazard, especially for children. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], some 434,000
children have elevated blood levels, down from 1.7 million in
the late 1980's. Despite this improvement, lead poisoning
remains a serious childhood environmental condition, with some
2.2 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 years having elevated
blood lead levels. This percentage is much higher for low-
income children living in older housing.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $167,000,000 for lead-based paint
hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2006.
This amount is $48,000,000 more than the budget request and
$344,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Of this
amount, HUD may use up to $9,000,000 for the Healthy Homes
Initiative under which HUD conducts a number of activities
designed to identify and address housing-related illnesses.
The Committee recommends $48,000,000 for the lead hazard
reduction demonstration program which was established in fiscal
year 2003 to focus on major urban areas where children are
disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning.
As previously discussed, there remains significant lead
risks in privately-owned housing, particularly in unsubsidized
low-income units. For that reason, approximately 1 million
children under the age of 6 in the United States suffer from
lead poisoning. While lead poisoning crosses all socioeconomic,
geographic, and racial boundaries, the burden of this disease
falls disproportionately on low-income and minority families.
In the United States, children from poor families are eight
times more likely to be poisoned than those from higher income
families. Nevertheless, the risks associated with lead-based
paint hazards can be addressed fully over the next decade.
As noted last year, the urban lead hazard reduction program
is designed to target funding to major urban areas where the
lead hazard risk for low-income children under the age of 6 is
greatest. Qualified applicants are identified by the Secretary
as having the highest number of pre-1940 units of rental
housing and a disproportionately high number of documented
cases of lead-poisoned children. At least 90 percent of funds
must be used for abatement and interim control of lead-based
paint hazards. Further, the program targets abatement to units
that serve low-income families. As a condition of assistance,
each applicant shall submit a detailed plan for use of funds
that demonstrates sufficient capacity acceptable to the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The plans should
identify units with the most significant risk, and should
include strategies to reduce the risk of lead hazards and to
mobilize public and private resources. The Committee fully
expects that this program will be administered in a manner
consistent with the guidelines and criteria used in the fiscal
year 2003 and 2004 funding cycles.
The Committee also encourages HUD to work with grantees on
its lead-based paint abatement hazards programs so that
information is disclosed to the public on lead hazard
abatements, risk assessment data and blood lead levels through
publications and internet sites such as Lead-SafeHomes.info.
The Committee also includes $5,000,000 in the Neighborhood
Initiative program to continue a lead-based paint abatement
pilot program in St. Louis to be coordinated by the Grace Hill
Neighborhood Health Centers to eliminate the source of lead
paint poisoning within the city's large, aging housing stock.
This is the last year of funding for this program.

Management and Administration

salaries and expenses

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian
FHA GNMA CDBG Title VI housing Native
Appropriation funds funds funds transfer block Hawaiian Total
grant loan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005.............................................. 542,819 560,673 10,695 1,000 250 150 35 1,115,622
Budget estimate, 2006............................................. 579,000 562,400 10,695 ........ 244 146 34 1,152,519
House allowance................................................... 579,000 562,400 10,700 ........ 250 150 35 1,152,535
Committee recommendation.......................................... 570,000 562,400 11,360 1,000 250 150 35 1,145,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

program description

The ``Salaries and expenses'' account finances all salaries
and related expenses associated with administering the programs
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These
include the following activities:
Housing and Mortgage Credit Programs.--This activity
includes staff salaries and related expenses associated with
administering housing programs, the implementation of consumer
protection activities in the areas of interstate land sales,
mobile home construction and safety, and real estate settlement
procedures.
Community Planning and Development Programs.--Funds in this
activity are for staff salaries and expenses necessary to
administer community planning and development programs.
Equal Opportunity and Research Programs.--This activity
includes salaries and related expenses associated with
implementing equal opportunity programs in housing and
employment as required by law and Executive orders and the
administration of research programs and demonstrations.
Departmental Management, Legal, and Audit Services.--This
activity includes a variety of general functions required for
the Department's overall administration and management. These
include the Office of the Secretary, Office of General Counsel,
Office of Chief Financial Officer, as well as administrative
support in such areas as accounting, personnel management,
contracting and procurement, and office services.
Field Direction and Administration.--This activity includes
salaries and expenses for the regional administrators, area
office managers, and their staff who are responsible for the
direction, supervision, and performance of the Department's
field offices, as well as administrative support in areas such
as accounting, personnel management, contracting and
procurement, and office services.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,145,195,000
for salaries and expenses. This amount is $29,573,000 more than
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and $7,324,000 less than the
budget request. The appropriation includes the requested amount
of $575,195,000 transferred from various funds from the Federal
Housing Administration, $11,360,000 transferred from the
Government National Mortgage Association, $250,000 from the
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program, $150,000 from the
Native American Housing Block Grant, and $35,000 from the
Native Hawaiian Housing Program as well as $1,000,000 from the
Community Development Loan Guarantee program, which the
administration sought to eliminate.
The Committee remains concerned about HUD's ability to
administer its programs and place staff where most needed.
Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to report quarterly to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on all hiring
within the Department, including justifications for any
significant increase in FTEs for any particular office or
activity.
In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing
more than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive
service employees. The Committee understands that the
Department is staffed largely by personnel who are close to
retirement and at the top of the civil service pay schedule.
The Committee encourages HUD to implement hiring practices that
result in the hiring of young professionals who can gain
experience and advancement.
The Committee directs the Department to issue quarterly
reports on HUD travel to the Senate Committee on
Appropriations. These reports shall include a list of all HUD-
related trips, the names of all staff on each trip, and all
costs, including the individual costs of lodging, food,
transportation and any other costs.

Office of Inspector General

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHA funds by
Appropriation transfer Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005............................................ $79,360,000 $24,000,000 $103,360,000
Budget estimate, 2006........................................... 79,000,000 24,000,000 103,000,000
House allowance................................................. 79,000,000 24,000,000 103,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 82,000,000 24,000,000 106,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

program description

This appropriation will finance all salaries and related
expenses associated with the operation of the Office of the
Inspector General [OIG].

committee recommendations

The Committee recommends an overall funding level of
$106,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This
amount is $2,640,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level
and $3,000,000 above the budget request. This funding level
includes $24,000,000 by transfer from various FHA funds. The
Committee commends OIG for its commitment and its efforts in
reducing waste, fraud and abuse in HUD programs.

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $267,840,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 265,000,000
House allowance......................................... 62,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 265,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The working capital fund, authorized by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, finances information
technology and office automation initiatives on a centralized
basis.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $265,000,000 for the working
capital fund for fiscal year 2006. These funds are the same as
the budget request and $2,840,000 below the fiscal year 2005
level. This fund is needed to enhance efficient use of
appropriated funds and improve budget projections and needs for
submission of the Committees on Appropriations.

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $58,735,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 60,000,000
House allowance......................................... 60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 60,000,000

program description

This appropriation funds the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO], which was established in 1992 to
regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing
Government sponsored enterprises [GSE's], the Federal National
Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation. The Office was authorized in the Federal Housing
Enterprise Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also
instituted a three-part capital standard for the GSE's, and
gave the regulator enhanced authority to enforce those
standards.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is the same as the
budget request and $1,265,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level.

Administrative Provisions

The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief
description follows.
Sec. 301. This section promotes the refinancing of certain
housing bonds.
Sec. 302. This section clarifies a limitation on use of
funds under the Fair Housing Act.
Sec. 303. This section clarifies the allocation of HOPWA
funding for fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 304. This section clarifies housing issue in Michigan.
Sec. 305. This section requires HUD to award funds on a
competitive basis unless otherwise provided.
Sec. 306. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse
GSEs and other Federal entities for various administrative
expenses.
Sec. 307. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set
out in the budget justification.
Sec. 308. This section clarifies expenditure authority for
entities subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
Sec. 309. This section requires HUD to submit certain
additional information as part of its annual budget
justifications.
Sec. 310. This section requires quarterly reports on all
uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD
programs.
Sec. 311. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8
assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing that is
occupied primarily by the elderly or disabled.
Sec. 312. This section corrects the award of HOPWA funding
for New Jersey and Delaware.
Sec. 313. This section requires HUD to submit its fiscal
year 2006 budget justifications according to congressional
requirements.
Sec. 314. This section requires vouchers for non-elderly
disabled families to be renewed, to the extent practicable, to
non-elderly disabled families.
Sec. 315. This section exempts Alaska, Iowa, and
Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA resident on
the board of directors for fiscal year 2006. Instead, the
public housing agencies in these States are required to
establish advisory boards that include public housing tenants
and section 8 recipients.
Sec. 316. This section reforms certain section 8 rent
calculations as to athletic scholarships.
Sec. 317. This section provides allocation requirements for
Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block
Grant program.
Sec. 318. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer
of existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from
obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the
assisted tenants.
Sec. 319. This section provides a 3-year extension of the
Moving to Work Demonstration Agreements that would expire on or
before September 30, 2006.
Sec. 320. This section requires vouchers for family
unification to be renewed, to the extent practicable, for the
family unification.

TITLE IV--THE JUDICIARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Established under article three of the Constitution, the
Judicial Branch of government is a separate but equal branch.
The Federal Judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, United
States Courts of Appeals, District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts,
Court of International Trade, Court of Federal Claims and
several other entities and programs. The organization of the
Judiciary, the district and circuit boundaries, the places of
holding court, and the number of Federal judges are passed by
the Congress and signed by the President.
The Committee's recommended funding levels support the
Federal Judiciary's role of providing equal justice under the
law and include sufficient funds to support this critical
mission. The recommended funding level includes the salaries of
judges and support staff and the operation and security of our
Nation's courts.
The Judiciary has made commendable steps toward greater
efficiency and automation which will continue to benefit all
who are dependent upon the third branch of government for
timely and effective hearings and trials. The Committee
supports the Judiciary in this effort.
The Judicial Branch is reminded that it, too, is subject to
the same funding constraints facing the Executive and
Legislative Branches and continues to urge the Federal
Judiciary to devote its resources primarily to the retention of
current staff. Further, the Judiciary is encouraged to contain
controllable costs such as travel, construction, and other non-
essential expenses.
In addition, the Judiciary is reminded that Section 705 of
the accompanying Act applies to the Judicial as well as the
Executive Branch.

Supreme Court of the United States

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $57,370,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 60,730,000
House allowance......................................... 60,730,000
Committee recommendation................................ 60,730,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Supreme Court consists of nine justices,
one of whom is appointed as Chief Justice of the United States.
The Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter in the Federal
court system.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $60,730,000
for the Justices, their supporting personnel, and the costs of
operating the Supreme Court, excluding the care of the building
and grounds. The recommendation is $3,360,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 funding level and identical to the budget request.

CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $9,846,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 5,624,000
House allowance......................................... 5,624,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,624,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,624,000 for
personnel and other services related to the Supreme Court
building and grounds, which is supervised by the Architect of
the Capitol. The recommendation is $4,222,000 below the fiscal
year 2005 funding level and identical to the budget request.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $21,520,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 26,462,000
House allowance......................................... 24,613,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,489,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
was established under Article III of the Constitution on
October 1, 1982. The court was formed by the merger of the
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the
appellate division of the United States Court of Claims. The
court consists of twelve judges who are appointed by the
President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Judges
are appointed to the court for life under Article III of the
Constitution of the United States.
The Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction in a
variety of subject matter, including international trade,
government contracts, patents, certain claims for money from
the United States Government, Federal personnel, and veterans'
benefits. Appeals to the court come from all Federal district
courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, the United
States Court of International Trade, and the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. The court also takes appeals of
certain administrative agencies' decisions, including the Merit
Systems Protection Board, the Board of Contract Appeals, the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and the Trademark
Trial and Appeals Board. Decisions of the United States
International Trade Commission, the Office of Compliance of the
United States Congress and the Government Accounting Office
Personnel Appeals Board are also reviewed by the court.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,489,000.
The recommendation is $1,969,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level and $2,973,000 below the budget request.
The Committee does not support the court's request for
$576,000 to enhance technology in the courtrooms and directs
the court to focus their resources on hiring and retaining
highly qualified staff. In addition, the Committee is not
providing additional resources for perimeter security barriers
or to implement an information recovery plan. The Committee
believes that these efforts, if necessary, should be funded
within available resources.

U.S. Court of International Trade

salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $14,713,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 15,480,000
House allowance......................................... 15,480,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,480,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Court of International Trade, located in
Manhattan, New York City, consists of nine Article III judges.
The court has sole jurisdiction over civil actions brought
against the United States, its agencies and officers, and
certain civil actions brought by the United States, arising out
of import transactions and the administration and enforcement
of the Federal customs and international trade laws.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,480,000.
The recommendation is $767,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level and the same as the budget request.

Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $4,125,321,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 4,478,744,000
House allowance......................................... 4,348,780,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,374,959,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Salaries and Expenses is one of four accounts that provide
total funding for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts and
Other Judicial Services. In addition to funding the salaries of
judges and support staff, this account also funds the operating
costs of appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and
probation and pretrial services offices.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$4,374,959,000. The recommendation is $254,638,000 above the
fiscal year 2005 funding level and $103,785,000 below the
budget request.
The Committee is aware of the growing workload facing our
Federal courts and has adequately funded this account to enable
the courts to meet their rising workload demands. As already
stated, the Committee urges the Judicial Conference to make the
retention of personnel its top priority.
Rent.--The Committee is concerned about the rising costs
associated with the Judiciary's rent bill. The Committee is
aware and is supportive of the Judiciary's efforts to work with
the General Services Administration to find ways to reduce
rising rent costs.
To reduce this rapidly-growing burden, the Committee urges
the Judicial Conference to continue to carefully consider the
size and scope of future construction projects and to consider
other remedies, such as courtroom sharing, that will lessen the
space needs required by the Judiciary.
To assist the Committee in better understanding this
complex issue, the Administrative Office will report to the
Committee no more than 120 days after the enactment of this Act
on the financial savings that could be accomplished through
courtroom sharing. As the Judiciary's rent needs continue to
rise, the Committee believes the Judiciary must examine whether
greater efficiencies and savings could be achieved through
revisions to its one courtroom per judge policy. While the
Committee agrees with the Judiciary's aim to provide adequate
access to our justice system and timely trials, the Committee
is concerned that such a blanket policy inevitably leads to
greater costs and inefficiencies for the Nation's Federal
courts. This report should include, at a minimum, analysis
detailing the number of courtrooms as compared to the number of
Federal judges, the number of senior judges that continue to
maintain sole use of a courtroom, the districts in which enough
space is available that courtroom sharing could realistically
occur and the financial savings this would achieve for the
Federal Judiciary.
Judiciary Information Technology Fund.--The Committee does
not support the full request for the Judiciary Information
Technology Fund [JITF]. The Committee does not support the
request for $595,000 for additional court automation support
personnel or the program increase of $5,457,000 for new
automated systems and infrastructure improvements. In addition,
the Committee continues to deny the request for increased funds
to provide broadband remote access for court personnel. While
funds for such requests will inevitably enhance the Federal
court's operating abilities, they are a lower priority at this
time.
In addition to submitting a separate financial plan for
JITF, the Committee directs the Administrative Office to submit
an additional annual report detailing expenditures for each
ongoing JITF project as compared to its operations and
maintenance costs.
Booker/Fanfan.--The Committee is concerned about increased
workload projections resulting from the twin Supreme Court
decisions United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan.
In the fiscal year 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief
(Public Law 109-13), the Judiciary requested $91,300,000 to
handle the unexpected increase in Federal habeas corpus
petitions, criminal appeals and other motions that were
predicted to result from this decision.
To assist the Committee in understanding the tangible
effects of these cases, the Administrative Office is directed
to report to the Committee no later than June 1, 2006, on the
actual increases in workload that have resulted from these
decisions. This analysis should include statistical data
demonstrating the relevant post-Booker/Fanfan increases in
appeals, remands, habeas cases and other motions as compared to
similar time periods pre-Booker/Fanfan. The report should also
include analysis detailing the expenditure of funds directly
related to these decisions.

VACCINE INJURY TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $3,254,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 3,833,000
House allowance......................................... 3,833,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,833,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Enacted by The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-660), the Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program is a Federal no-fault program designed to resolve a
perceived crisis in vaccine tort liability claims that
threatened the continued availability of childhood vaccines
nationwide. The statute's primary intention is the creation of
a more efficient adjudicatory mechanism that ensures a no-fault
compensation result for those allegedly injured or killed by
certain covered vaccines. This program protects the
availability of vaccines in the United States by diverting a
substantial number of claims from the tort arena.
Not only did this Act create a special fund to pay
judgments awarded under the Act, but it also created the Office
of Special Masters [OSM] within the United States Court of
Federal Claims to hear vaccine injury cases. The Act stipulates
that up to eight special masters may be appointed for this
purpose. The special masters expenditures are reimbursed to the
Judiciary for Vaccine Injury cases from a special fund set up
under the Vaccine Act.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,833,000.
The recommendation is $579,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level and consistent with the budget request.

Defender Services

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $667,351,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 768,064,000
House allowance......................................... 721,919,000
Committee recommendation................................ 710,785,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Defender Services program ensures the right to counsel
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the Criminal Justice Act (18
U.S.C. 3006A(e)) and other congressional mandates for those who
cannot afford to retain counsel and other necessary defense
services. The Criminal Justice Act provides that courts appoint
counsel from Federal public and community defender
organizations or from a panel of private attorneys established
by the court. The Defender Services program helps to maintain
public confidence in the Nation's commitment to equal justice
under the law and ensures the successful operation of the
constitutionally-based adversary system of justice by which
Federal criminal laws and federally guaranteed rights are
enforced.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $710,785,000.
The recommendation is $43,434,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level and $57,279,000 below the budget request.
The Committee recognizes the important work provided by the
Defender Services program and has provided sufficient funds to
enable it to meet is mission of providing timely counsel
services that are consistent with the best practices of the
legal profession.
Criminal Justice Act Panel Attorney Rates.--Criminal
Justice Act [CJA] attorneys serve on a panel of private
attorneys maintained by the district court and are assigned to
represent a financially eligible defendant. The Committee has
provided sufficient funds to annualize the pay raise enacted in
fiscal year 2005 for CJA attorneys but denies the request for
an additional rate increase through a cost-of-living adjustment
for these attorneys.

Fees of Jurors and Commissioners

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $60,713,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 71,318,000
House allowance......................................... 60,053,000
Committee recommendation................................ 61,318,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for the statutory fees and allowances
of grand and petit jurors and for the compensation of jury and
land commissioners. Budgetary requirements depend primarily
upon the volume and the length of jury trials demanded by
parties to both civil and criminal actions and the number of
grand juries being convened by the courts at the request of the
United States Attorneys.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $61,318,000.
The recommendation is $605,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level and reflects the Judiciary's reestimate of fiscal
year 2006 requirements.

Court Security

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $327,565,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 390,316,000
House allowance......................................... 379,461,000
Committee recommendation................................ 372,426,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Court Security appropriation was established in 1983
and funds the necessary expenses incident to the provision of
protective guard services, and the procurement, installation,
and maintenance of security systems and equipment for United
States courthouses and other facilities housing Federal court
operations, including building access control, inspection of
mail and packages, directed security patrols, perimeter
security provided by the Federal Protective Service, and other
similar activities as authorized by section 1010 of the
Judicial Improvement and Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-
702).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $372,426,000.
The recommendation is $44,861,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level and $17,890,000 below the budget request.
The Committee is concerned about the security of the United
States Courthouses and the safety of all Judicial employees and
urges the Administrative Office to continue to work closely
with the United States Marshals Service to forge an effective
and lasting accommodation to achieve this common goal.

Administrative Office of the United States Courts

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $67,289,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 72,198,000
House allowance......................................... 70,262,000
Committee recommendation................................ 72,198,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administrative Office [AO] of the United States Courts
was created in 1939 by an Act of Congress. It serves the
Federal Judiciary in carrying out its constitutional mission to
provide equal justice under the law. Beyond providing numerous
services to the Federal courts, the AO provides support and
staff counsel to the Judicial Conference of the United States
and its committees, and implements Judicial Conference policies
as well as applicable Federal statutes and regulations. The AO
is the focal point for communication and coordination within
the Judiciary and with Congress, the executive branch, and the
public on behalf of the Judiciary.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $72,198,000.
This recommendation is $4,909,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level and the same as the budget request.
The Committee recognizes and lauds the efforts of the AO
and the Executive Committee to implement cost-savings measures
during this time of limited resources. The Committee urges the
AO to continue to work with the local courts to ensure the
hiring and retention of court staff remains the top priority.
Edwin L. Nelson Local Initiative Program.--As established
in the fiscal year 2005 Appropriations Act, the Edwin L. Nelson
Local Initiative Program made grants available to local courts
to develop and implement information technology solutions for
the unique problems they face. Such grants ensure greater
flexibility, access to funds, information sharing and input
into the various obstacles that must be overcome to produce a
more automated and efficient Federal Judiciary. The Committee
urges the AO to continue to work with and provide adequate
resources to the local courts for this purpose.
NAPA.--Over the past several years, the Federal Judiciary
has experienced a variety of resource and management issues
including rising rent costs, rising court caseloads in some
districts of the country as well as other challenges that have
resulted in budget shortfalls. These shortfalls have forced the
Judiciary to seek supplemental appropriations and implement
cost containment and cost reduction actions across the country.
The Committee believes that an independent review of the
overall budget formulation and execution processes, the work
measurement formula and the organizational, programmatic and
management structures is appropriate. The Committee believes
that such a review would benefit both the Federal Judiciary and
the Congress because it would provide insight as to what
improvements and changes to the financial and management
processes could be made to lessen budgetary problems in the
future. Therefore, the Committee has allocated $1,000,000 to
the Administrative Office of the Court's appropriation for the
purpose of contracting with the National Academy of Public
Administration for such a review. The review is to begin within
2 months of the passage of this legislation.

Federal Judicial Center

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $21,447,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 22,876,000
House allowance......................................... 22,249,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,350,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Judicial Center [FJC], located in Washington,
DC, improves the management of Federal Judicial dockets and
court administration through education for judges and staff and
research, evaluation, and planning assistance for the courts
and the Judicial Conference. The Center's responsibilities
include teaching judges and other Judicial Branch personnel
about legal developments and efficient litigation management
and court administration. Additionally, the Center also
analyzes the efficacy of case and court management procedures
and ensures the Federal Judiciary is aware of the methods of
best practice.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,350,000.
The recommendation is $903,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level and $526,000 below the budget request.

Judicial Retirement Funds

PAYMENT TO JUDICIARY TRUST FUNDS

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $36,700,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 40,600,000
House allowance......................................... 40,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,600,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The funds in this account cover the estimated annuity
payments to be made to retired bankruptcy judges and magistrate
judges, claims court judges, and spouses and dependent children
of deceased Judicial officers.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,600,000
for payments to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund and the
Claims Court Judges Retirement Fund. The recommendation is
$3,900,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding level and
identical to the budget request.

United States Sentencing Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $13,126,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 14,700,000
House allowance......................................... 14,046,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,700,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Sentencing Commission establishes,
reviews and revises sentencing guidelines, policies and
practices for the Federal criminal justice system. The
Commission is also required to monitor the operation of the
guidelines and to identify and report necessary changes to the
Congress.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,700,000.
The recommendation is $1,574,000 above the fiscal year 2005
funding level and consistent with the budget request.
Booker/Fanfan.--The Committee is aware of the impact the
twin Supreme Court decisions United States v. Booker and United
States v. Fanfan have had on Federal sentencing. The Committee
commends the Sentencing Commission for its efforts to
statistically track the actual affects this decision has had on
the Federal Judiciary.
As such, the Committee directs the Commission, in
cooperation with the Administrative Office, to provide a
comprehensive report to the Committee on Appropriations no
later than June 1, 2006, on the affects these decisions have
had on Federal sentencing. The report should present analysis
showing the number of downward departures from the previously
enacted mandatory minimums and the major reasons cited for such
departures.

Administrative Provisions--The Judiciary

The Committee recommends the following general provisions
for the Judiciary.
Section 401 allows the Judiciary to expend funds for the
employment of experts and consultant services.
Section 402 allows the Judiciary, subject to the
Committee's reprogramming procedures, to transfer up to 5
percent between appropriations, but limits to 10 percent the
amount that can be transferred into any one appropriation.
Section 403 limits official reception and representation
expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United
States to no more than $11,000.
Section 404 requires the Administrative Office to submit an
annual financial plan for the Judiciary.
Section 405 allows for a salary adjustment for Justices and
judges.
Section 406 preserves a temporary judgeship in Missouri.
Section 407 directs GAO to report on the potential impact
of Homeland Security funding increases to enhance border
security and immigration laws.

TITLE V--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO
THE PRESIDENT

Compensation of the President

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $450,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\...............................................
House allowance......................................... 450,000
Committee recommendation................................ 450,000

\1\ The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White
House of $183,271,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for the compensation of the
President, including an expense allowance as authorized by 3
U.S.C. 102.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $450,000 for
Compensation of the President, including an expense allowance
of $50,000. This is the same as the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level and the same as the budget estimate. The expense account
is for official use as authorized by Title 3 of U.S. Code and
is not considered taxable to the President. The bill specifies
that any unused amount shall revert to the Treasury consistent
with 31 U.S.C. 1552.

White House Office

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $61,504,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\...............................................
House allowance......................................... 53,080,000
Committee recommendation................................ 58,081,000

\1\ The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White
House of $183,271,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Salaries and Expenses account of the White House Office
provides staff assistance and administrative services for the
direct support of the President. The office also serves as the
President's representative before the media. In accordance with
3 U.S.C. 105, the office also supports and assists the
activities of the First Lady.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $58,081,000
for White House Office Salaries and Expenses. The
recommendation is $3,423,000 less than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level.
The Committee has rejected the administration's request to
include many of the offices under the Executive Office of the
President under a single, consolidated account. The Committee
objects to the overall proposal since it would undermine the
ability of the Congress to exercise adequate oversight
regarding how these funds are expended. Nevertheless, the
Committee has incorporated the responsibilities of the Office
of Policy Development [OPD] into the ``Salaries and Expenses''
account of the White House Office. This represents some
$3,501,000 of funding for OPD. The Committee agrees with the
administration that this consolidation is a logical approach
that will allow the White House to better manage its resources.
The Committee includes $1,500,000 for the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board. The Committee also supports
transferring the funds to the White House Communications Agency
to the Department of Defense's Defense Information Agency.

Executive Residence at the White House

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $12,658,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\...............................................
House allowance......................................... 12,436,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,436,000

\1\ The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White
House of $183,271,000, including this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These funds provide for the care, maintenance,
refurnishing, improvement, heating, and lighting, including
electrical power and fixtures, of the Executive Residence.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,436,000
for the Executive Residence at the White House. The Committee
recommendation is $222,000 less than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level and is equal to certain assumptions in the budget
estimate. In particular, the administration's request includes
many of the accounts under the Executive Office of the
President under a single, consolidated account, including this
account. The Committee objects to the overall proposal since it
would undermine the ability of the Congress to exercise
adequate oversight regarding how these funds are expended. The
accompanying bill also continues certain restrictions on
reimbursable expenses for use of the Executive Residence that
were enacted for fiscal year 2004.

WHITE HOUSE REPAIR AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,885,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\...............................................
House allowance......................................... 1,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,700,000

\1\ The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White
House of $183,271,000, including this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the repair, alteration, and improvement
of the Executive Residence at the White House, a separate
account was established in fiscal year 1996 to program and
track expenditures for the capital improvement projects at the
Executive Residence at the White House.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,700,000 for
White House Repair and Restoration, the same amount as assumed
in the overall budget request and a reduction of $185,000 from
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

Council of Economic Advisers

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $4,008,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\............................... 4,040,000
House allowance......................................... 4,040,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,040,000

\1\ The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White
House of $183,271,000, including this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Council of Economic Advisors analyzes the national
economy and its various segments, advises the President on
economic developments, recommends policies for economic growth
and stability, appraises economic programs and policies of the
Federal Government, and assists in the preparation of the
annual Economic Report of the President to Congress.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,040,000 for
salaries and expenses of the Council of Economic Advisers. This
amount is the same as the amount assumed in the overall budget
request and is $32,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level.

Office of Policy Development

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $2,282,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\...............................................
House allowance......................................... 3,500,000
Committee recommendation................................................

\1\ This budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts of the White
House of $183,271,000, including this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Policy Development supports the National
Economic Council and the Domestic Policy Council, in carrying
out their responsibilities to advise and assist the President
in the formulation, coordination, and implementation of
economic and domestic policy. The Office of Policy Development
also provides support for other domestic policy development and
implementation activities as directed by the President.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend funds for the Office of
Policy Development as an independent office and has merged the
office and funds into the White House Office. In particular,
the administration's request includes many of the accounts
under the Executive Office of the President under a single,
consolidated account, including this account. While the
Committee objects to the overall proposal since it would
undermine the ability of the Congress to exercise adequate
oversight regarding how these funds are expended, the Committee
believes this merger will facilitate a better use of these
funds while preserving adequate oversight of their use.

National Security Council

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $8,860,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\...............................................
House allowance......................................... 8,705,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,705,000

\1\ The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts of the White
House of $183,271,000, including this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Security Council advises the President in
integrating domestic, foreign, and military policies relating
to the national security.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,705,000 for
the salaries and expenses of the National Security Council
[NSC]. This amount is the same as assumed in the budget request
and $156,000 less than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. In
particular, the administration's request includes many of the
accounts under the Executive Office of the President under a
single, consolidated account, including this account. The
Committee objects to the overall proposal since it would
undermine the ability of the Congress to exercise adequate
oversight regarding how these funds are expended.

Office of Administration

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $91,530,000
Budget estimate, 2006 \1\...............................................
House allowance......................................... 89,322,000
Committee recommendation................................ 98,609,000

\1\ This budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts of the White
House of $183,271,000 including this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Administration's mission is to provide high-
quality, cost-effective administrative services to the
Executive Office of the President. These services, defined by
Executive Order 12028 of 1977, include financial, personnel,
library and records services, information management systems
support, and general office services.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $98,609,000 to the Office of
Administration for fiscal year 2006 an increase of $7,078,000
over the enacted level and the same amount assumed in the
overall budget request. As previously noted, the
administration's request includes many of the accounts under
the Executive Office of the President under a single,
consolidated account, including this account. The Committee
objects to the overall proposal since it would undermine the
ability of the Congress to exercise adequate oversight
regarding how these funds are expended.
The Committee includes the funding levels for the Office of
Administration activities at the proposed levels included in
its budget justifications. In addition to the recommended level
of funding, the Office of Administration receives
reimbursements for information management support and general
office services.

Office of Management and Budget

salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2005 \1\................................ $67,864,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 68,411,000
House allowance......................................... 76,930,000
Committee recommendation................................ 68,411,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Management and Budget [OMB] assists the
President in the discharge of his budgetary, management, and
other executive responsibilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $68,411,000
for the Office of Management and Budget which is $547,000 more
than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and the same as the
budget request.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $26,784,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 24,224,000
House allowance......................................... 26,908,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,224,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP],
established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and
reauthorized by Public Law 105-277, is charged with developing
policies, objectives and priorities for the National Drug
Control Program. In addition, ONDCP administers the Counterdrug
Technology Assessment Center, the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas program, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign, the Drug Free Communities Program and several other
related initiatives.
This account provides funding for personnel compensation,
travel, and other basic operations of the Office, and for
general policy research to support the formulation of the
National Drug Control Strategy.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,224,000
for ONDCP's salaries and expenses. This amount is the same as
the budget request and $2,560,000 below the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. This funding decrease is the result of including
the rental funds in the Office of Administration as part of the
effort to centrally administer common enterprise services for
the Executive Office of the President [EOP]. This funding would
include $5,000,000 for health services. Within the overall
funding level, $22,908,000 is for Operations and 123 FTEs as
requested and $1,316,000 for Policy and Research.

COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $41,664,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 30,000,000
House allowance......................................... 30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center [CTAC] was
established by the Counter-Narcotics Technology Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-510) and reauthorized in 1998 (Public Law 105-
277) to serve as the central counterdrug technology research
and development organization for the United States Government.
CTAC encompasses two separate functions: (1) the Research and
Development program [R&D], which supports improvements to
counterdrug capabilities that transcend the need of any single
Federal agency; and (2) the Technology Transfer Program [TTP],
which provides state-of-the-art, affordable, easily integrated
and maintainable tools to enhance the capabilities of State and
local law enforcement agencies for counterdrug missions.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,000,000
for the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, a decrease of
$11,664,000 from the fiscal year 2005 enacted levels and the
same as the President's request. Included in the appropriation
is $12,000,000 for demand reduction R&D and $18,000,000 for the
Technology Transfer Program. The Committee continues to support
the mandate that CTAC's authority ``shall not extend to
contracts, management of individual projects, or other
operational activities,'' but rather must continue to transfer
its appropriated funds to Contracting and Technical Agents at
other Federal and military departments and agencies.
The Committee agrees that it is time to review and assess
the future of this program and determine where to emphasize
future funding; ``The Director, acting through the Director of
Technology,'' is instructed to prepare an analysis of options
and recommendations for the future course of counter drug
technology research and submit the report with the fiscal year
2007 budget submission to the Committee.
Demand Reduction R&D.--Although it is time to review and
assess the CTAC Federal law enforcement component of the R&D
program, the Committee fully supports continuing the CTAC
demand reduction program. The Committee directs ONDCP to
continue the imaging system instrumentation validation efforts
that are enabling advanced research at our Nation's prestigious
substance abuse academic institutions. The peer-reviewed
research publication from these institutions clearly
demonstrate that prior CTAC investments in instrumentation are
achieving their objective of enabling research that could not
be accomplished before and that these prestigious institutions
should continue their substance abuse research and education
efforts. Considering the quality of the substance abuse peer-
reviewed publications made possible by the instrumentation
program, the Committee directs that CTAC reinstitute a demand
instrumentation infrastructure development program.
Technology Transfer Program.--The Committee believes that
this program demonstrates the best direct assistance the
Federal Government has to offer to State and local law
enforcement. The Committee is encouraged by the positive
reception this program continues to receive by State and local
law enforcement agencies. This positive reception prompts the
Committee to request that the fiscal year 2007 budget request
include a specific accounting of the total number of TTP
applications received and the number awarded in the previous
year so that the Committee may have a true understanding of
CTAC's ability to meet demand.

Funds Appropriated to the President

FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

HIGH-INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $226,523,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 100,000,000
House allowance......................................... 227,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 227,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program
was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended,
and the Office of National Drug Control Policy's
reauthorization (Public Law 105-277) to provide assistance to
Federal, State and local law enforcement entities operating in
those areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $227,000,000
for the HIDTA program an increase of $477,000 over the fiscal
year 2005 level, and $127,000,000 over the budget request which
also transferred the program to the Department of Justice. This
program is an important function of ONDCP and should not be
transferred. The Committee directs that funding shall be
provided for the existing HIDTAs at no less than the fiscal
year 2005 initial allocation level, unless the Director submits
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and the
Committees approve, a request for reprogramming of the funds
based on clearly articulated priorities for the HIDTA program,
as well as published ONDCP performance measures of
effectiveness. Furthermore, the Committee directs the Director
to take appropriate steps to ensure that the HIDTA funds are
transferred to the appropriate drug control agencies
expeditiously.
In allocating HIDTA funds, the Committee expects the
Director of ONDCP to ensure that the entities receiving these
limited resources make use of them strictly for implementing
the strategy for each HIDTA, taking into consideration local
conditions and resource requirements. In this regard,
methamphetamine is a primary illicit drug threat across the
country. Its widespread use and resulting addiction, combined
with the overwhelming availability of high purity, low cost
methamphetamine is cause for serious concern. Cocaine and
heroin also represent significant threats and Ecstasy is an
increasing danger. Marijuana is readily available and widely
abused across the United States. Canada-produced marijuana,
commonly known as BC Bud, and potent marijuana from the
Appalachian States are two examples that demonstrate the value
of marijuana eradication programs.
The HIDTA funds should not be used to supplant existing
support for ongoing Federal, State, or local drug control
operations normally funded out of the operating budgets of each
agency. ONDCP is directed to hold back all HIDTA funds from a
State until such time as a State or locality has met its
financial obligation.
Allocation of Additional Funds.--The Committee is
disappointed that ONDCP continues to seek to distribute those
limited HIDTA funds available beyond the initial allocation in
support of pursuing drug trafficking organizations [DTOs]
included on the Federal consolidated priority organizational
target [CPOT] list. Such efforts, which target a small number
of the largest international DTOs, already receive a
substantial commitment of resources from Federal counterdrug
enforcement agencies. While there may be some correlation
between the methods and goals of the HIDTA program and Federal
CPOT efforts, the Committee remains unconvinced that use of
HIDTA resources in support of CPOT enforcement is an
appropriate expenditure of these funds. HIDTAs are designated
to address regional and local problems with illegal drug
trafficking and use. Most HIDTAs face drug threats that are, at
most, tangentially international in nature. Accordingly, the
Committee has included a provision in the bill prohibiting the
expenditure of HIDTA funds in support of CPOT activities.
New Counties.--Funds added above the budget request that
would have been used on CPOT should be directed to the Regional
Drug Trafficking Organization investigations, and focused
specifically at curbing Methamphetamine. In addition, the
Committee directs ONDCP in submission of its budget materials
and related documentation and communications to refer to new
counties only as those counties that have not previously
received funding, not counties that have received funding and
are expanding.
The Committee directs ONDCP to refocus its distribution of
HIDTA funding in excess of the initial allocation on enhancing
the domestic interdiction of illegal drugs by launching
additional investigations, by disrupting and dismantling local
mid-level drug trafficking organizations through a systematic
and coordinated effort and by supporting the various HIDTA
Intelligence Support Centers throughout the country.

OTHER FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $211,990,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 213,300,000
House allowance......................................... 213,292,000
Committee recommendation................................ 191,400,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690), as
amended, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy's
reauthorization (Public Law 105-277) established the Special
Forfeiture Fund to be administered by the Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy in support of high
priority drug control programs. The account's name was changed
to Other Federal Drug Control Programs in fiscal year 2004 to
reflect the fact that it is now wholly funded by direct
appropriations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $191,400,000
for Other Federal Drug Control Programs, which is $21,900,000
less than the requested amount and $20,590,000 less than the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Within this amount, the
Committee provides the following funding levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign................. $95,000,000
Drug Free Communities Support Program................... 80,000,000
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency................................. 9,500,000
National Drug Court Institute........................... 1,000,000
National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws............. 1,000,000
Performance Measure Development......................... 2,000,000
World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA]......................... 2,900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.--The Committee has
provided consistent monetary support for the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign since it was initially funded by
Congress in fiscal year 1998. The Committee continues to be
concerned about the direction and efficacy of the Media
Campaign as it is currently structured, the Committee provides
$95,000,000 for its continuation.
The Committee remains concerned with the large proportion
of Media Campaign resources devoted to administrative costs.
The accompanying bill therefore directs that no more than 10
percent of the funding provided for the Media Campaign be used
for administrative costs.
Drug-Free Communities Support Program.--ONDCP has directed
the Drug-Free Communities Support Program [DFCSP] in
partnership with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention since it was created by the Drug-Free Communities
Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-20). DFCSP provides matching grants
of up to 25 percent to local coalitions that mobilize their
communities to prevent youth alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug,
and inhalant abuse. Such grants support coalitions of youth;
parents; media; law enforcement; school officials; faith-based
organizations; fraternal organizations; State, local, and
tribal government agencies; healthcare professionals; and other
community representatives. The DCSP enables these coalitions to
strengthen their coordination and prevention efforts, encourage
citizen participation in substance abuse reduction efforts, and
disseminate information about effective programs. The Committee
provides $80,000,000 for the continuation of the DFCSP.
The Committee has also included a provision in the bill
directing ONDCP to provide $2,000,000 of the DFSCP funding as a
direct grant to the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America
in order to sustain the National Community Anti-Drug Coalition
Institute.
United States Anti-Doping Agency.--The United States Anti-
Doping Agency [USADA] is the independent anti-doping agency for
Olympic sports in the United States, and is responsible for
managing the testing and adjudication process for U.S. Olympic,
Pan Am and Paralympic athletes. As a non-profit corporation
under the leadership of an independent Board of Directors,
USADA has the authority to set forth guiding principles in
anti-doping policy and to enforce any doping violations. In
addition to managing collection and testing procedures, USADA
is also responsible for enhancing research efforts and
promoting educational programs to inform athletes of the rules
governing the use of performance enhancing substances, the
ethics of doping and its harmful health effects.
The Committee provides $9,500,000 for USADA, which is
$2,100,000 more than the requested amount. In addition, the
Committee has closely followed the progress of the United
States Anti-Doping Agency [USADA] in its mission to preserve
the integrity of Olympic sport and protect the health of
America's athletes. USADA's recent efforts with respect to the
Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative [BALCO] provide one example of
the challenges facing USADA and of the sophisticated doping
practices of those few athletes who wish to cheat their fellow
athletes. USADA's role in uncovering the BALCO conspiracy, and
holding those athletes involved accountable for their choice to
cheat, is one example of why USADA is now considered to be the
model for anti-doping agencies throughout the world. While the
Committee applauds the administration for increasing their
request from $1,500,000 for USADA in the fiscal year 2005
budget request to $7,400,000 for fiscal year 2006, the
Committee has provided $9,500,000 because of the upcoming
Winter Olympics in Torino, Italy in February 2006.
World Anti-Doping Agency.--ONDCP is a full participant in
the World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA], which promotes and
coordinates international activities against doping in all
forms of sports. The Committee provides $2,900,000 for
membership dues to the WADA, consistent with the commitment
into which the United States has entered for support of WADA.
In providing these funds, the Committee directs ONDCP to use
its voice and vote as the United States' representative in this
world body to ensure that all countries' athletes are subject
to fair and equal standards and treatment so as to establish
and maintain the objectivity and integrity of this fledgling
international athletic regulatory organization.
National Drug Court Institute.--The National Drug Court
Institute facilitates the growth of the drug court movement by
promoting and disseminating education, research, and
scholarship concerning drug court programs and providing a
comprehensive drug court training series for practitioners.
Drug courts provide an effective means to fight drug-related
crime through the cooperative efforts of State and local law
enforcement, the judicial system, and the public health
treatment network. The Committee provides $1,000,000 for the
National Drug Court Institute.
National Alliance For Model State Drug Laws.--The National
Alliance for Model State Drug Laws [NAMSDL] is a national
organization that drafts, researches, and analyzes model drug
and alcohol laws and related State statutes, provides access to
a national network of drug and alcohol experts, and facilitates
working relationships among State and community leaders and
drug and alcohol professionals. In doing so, NAMSDL encourages
States to adopt and implement laws, policies, and regulations
to reduce drug trafficking, drug use, and their related
consequences. The Committee provides $1,000,000 NAMSDL and
directs ONDCP to provide the entire amount directly to NAMSDL
within 30 days after enactment of this Act.
Performance Measures Development.--Performance Measures
Development [PMD] funding is used to conduct evaluation
research for assessing the effectiveness of the National Drug
Control Strategy. For this function, the Committee provides
$2,000,000, which is the same as the requested amount.
Projects undertaken with these resources are to entail
efforts to encourage and work with selected programs to develop
and improve needed data sources. The Committee is concerned
that most of the initiatives proposed for funding under PMD
would be more appropriately funded via CTAC's R&D Program or
ONDCP Policy Research.

Unanticipated Needs

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $992,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These funds enable the President to meet unanticipated
exigencies in support of the national interest, security, or
defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,000,000, which is $8,000 more
than appropriated in fiscal year 2005 and the same as the
budget request.

Special Assistance to the President

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $4,534,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 4,455,000
House allowance......................................... 4,455,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,455,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides for staff and expenses to
enable the Vice President to provide assistance to the
President in connection with the performance of executive
duties and responsibilities. The Vice President also has a
staff funded by the Senate to assist him in the performance of
his legislative duties. These funds also support the official
activities of the spouse of the Vice President.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,455,000 for
special assistance to the President. This amount is the same as
the budget request and $75,000 below than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level.

Official Residence of the Vice President

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $330,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 325,000
House allowance......................................... 325,000
Committee recommendation................................ 325,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account supports the care and operation of the Vice
President's residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory.
These funds specifically support equipment, furnishings, dining
facilities, and services required to perform and discharge the
Vice President's official duties, functions and obligations.
Funds to renovate the residence are provided through the
Department of the Navy budget. The Committee has had a
longstanding interest in the condition of the residence and
expects to be kept fully apprised by the Vice President's
office of any and all renovations and alterations made to the
residence by the Navy.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $325,000 for
the official residence of the Vice President. This amount is
the same as the budget request and $5,000 less than the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level.

TITLE VI--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $5,641,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 5,941,000
House allowance......................................... 5,941,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,941,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board) was established by section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board was reauthorized
in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, Public Law 102-
569. Under this authorization, the Access Board's functions are
to ensure compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act of
1968, the Telecommunication Act and to develop guidelines for
and technical assistance to individuals and entities with
rights or duties under titles II and III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes minimum
accessibility guidelines and requirements for public
accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities
and vehicles, State and local government facilities, children's
environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board
also provides technical assistance to Government agencies,
public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses
on the removal of accessibility barriers.
In 2002, the Access Board was given additional
responsibilities under the Help America Vote Act. The Access
Board serves on the Board of Advisors and the Technical
Guidelines Development Committee, which helps Election
Assistance Commission develop voluntary guidelines and guidance
for voting systems, including accessibility for people with
disabilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,941,000 for the operations of
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
the funding level requested by the administration and $300,000
over the fiscal year 2005 level.

Consumer Product Safety Commission

salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $62,149,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 62,499,000
House allowance......................................... 62,449,000
Committee recommendation................................ 63,000,000

program description

The Commission is an independent regulatory agency that was
established on May 14, 1973, and is responsible for protecting
the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer
products; assisting consumers to evaluate the comparative
safety of consumer products; developing uniform safety
standards for consumer products and minimizing conflicting
State and local regulations; and promoting research and
investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related
deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
In carrying out its mandate, the Commission establishes
mandatory product safety standards, where appropriate, to
reduce the unreasonable risk of injury to consumers from
consumer products; helps industry develop voluntary safety
standards; bans unsafe products if it finds that a safety
standard is not feasible; monitors recalls of defective
products; informs and educates consumers about product hazards;
conducts research and develops test methods; collects and
publishes injury and hazard data, and promotes uniform product
regulations by governmental units.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends $63,000,000 for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, which is $500,000 over the budget
request and an increase of $850,000 above the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. The Committee includes up to $500,000 for the
Commission to coordinate with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency in the technical study pursuant
to H.R. 2361, as passed by the Senate in the first session of
the 109th Congress, to examine safety issues, including the
risk of fire and burn to consumers in use, associated with
compliance with small engines emissions regulations required
pursuant to Public Law 108-199. The Committee directs the CPSC,
in coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
in the Agency's study, to ensure that the study examines real-
world consumer use scenarios involving at a minimum: operator
burn, fire due to contact with flammable items, and refueling.

Election Assistance Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $13,888,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 17,612,000
House allowance......................................... 15,877,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,888,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Election Assistance Commission [EAC] was created by the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 [HAVA]. Under HAVA, the EAC's
role is to promulgate voluntary State guidelines for election
systems, develop a national certification program for voting
equipment, and provide related guidance. The EAC is also
charged with awarding grants to improve election administration
and enhancing election equipment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $13,888,000 for EAC's administrative
expenses, which is the same as the fiscal year 2005 level. The
accompanying bill provides $4,000,000 of these funds for
transfer to the National Institute for Standards and Technology
for technical assistance related to the development of
voluntary State voting systems guidelines.

Federal Election Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $51,742,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 54,600,000
House allowance......................................... 54,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 54,600,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Election Commission [FEC] was created through
the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 [FECA]. Consistent with its duty of executing our Nation's
Federal campaign finance laws, and in pursuit of its mission of
maintaining public faith in the integrity of the Federal
campaign finance system, FEC conducts three major regulatory
programs: (1) providing public disclosure of funds raised and
spent to influence Federal elections; (2) enforcing compliance
with restrictions on contributions and expenditures made to
influence Federal elections; and (3) administering public
financing of Presidential campaigns.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $54,600,000 for the Federal
Election Commission, which is the same as the budget request
and $2,858,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $29,884,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 29,965,000
House allowance......................................... 29,965,000
Committee recommendation................................ 31,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The FDIC Office of Inspector General conducts audits,
investigations, and other reviews to assist and augment the
FDIC's contribution to the stability of, and public confidence
in, the Nation's financial system. A separate appropriation
more effectively ensures the OIG's independence consistent with
the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended and other
legislation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $31,000,000 for the FDIC inspector
general, an increase of $1,035,000 over the budget request and
$1,116,000 over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Funds are
to be derived by transfer from the bank insurance fund, the
savings association insurance fund, and the FSLIC resolution
fund.

Federal Labor Relations Authority

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $25,468,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 25,468,000
House allowance......................................... 25,468,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,468,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Labor Relations Authority [FLRA] is an
independent administrative Federal agency created by Title VII
of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 with a mission to carry
out five statutory responsibilities: (1) determining the
appropriateness of units for Labor organization representation;
(2) resolving complaints of unfair labor practices; (3)
adjudicating exceptions to arbitrator's awards; (4)
adjudicating legal issues relating to duty to bargain; and (5)
resolving impasses during negotiations.
The FLRA's authority is divided by law and by delegation
among a three-member authority and an Office of General
Counsel, appointed by the President and subject to Senate
confirmation; and the Federal Service Impasses Panel, which
consists of seven part-time members appointed by the President.
In addition, the FLRA is engaged in case-related
interventions and training and facilitation of labor-management
partnerships and in resolving disputes. FLRA promotes labor-
management cooperation by providing training and assistance to
labor organizations and agencies on resolving disputes,
facilitates the creation of partnerships, and trains the
parties on rights and responsibilities under the Federal
Relations Labor Relations Management statute.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,468,000
for the Federal Labor Relations Authority. This amount is the
same as the President's budget request and the same as the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

Federal Maritime Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $19,340,032
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 20,499,000
House allowance......................................... 20,499,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,499,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent
regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984
(Public Law 98-237) as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act
of 1998 (Public Law 105-258); section 19 of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-418); and Public Law 89-777.
FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of the
United States. In addition, the FMC has responsibility for
licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and
assuring that vessel owners or operators establish financial
responsibility to pay judgments for death or injury to
passengers, or nonperformance of a cruise, on voyages from U.S.
ports. Major program areas for 2006 are: carrying out
investigations of foreign trade practices under the Foreign
Shipping Practices Act; maintaining equitable trading
conditions in U.S. ocean commerce; ensuring compliance with
applicable shipping statutes; pursuing an active enforcement
program designed to identify and prosecute violators of the
shipping statutes; and reviewing ocean carrier operational and
pricing agreements to guard against excessively anticompetitive
effects.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes $20,499,000 for the salaries and
expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal year
2006. This amount is the same as the budget request and
$1,158,968 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

General Services Administration

The General Services Administration [GSA] was established
by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
when Congress mandated the consolidation of the Federal
Government's real property and administrative services. GSA is
organized into the Public Buildings Service, the Federal Supply
Service, the Federal Technology Service, the Office of
Governmentwide Policy, and the Office of Citizen Services and
Communications.

FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND--LIMITATIONS ON AVAILABILITY OF REVENUE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation of availability of revenue:
Limitation on availability, 2005....................($7,217,043,000)
Limitation on availability, 2006.................... (7,768,795,000)
House allowance......................................... (7,768,795,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (7,889,745,000)

The Federal Buildings Fund program consists of the
following activities financed from rent charges:
Construction and Acquisition of Facilities.--Space is
acquired through the construction or purchase of facilities and
prospectus-level extensions to existing buildings. All costs
directly attributable to site acquisition, construction, and
the full range of design and construction services, and
management and inspection of construction projects are funded
under this activity.
Repairs and Alterations.--Repairs and alterations of public
buildings as well as associated design and construction
services are funded under this activity. Protection of the
Government's investment, health and safety of building
occupants, transfer of agencies from leased space, and cost
effectiveness are the principal criteria used in establishing
priorities. Primary consideration is given to repairs to
prevent deterioration and damage to buildings, their support
systems, and operating equipment. This activity also provides
for conversion of existing facilities and non-prospectus
extensions.
Installment Acquisition Payments.--Payments are made for
liabilities incurred under purchase contract authority and
lease purchase arrangements. The periodic payments cover
principal, interest, and other requirements.
Rental of Space.--Space is acquired through the leasing of
buildings including space occupied by Federal agencies in U.S.
Postal Service facilities, 153 million rentable square feet in
fiscal year 2003, and 157 million rentable square feet in
fiscal year 2004.
Building Operations.--Services are provided for Government-
owned and leased facilities, including cleaning, utilities and
fuel, maintenance, miscellaneous services (such as moving,
evaluation of new materials and equipment, and field
supervision), and general management and administration of all
real property related programs including salaries and benefits
paid from the Federal Buildings Fund.
Other Programs.--When requested by Federal agencies, the
Public Buildings Service provides building services, such as
tenant alterations, cleaning and other operations, and
protection services which are in excess of those services
provided under the commercial rental charge. For presentation
purposes, the balances of the Unconditional Gifts of Real,
Personal, or Other Property trust fund have been combined with
the Federal Buildings Fund.

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION

Limitation on availability, 2005........................ ($708,542,000)
Limitation on availability, 2006........................ (708,106,000)
House allowance......................................... (708,106,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (829,056,000)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The construction and acquisition fund shall be available
for site, design, construction, management, and inspection
costs for the construction of new Federal facilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $829,056,000 for
the fund, an increase of $120,950,000 above the fiscal year
2005 enacted level.
The judicial branch has indicated that it is in a funding
crisis, in part, precipitated by the deficit concerns facing
the Federal Government and, from its perspective, an onerous
financial burden caused by GSA rent bills for Federal courtroom
space. In particular, the Federal Court system has lost some
1,350 employees in appellate, bankruptcy and district courts as
well as probation and pretrial services offices between October
2003 and October 2004. While the Committee acknowledges the
concerns of the judicial branch, it believes that these staff
reductions reflect appropriate reductions in excess staffing
and related requirements over the last few years. The
Committee, nevertheless, is cognizant that a number of recent
laws (bankruptcy reform, class action reform), Supreme Court
decisions (Booker/FanFan on sentencing guidelines), as well as
increased immigration and border requirements have increased
the need for additional staff and judges to meet these new,
existing requirements.
Nevertheless, the Committee does not believe that the GSA
rent charges for courthouses are the appropriate focus for
financial relief by the judicial branch, especially since the
Committee believes that the Federal Building Fund [FBF] is
critical to the preservation and development of Federal
buildings, including increased requirements for the judicial
branch. In general the GSA rent policies are appropriate and
necessary. To the extent there are questions regarding
implementation of rent charges, there is a process for
challenging rent levels and related costs. Recently, the GSA
concluded that certain courts in the State of New York may have
been overcharged improperly. The GSA has indicated that it will
make the appropriate adjustments.
Consequently, the Committee is disappointed that the
judicial branch has sought to relieve its overall budget
problems by challenging the overall rent and cost of its
courthouses. The Judicial Branch has suggested that all the
courthouses be transferred to the judicial branch with a
forgiveness of debt. This is misplaced logic and any
forgiveness would undermine the ability of the Federal Building
Fund to meet its mission of supporting Federal buildings needs
both currently and in the future. The Committee notes that it
strongly supports the purpose and structure of the Federal
Building Fund, of which the judicial branch is an important
participant. More important, the Federal Building Fund works as
a revolving fund that ensures that the building needs of
Federal departments, agencies, and offices as well as the
judicial branch are addressed. In addition, any reduction in
rent will inhibit the ability of the GSA to address the
comprehensive building needs of the Federal Government.
In addition, the judicial branch has received significantly
more funds for courthouse construction than it has paid in
rents. In fact since 1995, total costs from the Federal
Buildings Fund for courts is some $3,500,000,000 out of
$9,800,000,000. This represents some 35.3 percent of the total
program. In contrast, the judicial branch has paid some
$5,500,000,000 in rents as opposed to overall rents of
$43,600,000,000.

RISK ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS

The Committee also remains concerned regarding the need to
continue to perform specific risk assessments as to project
specific needs that takes into account threat, vulnerability,
consequences, and probability of an attack on the facility.
These are key concerns and there needs to be a clear assessment
of the risks. As discussed last year, the Committee remains
concerned that existing risk methodology has not been
specifically designed to support structural upgrades and hazard
mitigation in new construction or major renovations. Therefore
the GSA Office of the Chief Architect is directed to use
$5,000,000 to continue to work with the private sector to
enhance the Federal Security Risk Management methodology to
facilitate the application of the process and the software
throughout the GSA regions and in consultation with the
Department of Homeland Security's Federal Protective Service.

REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS

Limitation on availability, 2005 ....................... ($980,222,000)
Limitation on availability, 2006........................ (961,376,000)
House allowance......................................... (961,376,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (961,376,000)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under this activity, the General Services Administration
[GSA] executes its responsibility for repairs and alterations
[R&A] of both Government-owned and leased facilities under the
control of GSA. The primary goal of this activity is to provide
commercially equivalent space to tenant agencies. Safety,
quality, and operating efficiency of facilities are given
primary consideration in carrying out this responsibility.
R&A workload requirements originate with scheduled onsite
inspections of buildings by qualified regional engineers and
building managers. The work identified through these
inspections is programmed in order of priority into the repairs
and alterations construction automated tracking system [RACATS]
and incorporated into a 5-year plan for accomplishment, based
upon funding availability, urgency, and the volume of R&A work
that GSA has the capability to execute annually. Since fiscal
year 1995, design and construction services activities
associated with repair and alteration projects have been funded
in this account.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends new obligational authority of
$961,376,000 for repairs and alterations in fiscal year 2006.
This amount is the same as the President's request.

INSTALLMENT ACQUISITION PAYMENTS

Limitation on availability, 2005........................ ($161,442,000)
Limitation on availability, 2006........................ (168,180,000)
House allowance......................................... (168,180,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (168,180,000)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 enables GSA to
enter into contractual arrangements for the construction of a
backlog of approved but unfunded projects. The purchase
contracts require the Federal Government to make periodic
payments on these facilities over varying periods until title
is transferred to the Government. This activity provides for
the payment of principal, interest, taxes, and other required
obligations related to facilities acquired pursuant to the
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 (40 U.S.C. 602a).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $168,180,000 for
installment acquisition payments, the same as the budget
request and $6,738,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding
level.

RENTAL OF SPACE

Limitation on availability, 2005........................($3,657,315,000)
Limitation on availability, 2006........................ (4,046,031,000)
House allowance......................................... (4,046,031,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (4,046,031,000)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

GSA is responsible for leasing general purpose space and
land incident thereto for Federal agencies, except cases where
GSA has delegated its leasing authority. GSA's policy is to
lease privately owned buildings and land only when: (1) Federal
space needs cannot be otherwise accommodated satisfactorily in
existing Government-owned or leased space; (2) leasing proves
to be more efficient than the construction or alteration of a
Federal building; (3) construction or alteration is not
warranted because requirements in the community are
insufficient or are indefinite in scope or duration; or (4)
completion of a new Federal building within a reasonable time
cannot be assured.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $4,046,031,000 for
rental of space. The Committee recommendation is the same as
the President's budget request and $388,716,000 above the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

BUILDING OPERATIONS

Limitation on availability, 2005........................($1,709,522,000)
Limitation on availability, 2006........................ (1,885,102,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,885,102,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (1,885,102,000)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This activity provides for the operation of all Government-
owned facilities under the jurisdiction of GSA and building
services in GSA-leased space where the terms of the lease do
not require the lessor to furnish such services. Services
included in building operations are cleaning, protection,
maintenance, payments for utilities and fuel, grounds
maintenance, and elevator operations. Other related supporting
services include various real property management and staff
support activities such as space acquisition and assignment;
the moving of Federal agencies as a result of space alterations
in order to provide better space utilization in existing
buildings; onsite inspection of building services and
operations accomplished by private contractors; and various
highly specialized contract administration support functions.
The space, operations, and services referred to above are
furnished by GSA to its tenant agencies in return for payment
of rent. Due to considerations unique to their operation, GSA
also provides varying levels of above-standard services in
agency headquarter facilities, including those occupied by the
Executive Office of the President, such as the east and west
wings of the White House.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,885,102,000 for
building operations. This amount is the same as the President's
budget request and $175,580,000 above the fiscal year 2005
enacted level.

GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY

salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $61,603,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 52,796,000
House allowance......................................... 52,796,000
Committee recommendation................................ 52,796,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Government-wide Policy provides for
Government-wide policy development, support, and evaluation
functions associated with real and personal property, supplies,
vehicles, aircraft, information technology, acquisition,
transportation and travel management. This office also provides
for the Federal Procurement Data Center, Workplace Initiatives,
Regulatory Information Service Center, the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance, and the Committee Management Secretariat.
The Office of Government-wide Policy, working cooperatively
with other agencies, provides the leadership needed to develop
and evaluate the implementation of policies designed to achieve
the most cost-effective solutions for the delivery of
administrative services and sound workplace practices, while
reducing regulations and empowering employees.
The Office of Citizen Services provides leadership and
support for electronic government initiatives and operates the
official Federal portal through which citizens may access
Federal information services electronically. The Federal
Consumer Information Center is part of this office, though
funded under a separate appropriation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $52,796,000
for Government-wide Policy. This amount is the same as the
President's budget request and is a reduction of $8,807,000
below the fiscal year 2005 level.
The Committee is concerned about a proposed reorganization
of GSA which would establish five regional administrators while
eliminating the current structure of 22 Assistant Regional
Administrators [ARAs]. The current proposal could result in the
over-centralization of authority in the GSA Headquarters while
minimizing local decisionmaking and input. The Committee
believes that local decisionmaking and input is critical to
GSA's mission since all the regions have different and unique
needs that require local knowledge and expertise. In addition,
while a number of contract abuses were uncovered at the
regional level in 2003, many of these problems were identified,
not by Headquarters, but by the Regions themselves in
conjunction with the GSA Inspector General. Since that time,
new safeguards and oversight requirements have been
implemented. Consequently, the Committee includes language
prohibiting any reorganization with approval through an
operating plan.
In addition, while some centralization of authority may be
appropriate, the Committee believes that regional authority and
decisionmaking ultimately is necessary to ensure that clients
are adequately served through locally tailored acquisition
support. The Committee believes GSA works best when it works
collectively with a strong field staff; and that limiting the
number of regional executives will limit GSA's flexibility and
ability to meet local needs and requirements.
Environmental Training Program.--The Committee is pleased
with the significant cost savings recently demonstrated in the
environmental analysis efforts undertaken by GSA in the
National Capitol Region. The Committee recommends that GSA
extend this environmental training and analysis program
currently underway to other GSA regions. The Committee urges
GSA to work with its existing partner to preserve continuity
when expanding this program to the eight other GSA regions. The
Committee also encourages the utilization of leased employees
to implement these cost savings programs in other GSA regions
whenever possible.

OPERATING EXPENSES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $91,438,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 99,890,000
House allowance......................................... 99,890,000
Committee recommendation................................ 99,890,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Operating Expenses provides funding for Government-wide
activities associated with the utilization and donation of
surplus personal property; disposal of real property;
telecommunications, information technology management, and
related technology activities; agency-wide policy direction and
management; ancillary accounting, records management, and other
support services; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and
other related operational expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $99,890,000
for the Operating Expenses. This amount is the same as the
administration's request and $8,452,000 above the fiscal year
2005 enacted level.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $42,012,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 43,410,000
House allowance......................................... 43,410,000
Committee recommendation................................ 43,410,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and
investigative functions to identify and correct management and
administrative deficiencies within the General Services
Administration [GSA], creating conditions for existing or
potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement. This
audit function provides internal audit and contract audit
services. Contract audits provide professional advice to GSA
contracting officials on accounting and financial matters
relative to the negotiation, award, administration, repricing,
and settlement of contracts. Internal audits review and
evaluate all facets of GSA operations and programs, test
internal control systems, and develop information to improve
operating efficiencies and enhance customer services. The
investigative function provides for the detection and
investigation of improper and illegal activities involving GSA
programs, personnel, and operations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $43,410,000
for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is the same as
the President's budget request and $1,398,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level.

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT [E-GOV] FUND

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $2,976,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 5,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program supports interagency ``electronic government''
or ``e-gov'' initiatives, i.e., projects that use the Internet
or other electronic methods to provide individuals, businesses,
and other government agencies with simpler and more timely
access to Federal information, benefits, services, and business
opportunities.
Proposals for funding must meet capital planning guidelines
and include adequate documentation to demonstrate a sound
business case, attention to security and privacy, and a way to
measure performance against planned results. In addition, a
small portion of the money could be used for awards to those
project management teams that delivered the best product to
meet customer needs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for
the Electronic Government Fund. This amount is the same as the
President's request. The Committee supports the use of funding
under this account for the continued development of an eTravel
System, which is designed to centralize a travel system for the
Federal Government through a self-service electronic system.
The eTravel system when completed will eliminate the hardcopy
travel documentation. This program will ultimately automate the
entire travel process and is projected to save some
$450,000,000 over 10 years. Nevertheless, the Committee
believes that the eTravel system should be designed to ensure
the participation of small business subcontracting and directs
GSA to establish benchmarks to ensure the participation and
growth of small business participation. These benchmarks shall
be no less than 23 percent of all contracted dollars.
Additionally, GSA must explore opportunities for small
business participation through prime contracting opportunities.
A GAO report determining the utilization of small businesses in
the eTravel program is due no later than 180 days after the
enactment of this Act, with a focus on the impact on travel
agents on the existing TSS schedule. The GAO report should also
evaluate the overall savings to the Federal Government through
the eTravel program.

ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $3,081,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 2,952,000
House allowance......................................... 2,952,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,952,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides support consisting of pensions,
office staffs, and related expenses for former Presidents
Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, George Bush, and Bill Clinton, a
pension for the widow of former President Lyndon B. Johnson,
and postal franking privileges for the widows of former
Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Ronald Reagan. Also, this
appropriation is authorized to provide funding for security and
travel related expenses for each former President and the
spouse of a former President pursuant to Section 531 of Public
Law 103-329.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,952,000 for allowances and
office staff for former Presidents.
Below is listed a detailed analysis of the Committee's
recommendation for fiscal year 2005 funding:

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Carter Bush Clinton Widows Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Compensation......................... 96 96 96 96 ......... 384
Personnel Benefits............................ 22 2 51 64 ......... 139
Benefits for Former Presidents................ 184 184 184 192 20 764
Travel........................................ 45 2 54 63 ......... 164
Rental Payments to GSA........................ 105 102 175 473 ......... 855
Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous
Charges:
Telephone................................. 15 10 15 75 ......... 115
Postage................................... 9 15 13 15 8 60
Printing.................................. 5 5 14 9 ......... 33
Other Services............................ 38 76 65 111 ......... 290
Supplies and Materials.................... 17 5 14 16 ......... 52
Equipment................................. 6 7 47 11 ......... 71
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Obligations....................... 542 504 728 1,125 28 2,927
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL CITIZEN INFORMATION CENTER FUND

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $14,788,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 15,030,000
House allowance......................................... 15,030,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,000,000

program description

The Federal Citizen Information Center [FCIC] successfully
brings together an array of U.S. Government information and
services and makes them easily accessible to the public. This
information is made available on the web, via e-mail, in print,
or over the telephone.
Originally established within the General Services
Administration [GSA] by Executive order on October 26, 1970, to
help Federal departments and agencies promote and distribute
printed consumer information, FCIC has evolved and consolidated
a variety of complementary functions to augment the original
print and media channels through which it informed the public.
On January 28, 2000, the FCIC assumed responsibility for
the operations of the Federal Information Center [FIC] program.
The FIC program was established within the General Services
Administration in 1966, and was formalized by Public Law 95-491
in 1980. The program's purpose is to provide the public with
direct information about all aspects of Federal programs,
regulations, and services. To accomplish this mission,
contractual services are used to respond to public inquiries
via the nationwide toll-free National Contact Center.
On June 30, 2002, FCIC assumed operational control of the
FirstGov.gov website, the official portal of the U.S.
Government, and became a critical part of GSA's newly
established Office of Citizen Services and Communications. This
Office brings together all of GSA's citizen-centered programs.
The new Office serves as a central Federal gateway for
citizens, businesses, other governments, and the media to
easily obtain information and services from the Government. On
March 31, 2003, FCIC began accepting e-mail and fax inquiries
from the public through the FirstGov.gov website and responds
to them at its National Contact Center.
Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a
revolving fund for the FCIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities
are financed from the following: annual appropriations from the
general funds of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies for
distribution of publications and contact center services, user
fees collected from the public, and any other income incident
to FCIC activities. All are available as authorized in
appropriation acts without regard to fiscal year limitations.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Federal
Citizen Information Center, an increase of $212,000 above the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level and $30,000 less than the budget
request.
The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications,
user fees from the public, and other income.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Section 601 authorizes GSA to credit accounts with certain
funds received from Government corporations.
Section 602 authorizes GSA to use funds for the hire of
passenger motor vehicles.
Section 603 authorizes GSA to transfer funds within the
Federal buildings fund for meeting program requirements.
Section 604 limits funding for courthouse construction
which does not meet certain standards of a capital improvement
plan.
Section 605 provides that no funds may be used to increase
the amount of occupiable square feet, provide cleaning
services, security enhancements, or any other service usually
provided, to any agency which does not pay the requested rate.
Section 606 authorizes GSA to pay claims up to $250,000
from construction projects and acquisition of buildings.
Section 607 makes permanent a provision in the fiscal year
2005 bill for GSA to convey property and retain the proceeds.
Section 608 directs GSA to conduct a program promoting the
use of stairs rather than elevators that will include signage,
reducing barriers to the use of stairs as well as educational
efforts on the health and efficiency benefits of using stairs.
Section 609 prohibits the use of funds by GSA to reorganize
its organizational structure except through an operating plan
change.

Merit Systems Protection Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $37,005,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 37,005,000
House allowance......................................... 38,205,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,205,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Merit System Protection Board [MSPB] was established by
the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. MSPB is an independent
quasi-judicial agency manifested to protect Federal merits
systems against partisan political and other prohibited
personnel practices and to ensure adequate protection for
employees against abuses by agency management.
MSPB assists Federal agencies in running a merit-based
civil service system. This is accomplished on a case-by-case
basis through hearing and deciding employee appeals, and on a
systemic basis by reviewing significant actions and regulations
of the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] and conducting
studies of the civil service and other merit systems. The
intended results of MSPB's efforts are to assure that personnel
actions taken against employees are processed within the law,
and that actions taken by OPM and other agencies support and
enhance Federal merit principles.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,205,000
for the Merit Systems Protection Board, this is an increase of
$1,200,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and the
President's request. The Committee makes available no more than
$2,605,000 for adjudicated appeals through an appropriation
from the trust fund consistent with past practice. The increase
of $1,200,000 above the fiscal year 2006 budget request is to
allow for appropriate funding for MSPB to continue as
arbitrator for the additional appeals cases from the Department
of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental
Policy Foundation

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,980,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance......................................... 2,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Public Law 106-568 authorized the Morris K. Udall
Foundation to establish training programs for professionals in
health care policy and public policy, such as the Native
Nations Institute [NNI]. NNI, based at the University of
Arizona, will provide Native Americans with leadership and
management training and analyze policies relevant to tribes.
The General Fund payment to the Morris K. Udall Fund is
invested in Treasury securities with maturities suitable to the
needs of the Fund. Interest earnings from the investments are
used to carry out the activities of the Morris K. Udall
Foundation. The Foundation awards scholarships, fellowships and
grants, and funds activities of the Udall Center.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,000,000 for
the Morris K. Udall Foundation. The Committee includes language
to allow up to 60 percent of the appropriation to be used for
the expenses of the Native Nations Institute. The Committee
also includes language requiring the Foundation to report to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the amount
of funding, if any, transferred from the Trust Fund for the
Native Nations Institute and justification for such transfers.
Future budget justifications submitted to Congress regarding
this effort are to contain detailed information on the actual
expenditures in past years as well as detailed information on
planned expenditures relating to the Native Nations Institute
for the current and future budget years.

MORRIS K. UDALL ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,299,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 700,000
House allowance......................................... 1,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution is
a Federal program established by Public Law 105-156 to assist
parties in resolving environmental, natural resource, and
public lands conflicts. The Institute is part of the Morris K.
Udall Foundation, and serves as an impartial, non-partisan
institution providing professional expertise, services, and
resources to all parties involved in such disputes. The
Institute helps parties determine whether collaborative problem
solving is appropriate for specific environmental conflicts,
how and when to bring all the parties together for discussion,
and whether a third-party facilitator or mediator might be
helpful in assisting the parties in their efforts to each
consensus or to resolve the conflict. In addition, the
Institute maintains a roster of qualified facilitators and
mediators with substantial experience in environmental conflict
resolution, and can help parties in selecting an appropriate
neutral.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000 for
the Morris K. Udall Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund. This
amount is $299,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and
$300,000 above the administration's request.

National Archives and Records Administration

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $264,809,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 280,975,000
House allowance......................................... 283,975,000
Committee recommendation................................ 280,975,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Archives and Records Administration [NARA] is
the national recordkeeper. NARA is an independent agency
created by statute in 1934 to safeguard the records of all
three branches of the Federal Government. NARA administers the
Information Security Oversight Office [ISOO], is the publisher
of the Federal Register and makes grants for historical
documentation through the National Historical Publications and
Records Commission [NHPRC]. NARA provides for basic operations
dealing with management of the Federal Government's archives
and records, operation of Presidential Libraries, and for the
review for declassification of classified security information.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request level of
$280,975,000 for operating expenses of the National Archives
and Records Administration. This amount is an increase of
$16,166,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARCHIVES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $35,627,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 35,914,000
House allowance......................................... 35,914,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,914,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

National Archives and Records Administration [NARA] is
developing an Electronic Records Archives [ERA] that will
ensure the preservation of and access to Government electronic
records. With the rapid changes in technology today, the
formats in which records are stored become obsolete within a
few years, making records inaccessible even if they are
preserved intact with the most modern technology. ERA will
preserve electronic records generated in a manner that enables
requesters to access them on computer systems now and in the
future.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $38,914,000 for the Electronics
Records Archives project. This amount is an increase of
$3,000,000 above the budget request and $3,287,000 above the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Bill language is included
requiring NARA to submit a spend plan for these funds. The
Committee has included an additional $3,000,000 to allow NARA
to begin work with the Naval Oceanographic Office at the
National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage
at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.
The Committee plans to continue monitoring the development
of ERA due to its scope, magnitude, and complexity.
Accordingly, the Committee has included bill language requiring
NARA to submit, and for the Committees on Appropriations to
approve, a plan that outlines the expenditure of ERA funds. The
Committee believes that a formal methodology to prioritize,
approve, fund, and evaluate the components of ERA will provide
greater accountability in the project. The spend plan requires
NARA to comply with and conform to Federal acquisition
standards and rules and requires a review by the Government
Accountability Office on a regular basis. The expenditure or
spend plan process has been well-established by the Committee
for oversight purposes of other large information technology
initiatives such as the Internal Revenue Service's Business
Systems Modernization project.

ARCHIVES FACILITIES REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $13,325,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 6,182,000
House allowance......................................... 6,182,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,682,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for the repair, alteration, and
improvement of Archives facilities and Presidential Libraries
nationwide, and provides adequate storage for holdings. It will
better enable NARA to maintain its facilities in proper
condition for public visitors, researchers, and NARA employees,
and also maintain the structural integrity of the buildings.
These funds will determine appropriate options for preserving
and providing access to 20th century military service records.
These funds will allow NARA to complete preliminary design
studies and analysis, including workflow and cost estimates,
for housing and access options for these massive and valuable
records. Technology and facility approaches will also be
examined.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,682,000.
This amount is $1,643,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level and $5,500,000 above the budget request.
The Committee has included additional funds for the
following projects: (1) new regional archives and records
center in Anchorage, Alaska; (2) renovation and expansion of
the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library; and (3) repair and
restoration of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library.
For the new Alaska archives and records center, the
Committee is providing $2,500,000. The Congress has already
provided some $10,775,000 for this project since fiscal year
1999. These funds have been used for design and to purchase
land for the new center. The Committee has provided additional
funds to allow NARA to proceed with construction of the new
center. NARA may solicit and award a contract for such
construction on the basis of this appropriation and subject to
the availability of future appropriations to complete
construction.
For the JFK Presidential Library, the Committee is
providing $1,000,000 for the final installment for the design
and construction management for the renovation and expansion of
the library. The Congress appropriated the first installment of
these funds in the fiscal year 2005 appropriations act (Public
Law 108-447).
For the LBJ Presidential Library, the project has received
$10,250,000 since fiscal year 2003. While the Committee has
added $2,000,000 to support this project, the Committee remains
extremely troubled by the cost and management of this project.
To date, none of the funds appropriated to this project have
been spent due to management problems at the University of
Texas where the library is located. The Committee understands
that an architectural and engineering firm has been recently
hired but the lack of progress on this project is troubling.
Therefore, the Committee bars the expenditure of funds provided
by the Federal Government for costs outside the scope and cost
estimates outlined in the December 21, 2004 agreement between
the Archivist and the President of the University of Texas and
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
on March 14, 2005.

National Historical Publications and Records Commission

GRANTS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $4,960,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance......................................... 7,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Historical Publications and Records Commission
[NHPRC] provides grants nationwide to preserve and publish
records that document American history. Administered within the
National Archives, which preserves Federal records, NHPRC helps
State, local, and private institutions preserve non-Federal
records, helps publish the papers of major figures in American
history, and helps archivists and records managers improve
their techniques, training, and ability to serve a range of
information users.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the
National Historical Publications and Records Commission
[NHPRC]. This amount is $5,000,000 above the budget request and
$40,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
The Committee strongly supports the NHPRC program and has
provided funding to continue this important program. This
program has played a central role in the preservation and
dissemination of the Nation's documentary heritage. Further,
the program has been successful in leveraging private sector
contributions.

National Credit Union Administration

central liquidity facility

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative
limitation expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2005.............. $1,500,000,000 $310,000
Budget estimate, 2006............. 1,500,000,000 323,000
House allowance................... 1,500,000,000 323,000
Committee recommendation.......... 1,500,000,000 323,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

program description

The National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] Central
Liquidity Facility [CLF] was created by the National Credit
Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (Public Law 95-630). The
CLF is a mixed-ownership Government corporation managed by the
National Credit Union Administration Board and owned by its
member credit unions.
The purpose of the CLF is to improve the general financial
stability of credit unions by meeting their seasonal and
emergency liquidity needs and thereby encourage savings,
support consumer and mortgage lending, and provide basic
financial resources to all segments of the economy. To become
eligible for CLF services, credit unions invest in the capital
stock of the CLF, and the facility uses the proceeds of such
investments and the proceeds of borrowed funds to meet the
liquidity needs of credit unions. The primary sources of funds
for the CLF are stock subscriptions from credit unions and
borrowings.
The CLF may borrow funds from any source, with the amount
of borrowing limited to 12 times the amount of subscribed
capital stock and surplus.
Loans are available to meet short-term requirements for
funds attributable to emergency outflows from managerial
difficulties or local economic downturns. Seasonal credit is
also provided to accommodate fluctuations caused by cyclical
changes in such areas as agriculture, education, and retail
business. Loans can also be made to offset protracted credit
problems caused by factors such as regional economic decline.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends the budget request of limiting
administrative expenses for the Central Liquidity Fund [CLF] to
$323,000 in fiscal year 2006. The Committee recommends a
limitation of $1,500,000,000 for the principal amount of new
direct loans to member credit unions. These amounts are the
same as the budget request.
The Committee directs the National Credit Union
Administration [NCUA] to continue to provide reports on the
lending activities under CLF. This information should be
provided to the Committee on a quarterly basis through
September 2006.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $992,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 950,000
House allowance......................................... 950,000
Committee recommendation................................ 950,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Community Development Revolving Loan Fund Program
[CDRLF] was established in 1979 to assist officially designated
``low-income'' credit unions in providing basic financial
services to low-income communities. Low-interest loans and
deposits are made available to assist these credit unions.
Loans or deposits are normally repaid in 5 years, although
shorter repayment periods may be considered. Technical
assistance grants [TAGs] are also available to low-income
credit unions. Until fiscal year 2001, only earnings generated
from the CDRLF were available to fund TAGs. Grants are
available for improving operations as well as addressing safety
and soundness issues. In fiscal year 2004, NCUA designated
funds for specific programs, including taxpayer assistance,
financial education, home ownership initiatives, remittance
services, individual development accounts [IDAs], and training
assistance.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $950,000 for technical assistance
grants to community development credit unions. This funding
level is equal to the budget request and $42,000 below the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The Committee expects the CDRLF
to continue making loans from their available funds derived
from repaid loans and interest earned on previous loans to
designated credit unions.
The Committee supports NCUA's outreach efforts to
undeserved rural and urban communities across America through
technical assistance grants provided within CDRLF. The
Committee encourages NCUA to continue their efforts in
providing an alternative to predatory lending services through
their targeted technical assistance grants and support.

National Transportation Safety Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $76,086,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 76,700,000
House allowance......................................... 76,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 76,700,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Initially established along with the Department of
Transportation [DOT], the National Transportation Safety Board
[NTSB] commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent
Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every
civil aviation accident in the United States as well as
significant accidents in the other modes of transportation--
railroad, highway, marine and pipeline--and issuing safety
recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. Although
it has always operated independently, NTSB relied on DOT for
funding and administrative support until the Independent Safety
Board Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-633) severed all ties between
the two organizations starting in 1975.
In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is
responsible for maintaining the Government's database of civil
aviation accidents and also conducts special studies of
transportation safety issues of national significance.
Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international
treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve as U.S.
Accredited Representatives for aviation accidents overseas
involving U.S-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or
major components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the
``court of appeals'' for any airman, mechanic or mariner
whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation
Administration [FAA] or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or
when civil penalties are assessed by FAA.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $76,700,000 for the National
Transportation Safety Board, which is the same as the budget
request and is $614,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level.
The Committee strongly believes that the core mission of
the NTSB is to investigate and identify the probable causes of
transportation crashes and incidents. The budget estimate
reduces the number of FTE from 416 to 401. Despite fully
funding the budget request, the Committee regrets that this
will necessitate a reduction in staff that may further limit
the Board's ability to launch investigations into all
significant transportation incidents. However, the Committee
notes that the investigatory staff is utilized at the NTSB
Academy to instruct classes.
While the Committee acknowledges the Academy's benefit in
sharing accident investigation best practices with the broader
transportation community, the Committee believes that the
functions of the Academy should be secondary to the NTSB's core
mission of accident investigation. With the reduction in FTE,
the Committee directs the Board to reduce the workforce hours
at the Academy so that the Board's key investigatory
responsibilities will in no way be negatively impacted by the
impending loss of FTE's. In addition, the Committee reminds the
NTSB of the Agency's authority to impose and collect fees for
the Academy's services and urges the Board to be more
aggressive in covering the Academy's costs. As such, the
Committee directs the NTSB to submit a report no later than 90
days after enactment of this Act to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations detailing the Academy's use of
NTSB investigators in terms of hours and resources and the
offsetting collections that the Academy produces. This report
should provide specific FTE data in auditable fashion citing
how the Board will comply with the Committee's directive
regarding investigative resources and instructional hours at
the Academy.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, 2005........................................ -$8,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... -1,000,000
House allowance......................................... -1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -1,000,000

The fiscal year 2004 Supplemental Appropriations bill
(Public Law 106-246) provided NTSB with emergency expenses
associated with its investigation of the Egypt Air Flight 990
and Alaska Air Flight 261 accidents. These funds were used for
wreckage location and recovery facilities, technical support,
testing, and wreckage mock-up. All of these activities have
been completed and an unobligated balance of $1,000,000
remains. The Committee recommends the requested rescission of
this amount.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $114,080,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 118,000,000
House allowance......................................... 118,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 115,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public
Law 95-557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation now operates under the trade name ``NeighborWorks
America.'' NeighborWorks America helps local communities
establish efficient and effective partnerships between
residents and representatives of the public and private
sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent,
tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and are frequently known as
Neighborhood Housing Services [NHS] or mutual housing
associations.
Collectively, these organizations are known as the
NeighborWorks network. Nationally, 235 NeighborWorks
organizations serve nearly 3,000 urban, suburban and rural
communities in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.
In fiscal year 2004, the NeighborWorks network assisted
nearly 90,000 families to obtain and maintain safe and
affordable rental and homeownership units, where 70 percent of
the people served are in the very low and low-income brackets.
Neighborhood Reinvestment also provides grants to Neighborhood
Housing Services of America [NHSA], the NeighborWorks
network's national secondary market. The mission of NHSA is to
utilize private sector support to replenish local
NeighborWorks organizations' revolving loan funds. These loans
are used to back securities that are placed with private sector
social investors.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $115,000,000 for the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation for fiscal year 2006. This amount is
$3,000,000 below the budget request and $920,000 above the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
The Committee has included a set-aside of $5,000,000 for
the multifamily rental housing initiative. This program has
been successful in developing innovative approaches to
producing mixed-income affordable housing throughout the
Nation. The Committee strongly supports this initiative and
commends Neighborhood Reinvestment for their efforts in
attracting additional private sector investments for this
initiative. The Committee directs NRC to provide a status
report on this initiative in its fiscal year 2007 budget
justifications.
The Committee continues its support of Neighborhood
Reinvestment efforts in building capacity in rural areas. The
Committee urges the Corporation to continue its efforts in
addressing the needs of rural communities.

Office of Government Ethics

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $11,148,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 11,148,000
House allowance......................................... 11,148,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,148,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Government Ethics [OGE], a small agency
within the executive branch, was established by the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978. Originally part of the Office of
Personnel Management, OGE became a separate agency on October
1, 1989 as part of the Office of Government Ethics
Reauthorization Act of 1988.
OGE is charged by law to provide overall direction of
executive branch policies designed to prevent conflicts of
interest and ensure high ethical standards. OGE carries out
these responsibilities by developing rules and regulations
pertaining to conflicts of interest, post employment
restrictions, standards of conduct, and public and confidential
financial disclosure in the executive branch; by monitoring
compliance with the public and confidential disclosure
requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1978 and the Ethics
Reform Act of 1989 to determine possible violations of
applicable laws or regulations and recommending appropriate
corrective action; by consulting with and assisting various
officials in evaluating the effectiveness of applicable laws
and the resolution of individual problems; and by preparing
formal advisory opinions, informal letter opinions, policy
memoranda, and Federal Register entries on how to interpret and
comply with the requirements on conflicts of interest, post
employment, standards of conduct, and financial disclosure.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,148,000
for salaries and expenses of the Office of Government Ethics in
fiscal year 2006. This amount is the same as the President's
budget request and the fiscal year 2005 level.

Office of Personnel Management

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $124,496,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 124,521,000
House allowance......................................... 119,952,000
Committee recommendation................................ 124,521,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Personnel Management [OPM] was established by
Public Law 95-454, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,
enacted on October 13, 1978. In that Act, the Office of
Personnel Management was established in section 1101 of title
5, United States Code. Subsequent sections of Chapter 11
provide for the principal officials of the agency and the
functions of the Director, which are really the functions of
the Agency, as well as providing for the delegation of
authority for personnel management from the President and,
subsequently, by the Director.
OPM is the Federal Government agency responsible for
management of Federal human resources policy and oversight of
the merit civil service system. Although individual agencies
are increasingly responsible for personnel operations, OPM
provides a Governmentwide policy framework for personnel
matters, advises and assists agencies (often on a reimbursable
basis), and ensures that agency operations are consistent with
requirements of law on issues such as veterans preference. OPM
oversees examining of applicants for employment, issues
regulations and policies on hiring, classification and pay,
training, investigations, other aspects of personnel
management, and operates a reimbursable training program for
the Federal Government's managers and executives. OPM is also
responsible for administering the retirement, health benefits
and life insurance programs affecting most Federal employees,
retired Federal employees, and their survivors.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $124,521,000
for the salaries and expenses of the Office of Personnel
Management which is the same as the budget request and $25,000
over the fiscal year 2005 level. Of the amount provided no more
than $10,345,000 is to be used for e-Government projects. This
amount is the same as the President's request.
Child Care.--In fiscal year 2003, the Senate report
directed OPM to conduct a study of child care needs for Federal
employees. The resulting report provided some valuable
information but further examination is necessary for a more
accurate assessment of Federal employee child care needs. The
Committee directs OPM to continue to work with the Government
Accountability Office [GAO] and the General Service
Administration [GSA] in a timely manner on the study of child
care needs for Federal employees.
In recent years, GSA and OPM have implemented programs that
agencies can use to subsidize a substantial portion of child
care expenses for lower income employees. While these
supplemental programs are available, the Committee notes that
only one in five agencies is offering the subsidy at this time.
The Committee directs OPM to reevaluate its efforts to provide
information and education to agencies on promoting this
valuable program.
Retirement Systems Modernization.--The Committee is aware
that the Office of Personnel Management initiated a Retirement
Systems Modernization Program in 1997 to automate and
streamline the manual and paper-intensive business processes
used to administer the Federal employee retirement program. The
Committee recognizes that the Retirement Systems Modernization
project has benefited from the involvement and expertise of the
Government Accountability Office. The Committee also notes the
importance of the recommendations made by GAO and urges OPM to
give these recommendations careful consideration and continue
to consult with GAO in the future.

limitation

(TRANSFER OF TRUST FUNDS)

Limitation, 2005........................................ $127,434,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 100,017,000
House allowance......................................... 102,679,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,017,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These funds will be transferred from the appropriate trust
funds of the Office of Personnel Management to cover
administrative expenses for the retirement and insurance
programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $100,017,000,
which is the same as the budget request and $27,417,000 less
than the fiscal year 2005 level. This amount is the same as the
President's request.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,614,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,614,000
House allowance......................................... 1,614,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,614,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General is charged with
establishing policies for conducting and coordinating efforts
which promote economy, efficiency, and integrity in the Office
of Personnel Management's activities which prevent and detect
fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the agency's programs.
Contract audits provide professional advice to agency
contracting officials on accounting and financial matters
regarding the negotiation, award, administration, repricing,
and settlement of contracts. Internal agency audits review and
evaluate all facets of agency operations, including financial
statements. Evaluation and inspection services provide detailed
technical evaluations of agency operations. Insurance audits
review the operations of health and life insurance carriers,
health care providers, and insurance subscribers. The
investigative function provides for the detection and
investigation of improper and illegal activities involving
programs, personnel, and operations. Administrative sanctions
debar from participation in the health insurance program those
health care providers whose conduct may pose a threat to the
financial integrity of the program itself or to the well-being
of insurance program enrollees.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,614,000 for
salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General in
fiscal year 2006. This amount is the same as the President's
request and the same as the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

(LIMITATION ON TRANSFER FROM TRUST FUNDS)

Limitation, 2005........................................ $16,329,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 16,329,000
House allowance......................................... 16,786,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,329,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on transfers from the
trust funds in support of the Office of Inspector General
activities totaling $16,329,000 for fiscal year 2006 and
$171,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

government payment for annuitants, employees health benefits

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $8,135,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 8,401,000,000
House allowance......................................... 8,135,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,393,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation covers the Government's share of the
cost of health insurance for annuitants covered by the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program and the Retired Federal
Employees Health Benefits Act of 1960, as well as
administrative expenses incurred by OPM for these programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,393,000,000
for Government payments for annuitants, employees health
benefits.

government payment for annuitants, employee life insurance

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $35,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 36,000,000
House allowance......................................... 35,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 36,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Public Law 96-427, the Federal Employees' Group Life
Insurance Act of 1980 requires that all employees under the age
of 65 who separate from the Federal Government for purposes of
retirement on or after January 1, 1990, continue to make
contributions toward their basic life insurance coverage after
retirement until they reach the age of 65. These retirees will
contribute two-thirds of the cost of the basic life insurance
premium, identical to the amount contributed by active Federal
employees for basic life insurance coverage. As with the active
Federal employees, the Government is required to contribute
one-third of the cost of the premium for basic coverage. OPM,
acting as the payroll office on behalf of Federal retirees, has
requested, and the Committee has provided, the funding
necessary to make the required Government contribution
associated with annuitants' postretirement life insurance
coverage.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $36,000,000
for the Government payment for annuitants, employee life
insurance. This amount equals the budget request.

payment to civil service retirement and disability fund

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $9,772,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 10,072,000,000
House allowance......................................... 9,772,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,072,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The civil service retirement and disability fund was
established in 1920 to administer the financing and payment of
annuities to retired Federal employees and their survivors. The
fund covers the operation of the Civil Service Retirement
System and the Federal Employees' Retirement System.
This appropriation provides for the Government's share of
retirement costs, transfers of interest on the unfunded
liability and annuity disbursements attributable to military
service, and survivor annuities to eligible former spouses of
some annuitants who did not elect survivor coverage.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$10,072,000,000 for payment to the civil service retirement and
disability fund. The Committee recommendation equals the budget
estimate.

Office of Special Counsel

salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $15,325,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 15,325,000
House allowance......................................... 15,325,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,325,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel [OSC] was first
established on January 1, 1979. From 1979 until 1989, it
operated as an autonomous investigative and prosecutorial arm
of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board). In 1989,
Congress enacted the Whistleblower Protection Act, which made
OSC an independent agency within the Executive Branch. In 1994,
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
became law. It defined employment-related rights of persons in
connection with military service, prohibited discrimination
against them because of that service, and gave OSC new
authority to pursue remedies for violations by Federal
agencies.
OSC investigates Federal employee allegations of prohibited
personnel practices and, when appropriate, prosecutes cases
before the Merit Systems Protection Board and enforces the
Hatch Act. OSC also provides a channel for whistleblowing by
Federal employees, and may transmit whistleblowing allegations
to the agency head concerned and require an agency
investigation and a report to Congress and the President when
appropriate.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,325,000
for the Office of Special Counsel. This amount is the same as
the President's budget request and fiscal year 2005 enacted
level. Funding shall be allocated to each office for personnel
and related costs as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters............................................ $9,882,000
Detroit................................................. 930,100
Dallas.................................................. 1,342,200
Bay Area................................................ 1,499,100
D.C. Field Office....................................... 1,671,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee is disappointed with the lack of promptness
and the poor quality of OSC's budget submission for fiscal year
2006. The Committee directs the Office of Special Counsel to
submit its fiscal year 2007 budget justifications on the first
Monday in February, concurrent with the official submission of
the President's budget to Congress. The justification should
include highly detailed data and explanatory statements to
support the appropriations requests, including tables that
detail OSC's programs, activities and staffing levels for
fiscal years 2006 and 2007. The Committee expects that OSC will
coordinate with the Committee on Appropriations well in advance
on its planned budget submission in support of the fiscal year
2007 budget request.
The Committee reiterates the recommendation that the
Government Accountability Office [GAO] made in its March 2004
report (GAO-04-36) that OSC submit to Congress a comprehensive
strategy addressing capital needs and case processing in order
to prevent any future backlog of cases when submitting their
fiscal year 2007 budget request. The Committee further directs
OSC to provide quarterly staffing reports from the Special
Counsel to Congress.

Selective Service System

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $26,090,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 25,650,000
House allowance......................................... 24,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,650,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Selective Service System [SSS] was reestablished by the
Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System
is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces
adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a
time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have
relied on volunteers to fill military manpower requirements.
However, the Selective Service System remains the primary
vehicle by which personnel will be brought into the military if
Congress and the President should authorize a return to the
draft.
In December 1987, Selective Service was tasked by law
(Public Law 100-180, sec. 715) to develop plans for 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. An
automated system capable of handling mass registration and
inductions is now complete, together with necessary draft
legislation, a draft Presidential proclamation, prototype forms
and letters, et cetera. These products will be available should
the need arise. The development of supplemental standby
products, such as a compliance system for health care
personnel, continues using very limited existing resources.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,650,000
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as
the budget request and $440,000 below the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. The Committee also prohibits the use of any
funds to support the Corporation for National and Community
Service.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,499,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,800,000
House allowance......................................... 1,499,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,800,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an
independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple
efforts of Federal agencies and other designated groups. The
Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist
homeless persons and to take necessary actions to reduce
duplication. The Council can recommend improvements in programs
and activities conducted by Federal, State and local government
as well as local volunteer organizations. The Council consists
of the heads of 18 Federal agencies such as the Departments of
Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services,
Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education,
Labor, and Transportation; and other entities as deemed
appropriate.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,800,000 for the United States
Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH], the same level as
the budget request and $301,000 more than the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. These funds are for carrying out the functions
authorized under section 203 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act.
The Committee continues to strongly support the mission of
ICH and its efforts in ending homelessness. The Committee
continues to believe that a comprehensive and coordinated
strategy must be made by the Federal Government to end and
prevent homelessness in this Nation. ICH has been successful in
developing 10-year plans with 48 States and 193 communities.
The Committee supports these efforts and continues to urge ICH
to assist these entities in developing clear and detailed
business plans that address the sources of public and non-
public funds in achieving their performance goals.
The Committee is extremely disappointed that a member of
the ICH has passed on chairing the ICH this year. The Committee
strongly believes that the participation of all ICH members is
critical in meeting the President's stated goal of ending
chronic homelessness over 10 years.
The Committee has included bill language that extends the
reauthorization for the ICH till October 1, 2012.

United States Postal Service

PAYMENT TO THE POSTAL SERVICE FUND

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $593,477,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 87,350,000
House allowance......................................... 116,350,000
Committee recommendation................................ 116,350,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Post Office dates back to 1775. It became the Postal
Service in 1971 as an independent establishment of the
executive branch of the United States Government. The Postal
Service basic function and obligation is to provide postal
services to bind the Nation together through the personal,
educational, literary, and business correspondence of the
people. It shall provide prompt, reliable and efficient
services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal
services to all communities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $116,350,000 in fiscal
year 2006 funding and advanced appropriations for payments to
the Postal Service Fund. The increase of $29,000,000 above the
President's request is to provide funds for overseas voting for
prior years' liability under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of
1993.
This amount includes: $58,767,000 requested for free mail
for the blind and overseas voting; $28,583,000 as a
reconciliation adjustment for 2002 actual mail volume of free
mail for the blind and overseas voting; and $29,000,000 for
prior years' liability under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of
1993. In addition to these funds, $73,000,000 (an advance
appropriation from 2005 for the 2005 costs and the 2002
reconciliation adjustment for free mail for the blind and
overseas voting) will become available to the U.S. Postal
Service in fiscal year 2006.
Revenue forgone on free and reduced-rate mail enables
postage rates to be set at levels below the unsubsidized rates
for certain categories of mail as authorized by subsections (c)
and (d) of section 2401 of title 39, United States Code. Free
mail for the blind and overseas voters will continue to be
provided at the funding level recommended by the Committee.
The Committee includes provisions in the bill that would
assure that mail for overseas voting and mail for the blind
shall continue to be free; that 6-day delivery and rural
delivery of mail shall continue without reduction; and that
none of the funds provided be used to consolidate or close
small rural and other small post offices in fiscal year 2006.
These are services that must be maintained in fiscal year 2006
and beyond.
The Committee believes that 6-day mail delivery is one of
the most important services provided by the Federal Government
to its citizens. Especially in rural and small town America,
this critical postal service is the linchpin that serves to
bind the Nation together.
Emergency Preparedness.--The Committee continues to be
sympathetic to the needs of the Postal Service to provide
protection to the employees of the Postal Service. Due to
budget constraints, funds cannot be provided to complete the
biohazardous detection system [BDS] nationwide. The Committee
directs the Postal Service to provide to the Committees on
Appropriations no later than 90 days after enactment of this
Act a report updating how far along the Postal Service is in
installing the BDS; how many facilities are complete with the
BDS; what plans the Postal Service has to complete all of the
BDS installation without the appropriated funds; whether the
BDS system has been equipped to detect more than one foreign
agent, and how far along the Postal Service is in that regard;
what the future needs are for the Postal Service to provide
protection for the employees; and when the construction of the
Washington, DC mail irradiation facility will be complete.

United States Tax Court

salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $40,851,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 48,998,000
House allowance......................................... 48,998,000
Committee recommendation................................ 47,998,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Tax Court is an independent judicial body in the
legislative branch established under article I of the
Constitution of the United States. The court is composed of a
chief judge and 18 judges. Decisions by the court are
reviewable by the U.S. Courts of Appeals and, if certiorari is
granted, by the Supreme Court.
In their judicial duties the judges are assisted by senior
judges, who participate in the adjudication of regular cases,
and by special trial judges, who hear small tax cases and
certain regular cases assigned to them by the chief judge.
The court conducts trial sessions throughout the United
States, including Hawaii and Alaska. The matters over which the
Court has jurisdiction are set forth in various sections of
title 26 of the United States Code.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $47,998,000
for the U.S. Tax Court.

STATEMENT CONCERNING GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies appropriation bill
includes general provisions which govern both the activities of
the agencies covered by the bill, and, in some cases,
activities of agencies, programs, and general government
activities that are not covered by the bill. General provisions
that are governmentwide in scope are contained in title VIII of
this bill.
The bill contains a number of general provisions that have
been carried in this bill for years and which are routine in
nature and scope. General provisions in the bill are explained
under this section of the report. Those general provisions that
deal with a single agency only are shown immediately following
that particular agency's or department's appropriation accounts
in the bill. Those provisions that address activities or
directives affecting all of the agencies covered in this bill
are contained in title VII.

TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS THIS ACT

Section 701 requires pay raises to be absorbed within
appropriated levels in this Act or previous appropriations
Acts.
Section 702 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-
Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings
funded in this Act.
Section 703 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal
year and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so
provided herein.
Section 704 limits expenditures for consulting service
through procurement contracts where such expenditures are a
matter of public record and available for public inspection.
Section 705 prohibits funds in this Act to be transferred
without express authority.
Section 706 prohibits the use of funds to engage in
activities that would prohibit the enforcement of section 307
of the 1930 Tariff Act (46 Stat. 590).
Section 707 protects employment rights of Federal employees
who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the
Armed Forces.
Section 708 prohibits the use of funds in compliance with
the Buy American Act.
Section 709 prohibits funding for any person or entity
convicted of violating the Buy American Act.
Section 710 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and
specifies the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by
this Act.
Section 711 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances
may remain available for certain purposes.
Section 712 restricts the use of funds for the White House
to request official background reports without the written
consent of the individual who is the subject of the report.
Section 713 ensures that the cost accounting standard shall
not apply with respect to a contract under the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program.
Section 714 references non-foreign area cost of living
allowances.
Section 715 waives restrictions on the purchase of non-
domestic articles, materials, and supplies in the case of
acquisition by the Federal Government of information
technology.
Section 716 prohibits a cost-share demonstration for the
Essential Air Services program.
Section 717 provides flexibility in the use of funds in
accounts under the Executive Office of the President.
Section 718 requires departments and agencies under this
Act to disclose information regarding all sole source
contracts.
Section 719 creates the same rights for the leadership PAC
to transfer funds to a national campaign committee as a
principle campaign committee. All funds are still subject to
the limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements of the
Federal Election Campaign Act and this provision does not
change the contribution limit to the leadership PAC or the
contribution amount that may be made from a leadership PAC.
Section 720 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to
establish offices in locations of strategic interest throughout
the world to be managed by non-career and career SES positions.
The purpose of these offices is to promote U.S. economic policy
as well as to provide an opportunity for these Treasury
employees to develop relationships and understand first-hand
the economic priorities of other nations. These offices would
be funded through funds transferred from the Exchange
Stabilization Fund.
Section 721 prohibits the use of funds to enforce a
provision of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations that impedes
sales to Cuba.
Section 722 prohibits the use of funds for a proposed rule
related to the determination that real estate brokerage
activities are financial activities.
Section 723 prohibits the Treasury from implementing a
reimbursable agreement pursuant to section 517 of H.R. 2360.

TITLE VIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND CORPORATIONS

Section 801 authorizes agencies to pay travel costs of the
families of Federal employees on foreign duty to return to the
United States in the event of death or a life threatening
illness of an employee.
Section 802 requires agencies to administer a policy
designed to ensure that all of its workplaces are free from the
illegal use of controlled substances.
Section 803 allows funds made available to agencies for
travel to also be used for quarters allowances and cost-of-
living allowances.
Section 804 prohibits the Government, with certain
specified exceptions, from employing non-U.S. citizens whose
posts of duty would be in the continental United States.
Section 805 ensures that agencies will have authority to
pay the General Services Administration bills for space
renovation and other services.
Section 806 allows agencies to finance the costs of
recycling and waste prevention programs with proceeds from the
sale of materials recovered through such programs.
Section 807 provides that funds may be used to pay rent and
other service costs in the District of Columbia.
Section 808 prohibits the use of appropriated funds to pay
the salary of any nominee after the Senate voted not to approve
the nomination.
Section 809 precludes interagency financing of groups
absent prior statutory approval.
Section 810 authorizes the Postal Service to employ guards.
Section 811 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for
enforcing regulations disapproved in accordance with the
applicable law of the United States.
Section 812 limits the pay increases of certain prevailing
rate employees.
Section 813 limits the amount that can be used for
redecoration of offices under certain circumstances.
Section 814 permits interagency funding of national
security and emergency preparedness telecommunications
initiatives, which benefit multiple Federal departments,
agencies, and entities.
Section 815 requires agencies to certify that a schedule C
appointment was not created solely or primarily to detail the
employee to the White House.
Section 816 requires agencies to administer a policy
designed to ensure that all of its workplaces are free from
discrimination and sexual harassment.
Section 817 prohibits the use of funds to prevent Federal
employees from communicating with Congress or to take
disciplinary or personnel actions against employees for such
communication.
Section 818 prohibits training not directly related to the
performance of official duties.
Section 819 prohibits the expenditure of funds for the
implementation of agreements in certain nondisclosure policies
unless certain provisions are included in the policies.
Section 820 prohibits use of appropriated funds for
publicity or propaganda designed to support or defeat
legislation pending before Congress.
Section 821 prohibits use of appropriated funds by an
agency to provide Federal employees home address to labor
organizations.
Section 822 prohibits the use of appropriated funds to
provide nonpublic information such as mailing or telephone
lists to any person or organization outside of the Government.
Section 823 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for
publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not
authorized by Congress.
Section 824 directs agencies employees to use official time
in an honest effort to perform official duties.
Section 825 authorizes the use of current fiscal year funds
to finance an appropriate share of the Joint Financial
Management Improvement Program.
Section 826 authorizes agencies to transfer funds to or
reimburse the Policy and Operations account of GSA to finance
an appropriate share of the Joint Financial Management
Improvement Program.
Section 827 authorizes breastfeeding at any location in a
Federal building or on Federal property.
Section 828 permits interagency funding of the National
Science and Technology Council.
Section 829 requires identification of the Federal agencies
providing Federal funds and the amount provided for all
proposals, solicitations, grant applications, forms,
notifications, press releases, or other publications related to
the distribution of funding to a State.
Section 830 continues a provision which extends the
authorization for franchise fund pilots for 1 year with
modification.
Section 831 continues a provision prohibiting the use of
funds to monitor personal information relating to the use of
Federal internet sites.
Section 832 continues a provision regarding contraceptive
coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.
Section 833 recognizes the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency as the
official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American, and
Paralympic sports in the United States.
Section 834 allows departments and agencies to participate
in the fractional aircraft ownership pilot programs.
Section 835 places certain limitations on the Coast Guard
Congressional Fellowship program.
Section 836 requires each Department and Agency to evaluate
the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing the
individual a Government purchase charge card or travel card.
Section 837 provides for a 3.1 percent increase in the
basic pay of Federal civilian employees.
Section 838 continues a provision requiring the head of
each Federal Agency to submit a report to Congress on the
amount of acquisitions made by the Agency from entities that
manufacture the articles, materials, or supplies outside of the
United States.
Sections 839 prohibits the expenditure of funds for the
acquisition of certain additional Federal Law Enforcement
Training facilities.
Section 840 provides funding for Midway atoll Airfield.
Section 841 provides certain requirements for public-
private competition for the performance of certain activities
for offices with less than 100 FTEs.
Section 842 provides requirements for prepackaged news
stories that are prepared or funded by that executive branch
agency.
Section 843 establishes a set of outsourcing contracting
requirements that provide an even playing field for the private
and public sector.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
The Committee recommends the following appropriations which
lack authorization:

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary of Transportation: Payments to air
carriers
Federal Highway Administration:
Federal-aid highways
Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
Motor carrier safety
National motor carrier safety program
Border enforcement program
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Operations and research
Highway traffic safety grants
National driver register
Federal Railroad Administration:
Safety and operations
Alaska railroad rehabilitation
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Federal Transit Administration:
Administrative expenses
Formula grants
University transportation centers
Transit planning and research
Capitol investment grants
Job access and reverse commute grants
Research and Special Programs Administration:
Research and Special Programs (Hazardous Materials Safety)
Emergency Preparedness Grants
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (drawdown from Federal-
aid highways)
Surface Transportation Board

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Departmental Offices:
Salaries and expenses
Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments Program
Air Transportation Stabilization Program
Treasury Building and annex, repair and restoration

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rural Housing and Economic Development Brownfields

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

The White House Office, salaries and expenses
Executive Residence at the White House, operating expenses
Special Assistance to the President, salaries and expenses
Council of Economic Advisers
National Security Council
Office of Administration
Office of Management and Budget
Office of National Drug Control Policy:
Salaries and expenses
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
High-intensity drug trafficking areas
Other Federal Drug Control (except Drug-Free Communities)

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Federal Election Commission, salaries and expenses
General Services Administration:
Federal buildings fund
Repairs and Alterations Construction and Acquisition of
Facilities
National Transportation Safety Board
Office of Government Ethics, salaries and expenses
Office of Personnel Management, Human Capital Performance
Fund

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 21, 2005,
the Committee ordered reported, en bloc S. 1446, an original
bill making appropriations for the District of Columbia and
other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the
revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2006, and for other purposes, H.R. 2528, making
appropriations for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes with an amendment in the nature of
a substitute and an amendment to the title; and H.R.3058,
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation,
Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006,
and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, provided that the bill be subject to further
amendment and the bill be consistent with its budget
allocation, by a recorded vote of 28-0, a quorum being present.
The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these
requirements in order to expedite the business of the
Senate. deg.

TITLE 2--THE CONGRESS

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 14--FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

SUBCHAPTER I--DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

Sec. 441A. LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(4)] (4)(A) The limitations on contributions
contained in paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to
transfers between and among political committees which
are national, State, district, or local committees
(including any subordinate committee thereof) of the
same political party. For purposes of paragraph (2),
the term ``multicandidate political committee'' means a
political committee which has been registered under
section 433 of this title for a period of not less than
6 months, which has received contributions from more
than 50 persons, and, except for any State political
party organization, has made contributions to 5 or more
candidates for Federal office.
(B) The limitation on contributions contained in
paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to transfers
between a leadership committee of an individual holding
Federal office and political committees established and
maintained by a national political party. For purposes
of the previous sentence, the term ``leadership
committee'' means, with respect to an individual
holding Federal office, an unauthorized political
committee which is associated with such individual but
which is not affiliated with any authorized committee
of such individual.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS

CHAPTER 1--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 127. VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS--INTERSTATE SYSTEM

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(h) Waiver for a Route in State of Maine During Periods of
National Emergency.--
[(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, may waive
or limit the application of any vehicle weight limit
established under this section with respect to the
portion of Interstate Route 95 in the State of Maine
between Augusta and Bangor for the purpose of making
bulk shipments of jet fuel to the Air National Guard
Base at Bangor International Airport during a period of
national emergency in order to respond to the effects
of the national emergency.
[(2) Applicability.--Emergency limits established
under paragraph (1) shall preempt any inconsistent
State vehicle weight limits.]
(h) Over-the-Road Bus and Public Transit Vehicle
Exemption.--
(1) In general.--The second sentence of section 127
of title 23, United States Code (relating to axle
weight limitations for vehicles using the Dwight D.
Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways),
shall not apply to--
(A) any over-the-road bus (as defined in
section 301 of the Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181)); or
(B) any vehicle that is regularly and
exclusively used as an intrastate public agency
transit passenger bus.
(2) State action.--No State or political
subdivision of a State, or any political authority of 2
or more States, shall impose any axle weight limitation
on any vehicle described in paragraph (1) in any case
in which such a vehicle is using the Dwight D.
Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways..

* * * * * * *

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 119--HOMELESS ASSISTANCE

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II--INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON THE HOMELESS

* * * * * * *

Sec. 11319. TERMINATION

The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of
this subchapter shall terminate, on October 1, [2005] 2012.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 443--INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

Sec. 44302. General authority

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) Extension of Policies.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall extend through
August 31, [2005,] 2006, and may extend through
December 31, [2005,] 2006, the termination date of any
insurance policy that the Department of Transportation
issued to an air carrier under subsection (a) and that
is in effect on the date of enactment of this
subsection on no less favorable terms to the air
carrier than existed on June 19, 2002; except that the
Secretary shall amend the insurance policy, subject to
such terms and conditions as the Secretary may
prescribe, to add coverage for losses or injuries to
aircraft hulls, passengers, and crew at the limits
carried by air carriers for such losses and injuries as
of such date of enactment and at an additional premium
comparable to the premium charged for third-party
casualty coverage under such policy.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 44303. Coverage

(a) * * *
(b) Air Carrier Liability for Third Party Claims Arising Out
of Acts of Terrorism.--For acts of terrorism committed on or to
an air carrier during the period beginning on September 22,
2001, and ending on December 31, [2005,] 2006, the Secretary
may certify that the air carrier was a victim of an act of
terrorism and in the Secretary's judgment, based on the
Secretary's analysis and conclusions regarding the facts and
circumstances of each case, shall not be responsible for losses
suffered by third parties (as referred to in section
205.5(b)(1) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) that
exceed $100,000,000, in the aggregate, for all claims by such
parties arising out of such act. If the Secretary so certifies,
the air carrier shall not be liable for an amount that exceeds
$100,000,000, in the aggregate, for all claims by such parties
arising out of such act, and the Government shall be
responsible for any liability above such amount. No punitive
damages may be awarded against an air carrier (or the
Government taking responsibility for an air carrier under this
subsection) under a cause of action arising out of such act.
The Secretary may extend the provisions of this subsection to
an aircraft manufacturer (as defined in section 44301) of the
aircraft of the air carrier involved.

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

PART B--AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 471--AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

SUBCHAPTER I--AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT

* * * * * * *

Sec. 47108. PROJECT GRANT AGREEMENTS

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) Change in Airport Status.--
(1) Changes to nonprimary airport status.--If the
status of a primary airport changes to a nonprimary
airport at a time when a development project under a
multiyear agreement under subsection (a) is not yet
completed, the project shall remain eligible for
funding from discretionary funds under section 47115 at
the funding level and under the terms provided by the
agreement, subject to the availability of funds.
(2) Changes to noncommercial service airport
status.--If the status of a commercial service airport
changes to a noncommercial service airport at a time
when a terminal development project under a phased-
funding arrangement is not yet completed, the project
shall remain eligible for funding from discretionary
funds under section 47115 at the funding level and
under the terms provided by the arrangement subject to
the availability of funds.
(3) Changes to nonhub primary status.--If the
status of a nonhub primary airport changes to a small
hub primary airport at a time when the airport has
received discretionary funds under this chapter for a
terminal development project in accordance with section
47110(d)(2), and the project is not yet completed, the
project shall remain eligible for funding from the
discretionary fund and the small airport fund to pay
costs allowable under section 47110(d). Such project
shall remain eligible for such funds for three fiscal
years after the start of construction of the project,
or if the Secretary determines that a further extension
of eligibility is justified, until the project is
completed.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 47110. ALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) * * *

* * * * * * *

(2) In making a decision under paragraph (1) of
this subsection, the Secretary may approve as allowable
costs the expenses of terminal development in a
revenue-producing area and construction,
reconstruction, repair, and improvement in a
nonrevenue-producing parking lot if--
[(A) the] (A) except as provided in section
47108(e)(3), the airport does not have more
than .05 percent of the total annual passenger
boardings in the United States; and

* * * * * * *

TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1995, PUBLIC LAW 103-329

* * * * * * *

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

* * * * * * *

Internal Revenue Service

* * * * * * *

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

Section 1. * * *

* * * * * * *

Sec. 3. The Secretary of the Treasury may establish new
fees or raise existing fees for services provided by the
Internal Revenue Service to increase receipts, where such fees
are authorized by another law. The Secretary of the Treasury
may spend the new or increased fee receipts to supplement
appropriations made available to the Internal Revenue Service
appropriations accounts in fiscal years 1995 and thereafter:
Provided, That the Secretary shall base such fees on the costs
of providing specified services to persons paying such fees:
Provided further That the Secretary shall provide quarterly
reports to the Congress on the collection of such fees and how
they are being expended by the Service[: Provided further, That
the total expenditures from such fees shall not exceed
$119,000,000].

* * * * * * *

GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT REFORM ACT OF 1994, PUBLIC LAW 103-356

SEC. 403. FRANCHISE FUND PILOT PROGRAMS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) Termination.--The provisions of this section shall expire
on October 1, [2005] 2006.

* * * * * * *

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998, PUBLIC LAW 105-119

Sec. 122. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject
to paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized
to establish, for a period of [7 years] 8 years from date of
enactment of this provision, a personnel management
demonstration project providing for the compensation and
performance management of not more than a combined total of 950
employees who fill critical scientific, technical, engineering,
intelligence analyst, language translator, and medical
positions in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

* * * * * * *

FEDERAL ACTIVITIES INVENTORY REFORM ACT OF 1998

SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

(a) * * *
(b) Exceptions.--This Act does not apply to or with respect
to the following:
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) Executive agencies with fewer than 100 full-time
employees as of the first day of the fiscal year.
However, such an agency shall be subject to section 2
to the extent it plans to conduct a public-private
competition for the performance of an activity that is
not inherently governmental.

* * * * * * *

DIVISION H--TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, AND GENERAL
GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108-447

* * * * * * *

General Services Administration

* * * * * * *

GENERAL PROVISIONS--GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

Sec. 412. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
beginning in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter, the Administrator
of General Services may convey, by sale, lease, exchange or
otherwise, including through leaseback arrangements, real and
related personal property, under the custody and control of the
Administrator of General Services or interests therein, and
retain the net proceeds of such dispositions in an account
within the Federal Buildings Fund to be used for the General
Services Administration's real property capital needs:
Provided, That all net proceeds realized under this section
shall only be expended as authorized in annual appropriations
Acts: Provided further, That for the purposes of this section,
the term ``net proceeds'' means the rental and other sums
received less the costs of the disposition, and the term ``real
property capital needs'' means any expenses necessary and
incident to the agency's real property capital acquisitions,
improvements, and dispositions.

* * * * * * *

Note.--Consistent with the funding recommended in the bill
for tax compliance and in accordance with section 404 of House
Concurrent Resolution 95 (109th Congress), the Committee
anticipates that the Budget Committee will file a revised
section 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations
reflecting an upward adjustment of $446,000,000 in budget
authority and associated outlays.

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
for 2006: Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the
Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and related
agencies:
Discretionary........................................... 65,373 65,819 121,872 \1\ 122,064
Mandatory............................................... 18,987 18,987 18,973 \1\ 18,973
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2006.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 70,167
2007.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 37,646
2008.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 14,422
2009.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 6,595
2010 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 7,411
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 28,821 NA 25,250
2006.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

Note.--Consistent with the funding recommended in the bill for tax compliance and in accordance with section 404
of House Concurrent Resolution 95 (109th Congress), the Committee anticipates that the Budget Committee will
file a revised section 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations reflecting an upward adjustment
of $446,000,000 in budget authority and associated outlays.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
)
Item 2005 Budget estimate House allowance Committee -----------------------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2005
appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses............................................. 86,536 87,046 67,824 86,000 -536 -1,046 +18,176
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................. (2,202) ................ (2,198) (2,198) (-4) (+2,198) ................
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary...................... (699) ................ (698) (698) (-1) (+698) ................
Immediate office of the Secretary and Deputy.................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Office of the General Counsel................................. (15,272) ................ (15,433) (15,183) (-89) (+15,183) (-250)
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy.... (12,526) ................ (11,680) (12,650) (+124) (+12,650) (+970)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs..... (8,504) ................ (7,593) (8,585) (+81) (+8,585) (+992)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs.... (2,297) ................ ................ (2,293) (-4) (+2,293) (+2,293)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.......... (23,249) ................ (23,139) (22,031) (-1,218) (+22,031) (-1,108)
Office of Public Affairs...................................... (1,914) ................ ................ (1,910) (-4) (+1,910) (+1,910)
Executive Secretariat......................................... (1,444) ................ (20) (1,442) (-2) (+1,442) (+1,422)
Board of Contract Appeals..................................... (698) ................ (697) (697) (-1) (+697) ................
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization........ (1,268) ................ (1,265) (1,265) (-3) (+1,265) ................
Office of Intelligence and Security........................... (2,037) ................ (2,033) (2,033) (-4) (+2,033) ................
Office of the Chief Information Officer....................... (11,301) ................ ................ (11,895) (+594) (+11,895) (+11,895)
Office of emergency transportation............................ (3,125) ................ (3,128) (3,120) (-5) (+3,120) (-8)
Undesignated reduction........................................ ................ ................ (-60) ................ ................ ................ (+60)
User fees..................................................... (-2,500) (-2,500) (-2,500) (-2,500) ................ ................ ................
Spending of user fees......................................... (2,500) (2,500) (2,500) (2,500) ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (86,536) (87,046) (67,824) (86,000) (-536) (-1,046) (+18,176)

Office of Civil Rights............................................ 8,630 8,550 8,550 8,550 -80 ................ ................
Rescission of excess compensation for air carriers................ -235,000 ................ ................ ................ +235,000 ................ ................
Transportation planning, research, and development................ 19,840 9,030 9,030 15,000 -4,840 +5,970 +5,970
Working capital fund.............................................. (151,054) ................ (120,014) (120,014) (-31,040) (+120,014) ................
Minority business resource center program......................... 893 900 900 900 +7 ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (18,367) (18,367) (18,367) (18,367) ................ ................ ................
Minority business outreach........................................ 2,976 3,000 3,000 3,000 +24 ................ ................
New headquarters building......................................... 67,456 100,000 55,000 50,000 -17,456 -50,000 -5,000
Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)............ 51,584 ................ 54,000 60,000 +8,416 +60,000 +6,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Secretary.............................. 237,915 208,526 198,304 223,450 -14,465 +14,924 +25,146
=============================================================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration

Operations........................................................ 7,712,800 8,201,000 8,396,920 8,176,000 +463,200 -25,000 -220,920
Air traffic Organization...................................... (6,136,598) (6,647,305) (6,424,229) (6,627,010) (+490,412) (-20,295) (+202,781)
Aviation Safety............................................... (903,764) (941,742) (1,214,042) (956,242) (+52,478) (+14,500) (-257,800)
Research and Acquisitions..................................... (221,100) ................ (222,171) ................ (-221,100) ................ (-222,171)
Commercial Space Transportation............................... (11,511) (11,759) (11,759) (11,759) (+248) ................ ................
Financial Services............................................ (50,408) ................ (50,583) (50,983) (+575) (+50,983) (+400)
Human Resource Management..................................... (68,844) ................ (69,943) (69,943) (+1,099) (+69,943) ................
Region and Center Operations.................................. (147,476) ................ (150,744) (150,744) (+3,268) (+150,744) ................
Staff Offices................................................. (137,352) (450,194) (140,337) (141,909) (+4,557) (-308,285) (+1,572)
Information Services.......................................... (35,747) ................ (36,612) (36,112) (+365) (+36,112) (-500)
Flight Service Stations transition............................ ................ (150,000) (91,000) (150,000) (+150,000) ................ (+59,000)
Undistributed reduction....................................... ................ ................ (-14,500) (-18,702) (-18,702) (-18,702) (-4,202)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 7,712,800 8,201,000 8,396,920 8,176,000 +463,200 -25,000 -220,920

Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund).............. 2,519,680 2,448,000 3,053,000 2,448,000 -71,680 ................ -605,000
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 108-324)................. 5,100 ................ ................ ................ -5,100 ................ ................
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway Trust 129,880 130,000 130,000 134,500 +4,620 +4,500 +4,500
Fund)............................................................

Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (2,800,000) (3,300,000) (3,600,000) (3,390,000) (+590,000) (+90,000) (-210,000)
(Liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (3,472,000) (3,000,000) (3,600,000) (3,500,000) (+28,000) (+500,000) (-100,000)
Small community air service program........................... (19,840) ................ (20,000) (20,000) (+160) (+20,000) ................
2006 F&E Pop-up contract authority............................ ................ 605,000 ................ 605,000 +605,000 ................ +605,000
Rescission of contract authority (2006 F&E Pop-up)............ ................ -605,000 ................ -1,174,000 -1,174,000 -569,000 -1,174,000
Rescission of contract authority (2006 AIP)................... ................ -600,000 ................ ................ ................ +600,000 ................
Rescission of contract authority (prior yr Pop-up)............ -265,000 -469,000 -469,000 ................ +265,000 +469,000 +469,000
Emergency assistance to airports (Airport and Airway Trust 25,000 ................ ................ ................ -25,000 ................ ................
Fund) (Public Law 108-324)...................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. (3,232,000) (1,931,000) (3,131,000) (2,931,000) (-301,000) (+1,000,000) (-200,000)

War risk insurance program extension.............................. -50,000 ................ -80,000 -80,000 -30,000 -80,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Aviation Administration...................... 10,342,460 11,384,000 11,499,920 11,283,500 +941,040 -100,500 -216,420
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (3,472,000) (3,000,000) (3,600,000) (3,500,000) (+28,000) (+500,000) (-100,000)
Rescissions of contract authority........................... -265,000 -1,674,000 -469,000 -1,174,000 -909,000 +500,000 -705,000
Total budgetary resources................................... (13,549,460) (12,710,000) (14,630,920) (13,609,500) (+60,040) (+899,500) (-1,021,420)
=============================================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses............................. (343,728) (367,638) (359,529) (364,638) (+20,910) (-3,000) (+5,109)
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)....................... (35,000,000) (35,000,000) (36,000,000) (40,194,259) (+5,194,259) (+5,194,259) (+4,194,259)
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (34,422,400) (34,700,000) (36,287,100) (40,194,259) (+5,771,859) (+5,494,259) (+3,907,159)
(Exempt contract authority)............................... (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................ ................
(Transfer to NHTSA)....................................... (-156,127) ................ ................ ................ (+156,127) ................ ................
Rescission of contract authority (Highway Trust Fund)............. -520,277 ................ ................ ................ +520,277 ................ ................
Appalachian development highway system............................ 79,360 ................ ................ 80,000 +640 +80,000 +80,000
Emergency relief programs (Highway Trust Fund).................... 735,072 ................ ................ ................ -735,072 ................ ................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 108-324)................. 1,202,000 ................ ................ ................ -1,202,000 ................ ................
Rescission of contract authority (Hwy Trust Fund)................. -741,000 ................ ................ -2,300,000 -1,559,000 -2,300,000 -2,300,000
TIFIA (rescission of contract authority).......................... -100,000 ................ ................ ................ +100,000 ................ ................
Belleair causeway bridge.......................................... 33,728 ................ ................ ................ -33,728 ................ ................
Unobligated balances (rescission of contract authority)........... -14,408 ................ ................ ................ +14,408 ................ ................
Unobligated balances (rescission)................................. -2,000 ................ ................ ................ +2,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Highway Administration....................... 2,050,160 ................ ................ 80,000 -1,970,160 +80,000 +80,000
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (34,422,400) (34,700,000) (36,287,100) (40,194,259) (+5,771,859) (+5,494,259) (+3,907,159)
(Exempt contract authority)................................. (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................ ................
Rescissions................................................. -2,000 ................ ................ ................ +2,000 ................ ................
Rescissions of contract authority........................... -1,375,685 ................ ................ -2,300,000 -924,315 -2,300,000 -2,300,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................................. (35,833,875) (35,439,000) (37,026,100) (38,713,259) (+2,879,384) (+3,274,259) (+1,687,159)
=============================================================================================================================
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrative expenses) (257,547) ................ ................ ................ (-257,547) ................ ................
(liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (255,487) ................ ................ ................ (-255,487) ................ ................
Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust Fund) ................ (233,000) (215,000) (211,400) (+211,400) (-21,600) (-3,600)
(Liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... ................ (233,000) (215,000) (211,400) (+211,400) (-21,600) (-3,600)
National motor carrier safety program (Highway Trust Fund) (190,000) ................ (286,000) ................ (-190,000) ................ (-286,000)
(Liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (188,480) ................ (286,000) ................ (-188,480) ................ (-286,000)
Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of ................ (232,000) ................ (278,620) (+278,620) (+46,620) (+278,620)
contract authorization)..........................................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... ................ (232,000) ................ (278,620) (+278,620) (+46,620) (+278,620)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (701,514) (465,000) (501,000) (490,020) (-211,494) (+25,020) (-10,980)
Total budgetary resources................................. (701,514) (465,000) (501,000) (490,020) (-211,494) (+25,020) (-10,980)
=============================================================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research........................................... ................ ................ 152,367 ................ ................ ................ -152,367
Operations and research (Highway trust fund) (Liquidation of (72,000) (227,367) (75,000) (226,688) (+154,688) (-679) (+151,688)
contract authorization)..........................................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (71,424) (227,367) (75,000) (226,688) (+155,264) (-679) (+151,688)
(Transfer from FHWA).......................................... (156,127) ................ ................ ................ (-156,127) ................ ................
National Driver Register (Highway trust fund) (Liquidation of (3,600) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (+400) ................ ................
contract authorization)..........................................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (3,571) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (+429) ................ ................
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of (225,000) (465,000) (551,000) (548,182) (+323,182) (+83,182) (-2,818)
contract authorization)..........................................
(Limitation on obligations):
Highway safety programs (Sec. 402)........................ (163,680) (172,000) (229,000) (209,218) (+45,538) (+37,218) (-19,782)
Formula grants (Sec. 402(k)).............................. ................ (183,000) ................ ................ ................ (-183,000) ................
Formula grants (Sec. 402(l)).............................. ................ (50,000) ................ ................ ................ (-50,000) ................
Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405)........... (19,840) ................ (136,000) (149,667) (+129,827) (+149,667) (+13,667)
Demonstration program grants (Sec. 406)................... ................ ................ ................ (7,400) (+7,400) (+7,400) (+7,400)
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec. 410) (39,680) ................ (129,000) (115,721) (+76,041) (+115,721) (-13,279)
Emergency medical services grants (Sec. 407).............. ................ (10,000) ................ (5,000) (+5,000) (-5,000) (+5,000)
State traffic safety information system improvement grants ................ (50,000) (30,000) (45,000) (+45,000) (-5,000) (+15,000)
(Sec. 412)...............................................
High visibility enforcement............................... ................ ................ (15,000) ................ ................ ................ (-15,000)
Child safety and booster seat grants...................... ................ ................ (6,000) ................ ................ ................ (-6,000)
Motorcyclist safety....................................... ................ ................ (6,000) ................ ................ ................ (-6,000)
Grant administration...................................... ................ ................ ................ (16,176) (+16,176) (+16,176) (+16,176)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (223,200) (465,000) (551,000) (548,182) (+324,982) (+83,182) (-2,818)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.............. ................ ................ 152,367 ................ ................ ................ -152,367
(Limitations on obligations).............................. (298,195) (696,367) (630,000) (778,870) (+480,675) (+82,503) (+148,870)
Total budgetary resources................................. (298,195) (696,367) (782,367) (778,870) (+480,675) (+82,503) (-3,497)
=============================================================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations............................................. 138,651 145,949 145,949 146,000 +7,349 +51 +51
Railroad research and development................................. 35,737 46,325 ................ 41,000 +5,263 -5,325 +41,000
Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program................... 6,000 ................ ................ ................ -6,000 ................ ................
Next generation high-speed rail................................... 19,493 ................ 10,165 11,500 -7,993 +11,500 +1,335
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation.................................... 24,800 ................ ................ 20,000 -4,800 +20,000 +20,000
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation............. 1,207,264 360,000 1,176,248 1,450,000 +242,736 +1,090,000 +273,752
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Railroad Administration...................... 1,431,945 552,274 1,332,362 1,668,500 +236,555 +1,116,226 +336,138
=============================================================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses, (general purpose NDD).................... ................ 83,500 ................ ................ ................ -83,500 ................
Administrative expenses........................................... 9,672 ................ 12,000 13,411 +3,739 +13,411 +1,411
Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (67,704) ................ (68,000) (66,133) (-1,571) (+66,133) (-1,867)
(limitation on obligations)......................................
Office of the Administrator................................... (892) ................ (989) (925) (+33) (+925) (-64)
Office of Chief Counsel....................................... (4,067) ................ (4,140) (4,200) (+133) (+4,200) (+60)
Office of Civil Rights........................................ (2,989) ................ (3,113) (3,000) (+11) (+3,000) (-113)
Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs............ (1,233) ................ (1,276) (1,300) (+67) (+1,300) (+24)
Office of Budget and Policy................................... (6,874) ................ (7,123) (7,200) (+326) (+7,200) (+77)
Office of Planning............................................ (4,138) ................ (4,155) (4,200) (+62) (+4,200) (+45)
Office of Program Management.................................. (7,337) ................ (7,916) (7,500) (+163) (+7,500) (-416)
Office of Demonstration and Innovation........................ (4,608) ................ (4,712) (4,700) (+92) (+4,700) (-12)
Office of Administration...................................... (6,468) ................ (7,284) (6,800) (+332) (+6,800) (-484)
Central Account............................................... (16,302) ................ (17,884) (16,219) (-83) (+16,219) (-1,665)
Regional offices.............................................. (19,988) ................ (21,408) (21,000) (+1,012) (+21,000) (-408)
National Transit database..................................... (2,480) ................ ................ (2,500) (+20) (+2,500) (+2,500)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (77,376) ................ (80,000) (79,544) (+2,168) (+79,544) (-456)

Formula grants.................................................... 499,990 ................ 662,550 734,117 +234,127 +734,117 +71,567
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (3,499,928) ................ (3,754,450) (3,620,074) (+120,146) (+3,620,074) (-134,376)
(limitation on obligations)......................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (3,999,918) ................ (4,417,000) (4,354,191) (+354,273) (+4,354,191) (-62,809)

Formula grants and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit ................ (6,135,000) ................ ................ ................ (-6,135,000) ................
Account) (limitation on obligations).............................

Liquidation of contract authorization......................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (3,999,918) (6,135,000) (4,417,000) (4,354,191) (+354,273) (-1,780,809) (-62,809)

University transportation research................................ 744 ................ 1,200 981 +237 +981 -219
University transportation research (Highway Trust Fund Mass (5,208) ................ (6,800) (4,837) (-371) (+4,837) (-1,963)
Transit Account) (limitation on obligations).....................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (5,952) ................ (8,000) (5,818) (-134) (+5,818) (-2,182)

Transit planning and research..................................... 15,872 ................ 24,049 26,350 +10,478 +26,350 +2,301
Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit (111,104) ................ (136,276) (129,937) (+18,833) (+129,937) (-6,339)
Account) (limitation on obligations).............................
Rural transportation assistance............................... (5,208) ................ ................ (5,208) ................ (+5,208) (+5,208)
National transit institute.................................... (3,968) ................ ................ (3,967) (-1) (+3,967) (+3,967)
Transit cooperative research.................................. (8,184) ................ ................ (8,992) (+808) (+8,992) (+8,992)
Planning...................................................... ................ ................ (103,325) (104,004) (+104,004) (+104,004) (+679)
Research (TEA-LU)............................................. ................ ................ (57,000) ................ ................ ................ (-57,000)
Metropolitan planning......................................... (59,903) ................ ................ ................ (-59,903) ................ ................
State planning................................................ (12,513) ................ ................ ................ (-12,513) ................ ................
National planning and research................................ (37,200) ................ ................ (34,116) (-3,084) (+34,116) (+34,116)
Flexible funding.............................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (126,976) ................ (160,325) (156,287) (+29,311) (+156,287) (-4,038)

Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation of (6,744,500) (690,000) (7,209,700) (6,824,667) (+80,167) (+6,134,667) (-385,033)
contract authorization)..........................................

Capital investment grants......................................... 414,014 ................ 546,251 588,578 +174,564 +588,578 +42,327
Capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit (2,898,100) ................ (3,095,424) (2,902,394) (+4,294) (+2,902,394) (-193,030)
Account) (limitation on obligations).............................
Major capital investment grants................................... ................ 872,800 ................ ................ ................ -872,800 ................
Major capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit ................ (690,000) ................ ................ ................ (-690,000) ................
Account) (limitation on obligations).............................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (3,312,114) (1,562,800) (3,641,675) (3,490,972) (+178,858) (+1,928,172) (-150,703)
Fixed guideway modernization.................................. (1,204,684) (1,531,250) (1,386,670) (1,307,473) (+102,789) (-223,777) (-79,197)
Buses and bus-related facilities.............................. (669,600) ................ (693,335) (796,977) (+127,377) (+796,977) (+103,642)
New starts.................................................... (1,437,830) ................ (1,561,670) (1,386,522) (-51,308) (+1,386,522) (-175,148)
Metropolitan and statewide planning activities................ ................ (31,250) ................ ................ ................ (-31,250) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (3,312,114) (1,562,500) (3,641,675) (3,490,972) (+178,858) (+1,928,472) (-150,703)

Job access and reverse commute grants............................. 15,500 ................ 26,250 20,541 +5,041 +20,541 -5,709
Job access and reverse commute grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass (108,500) ................ (148,750) (101,292) (-7,208) (+101,292) (-47,458)
Transit Account) (limitation on obligations).....................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (124,000) ................ (175,000) (121,833) (-2,167) (+121,833) (-53,167)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Transit Administration....................... 955,792 956,300 1,272,300 1,383,978 +428,186 +427,678 +111,678
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (6,690,544) (6,825,000) (7,209,700) (6,824,667) (+134,123) (-333) (-385,033)
Total budgetary resources................................. (7,646,336) (7,781,300) (8,482,000) (8,208,645) (+562,309) (+427,345) (-273,355)
=============================================================================================================================
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)........ 15,773 8,000 16,284 16,284 +511 +8,284 ................
Spending from proposed mandatory user fee..................... ................ 8,284 ................ ................ ................ -8,284 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp............... 15,773 16,284 16,284 16,284 +511 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Maritime Administration

Maritime security program......................................... 97,910 156,000 156,000 156,000 +58,090 ................ ................
Operations and training........................................... 108,602 113,650 112,336 118,649 +10,047 +4,999 +6,313
Ship disposal..................................................... 21,443 21,000 21,000 21,000 -443 ................ ................
Vessel operations revolving fund.................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account:
Administrative expenses....................................... 4,726 3,526 3,526 4,726 ................ +1,200 +1,200
National defense tank vessel construction program............. 74,400 ................ ................ 25,000 -49,400 +25,000 +25,000
Rescission................................................ ................ -74,400 ................ ................ ................ +74,400 ................
Ship construction (rescission)................................ -1,979 ................ -2,071 -2,071 -92 -2,071 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Maritime Administration.......................... 305,102 219,776 290,791 323,304 +18,202 +103,528 +32,513
=============================================================================================================================
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous materials safety........................................ ................ 26,324 26,183 26,138 +26,138 -186 -45

Administrative expenses........................................... ................ 16,382 16,382 16,232 +16,232 -150 -150
Pipeline Safety Fund.......................................... ................ 645 645 645 +645 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... ................ 17,027 17,027 16,877 +16,877 -150 -150

Pipeline safety:
Pipeline Safety Fund.......................................... 54,331 54,165 57,860 58,165 +3,834 +4,000 +305
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund................................ 14,880 19,000 15,000 15,000 +120 -4,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 69,211 73,165 72,860 73,165 +3,954 ................ +305

Emergency preparedness grants:
Emergency preparedness fund................................... 198 200 200 200 +2 ................ ................
Limitation on emergency preparedness fund..................... (14,300) ................ (14,300) (14,300) ................ (+14,300) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administra- 69,409 116,716 116,270 116,380 +46,971 -336 +110
tion.......................................................
=============================================================================================================================
Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Research and development.......................................... ................ 6,274 4,326 4,326 +4,326 -1,948 ................
Research and special programs..................................... 46,738 ................ ................ ................ -46,738 ................ ................
(By transfer)................................................. (645) ................ ................ ................ (-645) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and Innovative Technology Admin............. 46,738 6,274 4,326 4,326 -42,412 -1,948 ................
=============================================================================================================================
Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses............................................. 58,528 62,499 62,499 62,499 +3,971 ................ ................

Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses............................................. 21,080 24,388 26,622 24,388 +3,308 ................ -2,234
Offsetting collections........................................ -1,050 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -200 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Surface Transportation Board......................... 20,030 23,138 25,372 23,138 +3,108 ................ -2,234
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title I, Department of Transportation................ 13,656,167 11,871,787 14,501,795 11,711,359 -1,944,808 -160,428 -2,790,436
Appropriations.......................................... (14,303,731) (13,620,187) (14,972,866) (15,187,430) (+883,699) (+1,567,243) (+214,564)
Rescissions............................................. (-238,979) (-74,400) (-2,071) (-2,071) (+236,908) (+72,329) ................
Rescission of contract authority........................ (-1,640,685) (-1,674,000) (-469,000) (-3,474,000) (-1,833,315) (-1,800,000) (-3,005,000)
Emergency appropriations................................ (1,232,100) ................ ................ ................ (-1,232,100) ................ ................
Offsetting collections.................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (45,584,653) (45,686,367) (48,227,800) (51,787,816) (+6,203,163) (+6,101,449) (+3,560,016)
(Exempt contract authority)................................. (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................ ................
(By transfer)............................................... (156,772) ................ ................ ................ (-156,772) ................ ................
(Transfer out).............................................. (-156,127) ................ ................ ................ (+156,127) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total budgetary resources............................. (59,979,820) (58,297,154) (63,468,595) (64,238,175) (+4,258,355) (+5,941,021) (+769,580)
=============================================================================================================================
Transportation discretionary total................................ 13,656,167 11,871,787 14,501,795 11,711,359 -1,944,808 -160,428 -2,790,436

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Departmental Offices

Salaries and expenses............................................. 156,299 195,253 157,452 197,591 +41,292 +2,338 +40,139
Executive direction........................................... (7,216) (16,656) (7,216) (8,642) (+1,426) (-8,014) (+1,426)
General Counsel............................................... (7,142) ................ (7,521) (7,852) (+710) (+7,852) (+331)
Economic policies and and programs............................ (31,405) (32,011) (32,011) (32,011) (+606) ................ ................
Financial policies and programs............................... (25,863) (24,721) (24,721) (27,221) (+1,358) (+2,500) (+2,500)
Financial crimes.............................................. (10,548) (39,938) (35,409) (39,938) (+29,390) ................ (+4,529)
Treasury wide management...................................... (16,626) (16,843) (16,843) (16,843) (+217) ................ ................
Administration................................................ (57,499) (65,084) (63,731) (65,084) (+7,585) ................ (+1,353)
Undesignated reduction........................................ ................ ................ (-30,000) ................ ................ ................ (+30,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (156,299) (195,253) (157,452) (197,591) (+41,292) (+2,338) (+40,139)

Office of Foreign Assets Control.................................. 22,113 ................ ................ ................ -22,113 ................ ................
Department-wide systems and capital investments programs.......... 32,002 24,412 21,412 24,412 -7,590 ................ +3,000
Office of Inspector General....................................... 16,368 16,722 17,000 16,722 +354 ................ -278
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration................. 128,093 133,286 133,286 133,286 +5,193 ................ ................
Air transportation stabilization program account.................. 1,984 2,942 ................ 2,942 +958 ................ +2,942
Community development financial institutions fund program ac- 55,078 7,900 55,000 55,000 -78 +47,100 ................
count............................................................
Treasury building and annex repair and restoration................ 12,217 10,000 10,000 10,000 -2,217 ................ ................
Expanded access to financial services (rescission)................ -4,000 ................ ................ ................ +4,000 ................ ................
Violent crime reduction program (rescission)...................... -1,200 ................ ................ ................ +1,200 ................ ................
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.............................. 71,922 73,630 73,630 73,630 +1,708 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental Offices................................. 490,876 464,145 467,780 513,583 +22,707 +49,438 +45,803
=============================================================================================================================
Financial Management Service...................................... 229,083 236,243 236,243 236,243 +7,160 ................ ................

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 82,336 62,486 91,126 91,126 +8,790 +28,640 ................
Spending from proposed mandatory user fees.................... ................ 28,640 ................ ................ ................ -28,640 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 82,336 91,126 91,126 91,126 +8,790 ................ ................

Bureau of the Public Debt......................................... 173,765 176,923 176,923 176,923 +3,158 ................ ................
Payment of government losses in shipment.......................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Dept. of Treasury, non-IRS........................... 977,060 969,437 973,072 1,018,875 +41,815 +49,438 +45,803
=============================================================================================================================
Internal Revenue Service

Tax administration and operations................................. ................ 10,460,051 ................ ................ ................ -10,460,051 ................
Adjusted appropriation........................................ ................ (446,496) ................ (446,496) (+446,496) ................ (+446,496)
Processing, assistance, and management............................ 4,056,857 ................ 4,181,520 4,136,578 +79,721 +4,136,578 -44,942
Tax law enforcement............................................... 4,363,539 ................ 4,580,216 4,725,756 +362,217 +4,725,756 +145,540
Information systems............................................... 1,577,768 ................ 1,575,146 1,597,717 +19,949 +1,597,717 +22,571
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 9,998,164 10,460,051 10,336,882 10,460,051 +461,887 ................ +123,169

Business systems modernization.................................... 203,360 199,000 199,000 199,000 -4,360 ................ ................
Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration........................ 34,562 20,210 20,210 20,210 -14,352 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Internal Revenue Service............................. 10,236,086 10,679,261 10,556,092 10,679,261 +443,175 ................ +123,169
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of the Treasury................. 11,213,146 11,648,698 11,529,164 11,698,136 +484,990 +49,438 +168,972
Appropriations.......................................... 11,218,346 11,648,698 11,529,164 11,698,136 +479,790 +49,438 +168,972
Rescissions............................................. -5,200 ................ ................ ................ +5,200 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Public and Indian Housing

Tenant-based Rental Assistance:
Direct appropriation.......................................... 10,599,520 11,645,194 11,431,400 11,436,064 +836,544 -209,130 +4,664
Renewals...................................................... (13,355,285) (14,089,756) (14,189,756) (14,089,756) (+734,471) ................ (-100,000)
Tenant protection vouchers.................................... (161,696) (354,081) (165,700) (192,000) (+30,304) (-162,081) (+26,300)
Family self-sufficiency coordinators.......................... (45,632) (55,000) (45,000) (48,000) (+2,368) (-7,000) (+3,000)
Administrative fees........................................... (1,200,426) (1,295,408) (1,225,000) (1,295,408) (+94,982) ................ (+70,408)
Working capital fund.......................................... (2,881) (5,949) (5,900) (5,900) (+3,019) (-49) ................
Additional rental subsidy..................................... ................ (45,000) ................ ................ ................ (-45,000) ................
Technical assistance fund..................................... ................ ................ ................ (5,000) (+5,000) (+5,000) (+5,000)
Advance appropriations provided in previous acts.............. 4,166,400 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 +33,600 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 14,765,920 15,845,194 15,631,356 15,636,064 +870,144 -209,130 +4,708

Advance appropriations provided in current year............... 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Tenant-based rental assistance....................... 18,965,920 20,045,194 19,831,400 19,836,064 +870,144 -209,130 +4,664

Project-based rental assistance................................... 5,298,272 5,072,100 5,088,300 5,072,100 -226,172 ................ -16,200
Renewals...................................................... (5,195,203) (4,923,100) (4,940,100) (4,918,100) (-277,103) (-5,000) (-22,000)
Contract administrators....................................... (101,085) (147,200) (147,200) (147,200) (+46,115) ................ ................
Working capital fund.......................................... (1,984) (1,800) (1,000) (1,800) (-184) ................ (+800)

Public housing:
Capital fund.................................................. 2,579,200 2,327,200 2,600,000 2,327,200 -252,000 ................ -272,800
Operating fund................................................ 2,438,336 3,407,300 3,600,000 3,557,300 +1,118,964 +150,000 -42,700
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing.............. 142,848 ................ 60,000 150,000 +7,152 +150,000 +90,000
Native American housing block grants.............................. 621,984 582,600 600,000 622,000 +16 +39,400 +22,000
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account................ 4,960 2,645 2,645 5,000 +40 +2,355 +2,355
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (145,345) (98,967) (98,967) (145,345) ................ (+46,378) (+46,378)
Native Hawaiian housing:
Block grant................................................... ................ 8,815 8,815 ................ ................ -8,815 -8,815
Loan guarantee fund........................................... 992 882 882 1,000 +8 +118 +118
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (37,403) (35,000) (35,000) (37,403) ................ (+2,403) (+2,403)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public and Indian Housing............................ 30,052,512 31,446,736 31,792,042 31,570,664 +1,518,152 +123,928 -221,378
Current year advance appropriations..................... 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 ................ ................ ................
Net Total (excluding current year advances)................. 25,852,512 27,246,736 27,592,042 27,370,664 +1,518,152 +123,928 -221,378
=============================================================================================================================
Community Planning and Development

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS....................... 281,728 268,000 290,000 287,000 +5,272 +19,000 -3,000
Rural housing and economic development............................ 23,808 ................ 10,000 24,000 +192 +24,000 +14,000
Empowerment zones/enterprise communities.......................... 9,920 ................ ................ ................ -9,920 ................ ................
Community development fund........................................ 4,671,328 ................ 4,243,000 4,323,610 -347,718 +4,323,610 +80,610
Community development fund (sec. 424)............................. 30,752 ................ ................ ................ -30,752 ................ ................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 108-324)................. 150,000 ................ ................ ................ -150,000 ................ ................
Section 108 loan guarantees:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (275,000) ................ ................ (275,000) ................ (+275,000) (+275,000)
Credit subsidy................................................ 5,952 ................ ................ 6,000 +48 +6,000 +6,000
Administrative expenses....................................... 992 ................ ................ 1,000 +8 +1,000 +1,000
Brownfields redevelopment......................................... 23,808 ................ ................ 15,000 -8,808 +15,000 +15,000
HOME investment partnerships program.............................. 1,899,680 1,941,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 +320 -41,000 ................
Homeless assistance grants........................................ 1,240,511 1,440,000 1,340,000 1,415,000 +174,489 -25,000 +75,000
Self-help homeownership opportunity program....................... ................ 30,000 60,800 ................ ................ -30,000 -60,800
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Community Planning and Development................... 8,338,479 3,679,000 7,843,800 7,971,610 -366,869 +4,292,610 +127,810
=============================================================================================================================
Housing Programs

Housing for the elderly........................................... 741,024 741,000 741,000 742,000 +976 +1,000 +1,000
Housing for persons with disabilities............................. 238,080 119,900 238,100 240,000 +1,920 +120,100 +1,900
Housing counseling assistance..................................... ................ 39,700 ................ ................ ................ -39,700 ................
Technical assistance (by transfer)................................ ................ ................ ................ (45,000) (+45,000) (+45,000) (+45,000)
Manufactured housing fees trust fund.............................. 12,896 13,000 12,896 13,000 +104 ................ +104
Offsetting collections........................................ -12,896 -13,000 -12,896 -13,000 -104 ................ -104
Rental housing assistance......................................... ................ 26,400 26,400 26,400 +26,400 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Housing Programs..................................... 979,104 927,000 1,005,500 1,008,400 +29,296 +81,400 +2,900
=============================================================================================================================
Federal Housing Administration

FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (185,000,000) (185,000,000) (185,000,000) (185,000,000) ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans).................................. (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) ................ ................ ................
Administrative expenses....................................... 354,051 355,000 355,000 355,000 +949 ................ ................
Offsetting receipts........................................... -2,234,000 -1,309,000 -1,309,000 -1,309,000 +925,000 ................ ................
Offsetting receipts (legislative proposal).................... ................ 18,000 ................ ................ ................ -18,000 ................
Administrative contract expenses.............................. 77,376 62,600 62,600 62,600 -14,776 ................ ................
Additional contract expenses.................................. 992 1,000 1,000 1,000 +8 ................ ................

FHA--General and special risk program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (35,000,000) (35,000,000) (35,000,000) (35,000,000) ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans).................................. (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) ................ ................ ................
Administrative expenses....................................... 225,945 231,400 231,400 231,400 +5,455 ................ ................
Offsetting receipts........................................... -248,000 -300,000 -339,000 -339,000 -91,000 -39,000 ................
Credit subsidy................................................ 9,920 8,800 8,800 8,800 -1,120 ................ ................
Non-overhead administrative expenses.......................... 85,312 71,900 71,900 71,900 -13,412 ................ ................
Additional contract expenses.................................. 3,968 4,000 4,000 4,000 +32 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Housing Administration....................... -1,724,436 -856,300 -913,300 -913,300 +811,136 -57,000 ................
=============================================================================================================================
Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program
account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (200,000,000) (200,000,000) (200,000,000) (200,000,000) ................ ................ ................
Administrative expenses....................................... 10,609 11,360 10,700 11,360 +751 ................ +660
Offsetting receipts........................................... -368,000 -368,000 -368,000 -368,000 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Gov't National Mortgage Association.................. -357,391 -356,640 -357,300 -356,640 +751 ................ +660
=============================================================================================================================
Policy Development and Research

Research and technology........................................... 45,136 69,738 60,600 48,000 +2,864 -21,738 -12,600

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair housing activities........................................... 46,128 38,800 46,500 46,000 -128 +7,200 -500

Office of Lead Hazard Control

Lead hazard reduction............................................. 166,656 119,000 166,656 167,000 +344 +48,000 +344

Management and Administration

Salaries and expenses............................................. 542,819 579,000 579,000 570,000 +27,181 -9,000 -9,000
Transfer from:
Limitation on FHA corporate funds......................... (560,673) (562,400) (562,400) (562,400) (+1,727) ................ ................
GNMA...................................................... (10,695) (10,695) (10,700) (11,360) (+665) (+665) (+660)
Community Development Loan Guarantees Program............. (1,000) ................ ................ (1,000) ................ (+1,000) (+1,000)
Native American Housing Block Grants...................... (150) (146) (150) (150) ................ (+4) ................
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program................ (250) (244) (250) (250) ................ (+6) ................
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantees................... (35) (34) (35) (35) ................ (+1) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (1,115,622) (1,152,519) (1,152,535) (1,145,195) (+29,573) (-7,324) (-7,340)

Working capital fund.............................................. 267,840 265,000 62,000 265,000 -2,840 ................ +203,000

Office of Inspector General....................................... 79,360 79,000 79,000 82,000 +2,640 +3,000 +3,000
(By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds).............. (24,000) (24,000) (24,000) (24,000) ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (103,360) (103,000) (103,000) (106,000) (+2,640) (+3,000) (+3,000)

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.................... 58,735 60,000 60,000 60,000 +1,265 ................ ................
Offsetting receipts........................................... -58,735 -60,000 -60,000 -60,000 -1,265 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Management and Administration........................ 890,019 923,000 720,000 917,000 +26,981 -6,000 +197,000
=============================================================================================================================
Rescissions:
Housing certificate fund...................................... -1,557,000 -2,500,000 -2,493,600 -1,500,000 +57,000 +1,000,000 +993,600
Public housing elimination grants............................. -5,000 ................ ................ ................ +5,000 ................ ................
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing.......... ................ -142,848 ................ ................ ................ +142,848 ................
Title VI credit subsidy....................................... -21,000 ................ ................ ................ +21,000 ................ ................
Indian housing credit subsidy................................. -33,000 ................ ................ ................ +33,000 ................ ................
Rental housing assistance..................................... -675,000 ................ ................ ................ +675,000 ................ ................
GI/SRI credit subsidy......................................... -30,000 ................ ................ ................ +30,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... -2,321,000 -2,642,848 -2,493,600 -1,500,000 +821,000 +1,142,848 +993,600
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title III, Department of Housing and Urban 36,115,207 33,347,486 37,870,898 38,958,734 +2,843,527 +5,611,248 +1,087,836
Development................................................
Current year advance appropriations..................... 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total, excluding current year advance................... 31,915,207 29,147,486 33,670,898 34,758,734 +2,843,527 +5,611,248 +1,087,836
Appropriations.......................................... (32,841,438) (29,622,334) (34,053,394) (34,147,734) (+1,306,296) (+4,525,400) (+94,340)
Rescissions............................................. (-2,321,000) (-2,642,848) (-2,493,600) (-1,500,000) (+821,000) (+1,142,848) (+993,600)
Emergency appropriations................................ (150,000) ................ ................ ................ (-150,000) ................ ................
Offsetting receipts..................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Offsetting collections.................................. (-2,850,000) (-1,959,000) (-2,016,000) (-2,016,000) (+834,000) (-57,000) ................
Previously enacted advances............................. (4,166,400) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (+33,600) ................ ................
(By transfer)........................................... ................ ................ ................ (45,000) (+45,000) (+45,000) (+45,000)
(Limitation on direct loans)............................ (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)........................ (420,457,748) (420,133,967) (420,133,967) (420,457,748) ................ (+323,781) (+323,781)
(Limitation on corporate funds)......................... (596,803) (597,519) (597,535) (599,195) (+2,392) (+1,676) (+1,660)
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE IV--THE JUDICIARY

Supreme Court of the United States

Salaries and expenses:
Salaries of justices.......................................... 1,985 2,000 2,000 2,000 +15 ................ ................
Other salaries and expenses................................... 55,387 58,730 58,730 58,730 +3,343 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 57,372 60,730 60,730 60,730 +3,358 ................ ................

Care of the building and grounds.................................. 9,846 5,624 5,624 5,624 -4,222 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Supreme Court of the United States................... 67,218 66,354 66,354 66,354 -864 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Salaries and expenses:
Salaries of judges............................................ 2,257 2,000 2,000 2,000 -257 ................ ................
Other salaries and expenses................................... 19,263 24,462 22,613 21,489 +2,226 -2,973 -1,124
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed Circuit............ 21,520 26,462 24,613 23,489 +1,969 -2,973 -1,124
=============================================================================================================================
United States Court of International Trade

Salaries and expenses:
Salaries of judges............................................ 1,757 2,000 2,000 2,000 +243 ................ ................
Other salaries and expenses................................... 12,956 13,480 13,480 13,480 +524 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, U.S. Court of International Trade.................... 14,713 15,480 15,480 15,480 +767 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services

Salaries and expenses:
Salaries of judges and bankruptcy judges...................... 289,877 305,145 301,000 301,000 +11,123 -4,145 ................
Judges COLA................................................... ................ 5,000 ................ 5,000 +5,000 ................ +5,000
Other salaries and expenses................................... 3,835,444 4,172,744 4,047,780 4,068,959 +233,515 -103,785 +21,179
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and expenses............................. 4,125,321 4,482,889 4,348,780 4,374,959 +249,638 -107,930 +26,179

Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund............................ 3,254 3,833 3,833 3,833 +579 ................ ................
Defender services................................................. 667,351 768,064 721,919 710,785 +43,434 -57,279 -11,134
Fees of jurors and commissioners.................................. 60,713 71,318 60,053 61,318 +605 -10,000 +1,265
Court security.................................................... 327,565 390,316 379,461 372,426 +44,861 -17,890 -7,035
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other 5,184,204 5,716,420 5,514,046 5,523,321 +339,117 -193,099 +9,275
Judicial Services..........................................
=============================================================================================================================
Administrative Office of the United States Courts

Salaries and expenses............................................. 67,289 72,198 70,262 72,198 +4,909 ................ +1,936

Federal Judicial Center

Salaries and expenses............................................. 21,447 22,876 22,249 22,350 +903 -526 +101

Judicial Retirement Funds

Payment to judiciary trust funds.................................. 36,700 40,600 40,600 40,600 +3,900 ................ ................

United States Sentencing Commission

Salaries and expenses............................................. 13,126 14,700 14,046 14,700 +1,574 ................ +654
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title IV, the Judiciary.............................. 5,426,217 5,975,090 5,767,650 5,778,492 +352,275 -196,598 +10,842
Mandatory appropriations................................ 332,576 351,745 347,600 347,600 +15,024 -4,145 ................
Discretionary appropriations............................ 5,093,641 5,623,345 5,420,050 5,430,892 +337,251 -192,453 +10,842
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE V--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED
TO THE PRESIDENT

The White House

Salaries and expenses............................................. ................ 183,271 ................ ................ ................ -183,271 ................
Compensation of the President and the White House Office:
Compensation of the President................................. 450 ................ 450 450 ................ +450 ................
Salaries and expenses......................................... 61,504 ................ 52,330 56,581 -4,923 +56,581 +4,251
Executive Residence at the White House:
Operating expenses............................................ 12,658 ................ 12,436 12,436 -222 +12,436 ................
White House repair and restoration............................ 1,885 ................ 1,700 1,700 -185 +1,700 ................
Council of Economic Advisers...................................... 4,008 ................ 4,040 4,040 +32 +4,040 ................
Office of Policy Development...................................... 2,282 ................ 3,500 ................ -2,282 ................ -3,500
National Security Council......................................... 8,861 ................ 8,705 8,705 -156 +8,705 ................
Privacy and Civil Liberties Board................................. ................ ................ 1,500 1,500 +1,500 +1,500 ................
Office of Administration.......................................... 91,531 ................ 89,322 98,609 +7,078 +98,609 +9,287
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, The White House...................................... 183,179 183,271 173,983 184,021 +842 +750 +10,038
=============================================================================================================================
Office of Management and Budget................................... 67,864 68,411 67,930 68,411 +547 ................ +481

Office of National Drug Control Policy:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 26,784 24,224 26,908 24,224 -2,560 ................ -2,684
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center...................... 41,664 30,000 30,000 30,000 -11,664 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of National Drug Control Policy............... 68,448 54,224 56,908 54,224 -14,224 ................ -2,684

High intensity drug trafficking areas program..................... 226,523 ................ 236,000 227,000 +477 +227,000 -9,000
Other Federal drug control programs............................... 211,990 213,300 238,292 191,400 -20,590 -21,900 -46,892
Unanticipated needs............................................... 992 1,000 1,000 1,000 +8 ................ ................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 108-324)................. 70,000 ................ ................ ................ -70,000 ................ ................
Special Assistance to the President............................... 4,534 4,455 4,455 4,455 -79 ................ ................
Official Residence of the Vice President: Operating expenses...... 330 325 325 325 -5 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title V, Executive Office of the President and Funds 833,860 524,986 778,893 730,836 -103,024 +205,850 -48,057
Appropriated to the President..............................
Appropriations.......................................... (763,860) (524,986) (778,893) (730,836) (-33,024) (+205,850) (-48,057)
Emergency appropriations................................ (70,000) ................ ................ ................ (-70,000) ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE VI--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board........ 5,641 5,941 5,941 5,941 +300 ................ ................
Consumer Product Safety Commission................................ 62,149 62,499 62,449 63,000 +851 +501 +551
Election Assistance Commission.................................... 13,888 17,612 15,877 13,888 ................ -3,724 -1,989
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector General (29,884) (29,965) (29,965) (31,000) (+1,116) (+1,035) (+1,035)
(transfer).......................................................
Federal Election Commission....................................... 51,742 54,600 54,700 54,600 +2,858 ................ -100
Federal Labor Relations Authority................................. 25,468 25,468 25,468 25,468 ................ ................ ................
Rescission.................................................... -3,000 ................ ................ ................ +3,000 ................ ................
Federal Maritime Commission....................................... 19,340 20,499 20,499 20,499 +1,159 ................ ................

General Services Administration

Federal Buildings Fund:
Limitations on availability of revenue:
Construction and acquisition of facilities................ (708,542) (708,106) (630,817) (829,056) (+120,514) (+120,950) (+198,239)
Repairs and alterations................................... (980,222) (961,376) (392,967) (961,376) (-18,846) ................ (+568,409)
Installment acquisition payments.......................... (161,442) (168,180) (168,180) (168,180) (+6,738) ................ ................
Rental of space........................................... (3,657,315) (4,046,031) (4,033,531) (4,046,031) (+388,716) ................ (+12,500)
Building operations....................................... (1,709,522) (1,885,102) (1,641,602) (1,885,102) (+175,580) ................ (+243,500)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 7,217,043 7,768,795 6,867,097 7,889,745 +672,702 +120,950 +1,022,648

Repayment of debt......................................... (41,000) (40,000) (40,000) (40,000) (-1,000) ................ ................
Rental income to fund..................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

Government-wide policy............................................ 61,603 52,796 52,796 52,796 -8,807 ................ ................
Operating expenses................................................ 91,438 99,890 82,179 99,890 +8,452 ................ +17,711
Office of Inspector General....................................... 42,012 43,410 43,410 43,410 +1,398 ................ ................
Electronic Government Fund........................................ 2,976 5,000 3,000 5,000 +2,024 ................ +2,000
Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents................. 3,081 2,952 2,952 2,952 -129 ................ ................
Middle River Depot sale........................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Federal Buildings Fund (rescission)............................... -106,000 ................ ................ ................ +106,000 ................ ................
Federal Citizen Information Center Fund........................... 14,788 15,030 15,030 15,000 +212 -30 -30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, General Services Administration...................... 109,898 219,078 199,367 219,048 +109,150 -30 +19,681
=============================================================================================================================
Merit Systems Protection Board

Salaries and expenses............................................. 34,400 34,400 35,600 35,600 +1,200 +1,200 ................
Limitation on administrative expenses............................. 2,605 2,605 2,605 2,605 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Merit Systems Protection Board....................... 37,005 37,005 38,205 38,205 +1,200 +1,200 ................
=============================================================================================================================
Morris K. Udall Foundation

Morris K. Udall Trust Fund........................................ 1,980 ................ 2,000 2,000 +20 +2,000 ................
Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund............................. 1,299 700 1,900 1,000 -299 +300 -900
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Morris K. Udall Foundation........................... 3,279 700 3,900 3,000 -279 +2,300 -900
=============================================================================================================================
National Archives and Records Administration

Operating expenses................................................ 264,809 280,975 283,975 280,975 +16,166 ................ -3,000
Electronic records archive........................................ 35,627 35,914 35,914 38,914 +3,287 +3,000 +3,000
Reduction of debt................................................. -7,810 -8,488 -8,488 -8,488 -678 ................ ................
Repairs and restoration........................................... 13,325 6,182 6,182 11,682 -1,643 +5,500 +5,500
National Historical Publications and Records Commission: Grants 4,960 ................ 7,500 5,000 +40 +5,000 -2,500
program..........................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Archives and Records Admin.................. 310,911 314,583 325,083 328,083 +17,172 +13,500 +3,000
=============================================================================================================================
National Credit Union Administration:
Central liquidity facility:
(Limitation on direct loans).............................. (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on admin expenses, corporate funds)........... (310) (323) (323) (323) (+13) ................ ................
Community development revolving loan fund..................... 992 950 950 950 -42 ................ ................
National Transportation Safety Board:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 76,086 76,700 76,700 76,700 +614 ................ ................
Rescission of unobligated balances............................ -8,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 +7,000 ................ ................
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation............................. 114,080 118,000 118,000 115,000 +920 -3,000 -3,000
Office of Government Ethics....................................... 11,148 11,148 11,148 11,148 ................ ................ ................

Office of Personnel Management

Salaries and expenses............................................. 124,496 124,521 119,952 124,521 +25 ................ +4,569
Limitation on administrative expenses......................... 127,434 100,017 102,679 100,017 -27,417 ................ -2,662
Office of Inspector General....................................... 1,614 1,614 1,614 1,614 ................ ................ ................
Limitation on administrative expenses......................... 16,329 16,329 16,786 16,329 ................ ................ -457
Govt Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health Benefits............ 8,135,000 8,393,000 8,393,000 8,393,000 +258,000 ................ ................
Govt Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life Insurance.............. 35,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 +1,000 ................ ................
Payment to Civil Svc Retirement and Disability Fund............... 9,772,000 10,072,000 10,072,000 10,072,000 +300,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of Personnel Management....................... 18,211,873 18,743,481 18,742,031 18,743,481 +531,608 ................ +1,450
=============================================================================================================================
Office of Special Counsel......................................... 15,325 15,325 15,325 15,325 ................ ................ ................
Selective Service System.......................................... 26,090 25,650 24,000 25,650 -440 ................ +1,650
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness................. 1,499 1,800 1,499 1,800 +301 ................ +301

United States Postal Service

Payment to the Postal Service Fund................................ 28,768 ................ 43,350 29,000 +232 +29,000 -14,350
Advance appropriation provided in previous acts................... 36,229 61,709 61,709 61,709 +25,480 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, fiscal year 2006 funding.......................... 64,997 61,709 105,059 90,709 +25,712 +29,000 -14,350

Advance appropriation provided in current year.................... 61,709 87,350 73,000 87,350 +25,641 ................ +14,350
Emergency preparedness............................................ 496,000 ................ ................ ................ -496,000 ................ ................
Mail irradiation facility (emergency)............................. 6,944 ................ ................ ................ -6,944 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, United States Postal Service......................... 629,650 149,059 178,059 178,059 -451,591 +29,000 ................
=============================================================================================================================
United States Tax Court........................................... 40,851 48,998 48,998 47,998 +7,147 -1,000 -1,000
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title VI, Independent Agencies....................... 19,755,915 19,948,096 19,967,199 19,986,843 +230,928 +38,747 +19,644
Appropriations.......................................... (19,768,033) (19,800,037) (19,833,490) (19,838,784) (+70,751) (+38,747) (+5,294)
Emergency appropriations................................ (6,944) ................ ................ ................ (-6,944) ................ ................
Rescissions............................................. (-117,000) (-1,000) (-1,000) (-1,000) (+116,000) ................ ................
Advance appropriation provided in previous act.......... (36,229) (61,709) (61,709) (61,709) (+25,480) ................ ................
Advance appropriation provided in current year.......... (61,709) (87,350) (73,000) (87,350) (+25,641) ................ (+14,350)
(By transfer)........................................... (29,884) (29,965) (29,965) (31,000) (+1,116) (+1,035) (+1,035)
(Limitation on direct loans)............................ (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on corporate funds)......................... (310) (323) (323) (323) (+13) ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Title VII--General Provisions, This Bill

HHS info match--new hires......................................... -125,000 ................ ................ ................ +125,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, title VII, General provisions, This Bill............. -125,000 ................ ................ ................ +125,000 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Grand total (net)........................................... 86,875,512 83,316,143 90,415,599 88,864,400 +1,988,888 +5,548,257 -1,551,199
Appropriations.......................................... (84,196,625) (81,191,332) (86,935,457) (87,381,412) (+3,184,787) (+6,190,080) (+445,955)
Emergency appropriations................................ (1,459,044) ................ ................ ................ (-1,459,044) ................ ................
Offsetting collections.................................. (-71,631) (-73,000) (-72,896) (-73,000) (-1,369) ................ (-104)
Rescissions............................................. (-2,682,179) (-2,718,248) (-2,496,671) (-1,503,071) (+1,179,108) (+1,215,177) (+993,600)
Rescission of contract authority........................ (-1,640,685) (-1,674,000) (-469,000) (-3,474,000) (-1,833,315) (-1,800,000) (-3,005,000)
Negative subsidy receipts............................... -2,850,000 -1,959,000 -2,016,000 -2,016,000 +834,000 -57,000 ................
Advance appropriation provided in previous act.......... (4,202,629) (4,261,709) (4,261,709) (4,261,709) (+59,080) ................ ................
Advance appropriation provided in current year.......... (4,261,709) (4,287,350) (4,273,000) (4,287,350) (+25,641) ................ (+14,350)
(Limitation on obligations)............................. (45,584,653) (45,686,367) (48,227,800) (51,787,816) (+6,203,163) (+6,101,449) (+3,560,016)
(Exempt contract authority)............................. (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................ ................
(By transfer)....................................... (186,656) (29,965) (29,965) (76,000) (-110,656) (+46,035) (+46,035)
(Transfer out)...................................... (-156,127) ................ ................ ................ (+156,127) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total budgetary resources..................... (133,199,165) (129,741,510) (139,382,399) (141,391,216) (+8,192,051) (+11,649,706) (+2,008,817)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------