```

[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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2005 enacted       2006 request      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.............................................    $7,712,800,000     $8,051,000,000     $8,026,000,000
    General fund appropriation.........................    [2,834,071,584]    [1,551,000,000]    [2,339,500,000]
    Trust fund appropriation...........................    [4,878,728,416]    [6,500,000,000]    [5,686,500,000]
    Flight service stations transition costs...........  .................       150,000,000        150,000,000
Facilities and equipment \1\...........................     2,519,680,000      2,448,000,000      2,448,000,000
Research, engineering, and development.................       129,880,000        130,000,000        134,500,000
Grants-in-aid for airports \2\.........................     3,472,000,000      3,000,000,000      3,500,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................    13,834,360,000     13,779,000,000     14,258,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include emergency appropriation of $5,100,000 in Public Law 108-324.
\2\ Does not include emergency appropriation for Emergency Assistance to Airports of $25,000,000 in Public Law
  108-324.

                               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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2005 enacted      2006 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and technology................................        $8,432,000        $10,953,000         $9,600,000
Regulatory development.................................        11,054,000         11,310,000         11,310,000
Information management.................................        40,573,000         45,714,000         43,423,000
CVARS grants...........................................        (7,314,000)        (6,800,000)        (6,800,000)
Consumer hotline.......................................           372,000            556,000            390,000
Outreach and education.................................         2,182,000          1,013,000          2,013,000
PRISM operations.......................................           992,000          1,015,000          1,015,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, motor carrier safety programs.............        63,605,000         70,561,000         67,751,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                           Program                               2005 enacted                     recommendation
                                                                     \1\         2006 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research......................................     $231,122,000     $237,367,000     $226,688,000
National driver register.....................................        3,571,000        4,000,000        4,000,000
Highway traffic safety grants................................      223,200,000      465,000,000      548,182,095
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................      457,893,000      696,367,000      778,870,095
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


```