22–626 PDF 

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. 

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. 
(2) 

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 
Page

3 

Title IV—The Judiciary—Continued 

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 Senate .......................................................................................................................... 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 
(4) 

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 de-
5 

lineate 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 
6 

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. 
(7) 

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. 
8 

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 recommendation 2005 enacted 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. 
9 

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 
10 

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 
11 

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. 
12 

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, 
13 

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, 
14 

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 
15 

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 commercial shipping alternatives for inland waterways ....... 2,000,000 

Integrated Commercial Vehicle Safety Enforcement Technology Initiative, MI ................................................... 900,000 

Intermodal Transportation Research, Mississippi State University ..................................................................... 1,000,000 

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 

1Proposed 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

Appropriations Limitation on 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 busi-
16 

nesses 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 Departmentwide 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. 
17 

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. 
18 

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 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/04) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 3/1/ 

2005 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 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 
19 

SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AS OF MARCH 1, 2005—Continued 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/04) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 3/1/ 2005 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 12/31/04) 

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 
20 

SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AS OF MARCH 1, 2005—Continued 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/04) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 3/1/ 

2005 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 12/31/04) 

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 
21 

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 recommendation 2005 enacted 2006 request 

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 administra-
22 

tion 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: 
23 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2005 enacted 2006 budget 

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 costeffective 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 costsharing 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 grad-
24 

uates 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. 
25 

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 estimate 

Committee 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]. 
26 

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. 
27 

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 
28 

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: 
29 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

Fiscal year— Committee rec- 2005 enacted ommendation with rescission 2006 estimate 

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 System (NEXCOM) ....................................................................................... 29,710,400 33,500,000 33,500,000 

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 

(GCNSS) ................................................................................................. 9,920,000 ........................ 15,000,000 

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—Improve ............................................................................................. 47,737,371 51,469,900 51,469,900 

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/Enhancement Terminal 

Voice Switch (ETVS) ..................................................................... 13,888,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 

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 
30 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee rec- 2005 enacted ommendation with rescission 2006 estimate 

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 

(OASIS) .......................................................................................... 9,126,400 14,300,000 10,200,000 

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 Measuring 

Equipment (DME) ......................................................................... 1,984,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

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 

(SLEP) ........................................................................................... 1,984,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

VASI Replacement—Replace with Precision Approach Path Indicator ............................................................................................. ........................ 3,000,000 3,000,000 

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) Modernization ............................................................................................... 793,600 ........................ ........................

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 
31 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee rec- 2005 enacted ommendation with rescission 2006 estimate 

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 
32 

Committee recommendation 

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-inAid 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-inaid 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 
33 

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 fixedprice 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. 
34 

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 ad-
35 

justed 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. 
36 

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 
37 

Location Amount 

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-ofsight 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 
38 

IMPROVE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES—Continued 

Facility Description Amount 

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 
39 

IMPROVE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES—Continued 

Facility Description Amount 

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 Com-
40 

mittee 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 procured approach lighting systems (runway 31).$1,800,000 

Hartsfield-Jackson International, GA .......................... Aquire and install replacement LPDME ..................... 400,000 

Keokuk Municipal, IA .................................................. Install previously aquired glide slope ....................... 550,000 

Klawock, AK ................................................................ Install previously aquired ILS .................................... 1,800,000 

Long Beach, CA .......................................................... Install previously procured approach lighting systems (runway 25R).2,000,000 

McCook Municipal, NE ................................................ Phase II installation of glide slope and PAPI system.675,000 

Western Nebraska (Scottsbuff) Regional, NE ............ Acquire and install glide slope and MALSR ............. 1,900,000 

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. 
41 

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. 
42 

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 reengineering 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 
43 

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 recommendation 2005 enacted 2006 estimate 

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 
44 

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 in-
45 

ability 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 ad-
46 

ministration, 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 

recommendation 2005 enacted 2006 request 

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 
47 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2005 enacted 2006 request 

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 Field ............................... Construct Taxiway L. 

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.
48 

State Airport Name Project Description 

AR Jonesboro Municipal Airport .............................................. Taxiway Lighting. 

AR Stuttgart Municipal Airport ............................................... Rehabilitate taxiway and apron. 

AR Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport ................................ Airfield drainage improvements 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 International ............................. Various Improvements. 

FL Jacksonville ........................................................................ Reconstruct Terminal Apron. 

FL Labelle Municipal, X14 ...................................................... Construct Terminal Building. 

FL Space Coast Regional ....................................................... Apron Reconstruction. 

GA Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field ........................... Terminal Building. 

GA Glimer County Airport, Ellijay Georgia ............................... Land Acquisition, Access Road 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-Standiford Field ........................... Group VI Taxiway Upgrades. 

KY Louisville International-Standiford Field ........................... Noise mitigation. 

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 International .................................. Taxiway, apron enhancements. 

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 County ................................... De-icing facility and equipment. 

MN Wilmar ................................................................................ Design and construction of new hangar facilities. 
49 

State Airport Name Project Description 

MN Minneapolis-St Paul/Wold-Chamberlain ............................ Terminal pavement/aprons. 

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 Airport ...................................... Various improvements. 

MS Corinth Municipal .............................................................. Land Acquisition. 

MS Gulfport-Biloxi International .............................................. Taxiway rehabilitation, cargo apron and lighting.

MS Gulfport-Biloxi International Airport .................................. Perimeter Road, Taxiway 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 Airport ................................... Rehabilitate Apron, 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. 
50 

State Airport Name Project Description 

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 Authority ........................................ Runway extension and various 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 Field ..................................... Strengthen primary runway and 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 Hart Fld ......................... Various Improvements. 

WV Mid-Ohio Valley Regional .................................................. Various Improvements. 

WV Mercer Cty .......................................................................... Various Improvements. 

WV Upshur County Regional .................................................... Various Improvements. 

WV Elkins-Randolph Co-Jennings Randolph Fld ..................... Various Improvements. 

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. 
51 

State Airport Name Project Description 

WV Philippi-Barbour County Regional ..................................... Various Improvements. 

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 International ......................................................................... 13,610,000 

Maryland: Hagerstown Regional-Richard A. Henson Field .................................................................................. 6,000,000 

Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County ..................................................................................................... 19,050,000 

Minnesota: Minneapolis-St Paul International/World-Chamberlain ..................................................................... 7,500,000 

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. 
52 

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 rec-
53 

ommended 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-inaid 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, mainte-
54 

nance, 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 Com-
55 

mittee 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. 
56 

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 
57 

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 opento-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 
58 

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. 
59 

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. 
60 

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 fund-
61 

ing 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 Com-
62 

mittee 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; 
63 

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. 
64 

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 recommendation 2005 enacted 2006 estimate 

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 re-
65 

views 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 
66 

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 authorization Limitation on 

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 authoriza- tion 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 en-
67 

acted 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 management [PRISM] grants .............................................. 4,000,000 

Commercial driver’s license and driver improvement program .......................................................................... 23,000,000 

Commercial vehicle information systems and networks [CVISN] grants ............................................................ 25,000,000 

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 
68 

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: 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2005 enacted 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 
69 

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 budg- etary 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: 

Program Committee 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. 
70 

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 
71 

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 
72 

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 Na-
73 

tional 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. 
74 

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 pro-
75 

vided, 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. 
76 

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

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 authorization Limitation on 

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 
77 

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 (section 412) .............................................................. 45,000,000 

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’’ en-
78 

forcement 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 setaside 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. 
79 

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 Oper- ations 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. 
80 

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 
81 

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 highwayrail 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 

1Funds 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 forprofit 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 agen-
82 

cies. 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 
83 

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 
84 

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 Statesupported 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 as-
85 

sess 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 
86 

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: 

Program 2005 enacted 2006 estimate 2006 House allowance 

Committee 

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 

grants ............................................... 124,000,000 .............................. 175,000,000 121,833,000 

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. 
87 

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 Safety and Security) ............................................... 7,500,000 

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 
88 

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. 
89 

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 
90 

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) 

State Section 5307 

Urbanized Area 

Section 5311 

Non-urbanized Area 

Section 5310 Elderly 

& Persons with 

Disabilities 

State Total Formula 

Grants 

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 
91 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2006 APPORTIONMENTS FOR 

FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAMS (BY STATE)—Continued 

State Section 5307 

Urbanized Area 

Section 5311 

Non-urbanized Area 

Section 5310 Elderly 

& Persons with 

Disabilities 

State Total Formula 

Grants 

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. 
92 

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 nonurban 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, Ohio .......................................................................... $500,000 

Biodiesel hybrid bus research, Alabama ............................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

CIMERC, Pennsylvania ......................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

City of Mt. Vernon, Washington—transit and redevelopment study .................................................................. 200,000 

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 and the environment ................................................... 1,500,000 

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 ................................................................. ........................... 
93 

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 
94 

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. 
95 

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: 

Project Name Committee recommendation 

Alabama Association of Area Agencies on Aging Bus and Van Purchase ....................................................... $500,000 

Alabama State Docks Intermodal Center .......................................................................................................... 5,400,000 

Alaska Native Medical Center intermodal bus/parking facility ........................................................................ 2,000,000 

BARTA-Franklin Street Station Intermodal, Pennsylvania ................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Bellows Falls, Vermont Multimodal ................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Ben Franklin Transit, Maintenance and Operations Facility, Washington ........................................................ 1,000,000 

Blacksburg Transit Intermodal Facility, Virginia ............................................................................................... 500,000 

Bloomington-Indiana University Campus Bus System, Indiana ........................................................................ 1,500,000 

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, Massachusetts .............................................................. 1,500,000 

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, Michigan ............................................................. 3,000,000 

Bus Replacement and Facilities, Delaware ....................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Bus Replacements, Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Canal Road Connector Bus Rapid Transit/HOV Project, Mississippi ................................................................ 11,000,000 

Capital Area Transportation Authority, Hybrid Public Transportation Vehicles Purchase, Lansing, Michigan ................................................................................................................................................................. 3,500,000 

Capital Metro Expansion and Improvement, Texas ........................................................................................... 4,200,000 

Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, Dakota County, Minnesota .......................................................................... 1,500,000 

Centre Area Transportation Intermodal Facility, Pennsylvania ......................................................................... 1,000,000 

CFRTA LYNX Bus Fleet Expansion, Florida ........................................................................................................ 3,000,000 

Church Street Transportation Center, Pennsylvania .......................................................................................... 2,900,000 
96 

Project Name Committee recommendation 

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 Historic Brigham City Train Depot, Utah .................... 150,000 

Corpus Christi Bus and Bus Facilities, Texas ................................................................................................... 200,000 

Crawford Intermodal Transportation Facility, Pennsylvania .............................................................................. 1,000,000 

Downtown Akron Transportation Center, Ohio ................................................................................................... 500,000 

Easton Intermodal, Pennsylvania ....................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Everett Transit, Bus and Paratransit Vehicle Replacement, Washington ......................................................... 1,100,000 

First District Bus Replacement and Facilities, Michigan ................................................................................. 4,000,000 

Foothills Community Action Partnership Foothills Express Transit Expansion Project, Kentucky ..................... 700,000 

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, Washington .......................................................................... 1,000,000 

Grays Harbor Transit, Washington ..................................................................................................................... 130,000 

Greater Lynchburg Transit Company Vehicle Replacement, Virginia ................................................................ 1,000,000 

Greater Minnesota Transit Capital .................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Greater Ouachita Port intermodal facility, Louisiana ........................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Greater Richmond Transit Company Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility, Virginia ............................... 4,000,000 

Greater Sacramento Regional Bus Replacement/Bus Facility Expansion ......................................................... 3,000,000 

Hampton Roads Transit Bus Facilities, Virginia ............................................................................................... 4,500,000 

Haverhill Intermodal Center Parking Improvements, Massachusetts ............................................................... 2,000,000 

Hazleton Intermodal, Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Helena Transit Facility—Montana ..................................................................................................................... 500,000 

High Point International Furniture Market Transportation Terminal, North Carolina ....................................... 2,400,000 

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 Facilities, Florida ............................................................. 750,000 

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, Washington ............................................................................ 1,200,000 

King County Metro, Bus Radio Replacement Program, Washington ................................................................. 4,000,000 

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 Facilities, and Passenger Amenities, Texas ........... 200,000 

MARTA Automated Smart Card Fare Collection System, Georgia ..................................................................... 1,750,000 

Mason County Transit, Washington ................................................................................................................... 300,000 

Memphis Airport Intermodal Facility, Tennessee ............................................................................................... 2,500,000 

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority acquisition of clean buses, Georgia ......................................... 4,800,000 

Metro Transit Operators Coalition Bus Acquisition ........................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Midland Bus Facilities, Texas ............................................................................................................................ 200,000 

Mobile Waterfront Infrastructure Development, Alabama ................................................................................. 1,500,000 
97 

Project Name Committee recommendation 

Montgomery Bus Stop, Shelters and Bus GPS Tracking System in Alabama .................................................. 500,000 

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, Pennsylvania .................................................................. 250,000 

Poplar Transit Facility Renovation—Montana ................................................................................................... 160,000 

Port Angeles International Gateway Project, Washington ................................................................................. 1,600,000 

Port Authority of Allegheny County Bus Acquisition, Pennsylvania .................................................................. 6,200,000 

Potomac and Rappahannock Transit Commission Buses for service expansion, Virginia ............................... 3,000,000 

Prospect and East 21st Street Intermodal Transportation Center, Ohio .......................................................... 1,750,000 

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, including Gateway TRAX station, Utah ................... 3,000,000 

Renaissance Square, Rochester, New York ....................................................................................................... 8,000,000 

Reno and Sparks Intermodal Transportation Terminals and Related Development, Nevada ........................... 1,000,000 

Replacement Buses and Bus Related Equipment, Nebraska ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

Rhode Island Public Transit Authority Elmwood Avenue Maintenance Facility Improvements ........................ 3,600,000 

Rhode Island Public Transit Authority Transit Security Improvements ............................................................. 400,000 

Rhode Island Statewide Vehicle Replacement .................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Richmond Highway Public Transportation Initiative, Virginia ........................................................................... 4,800,000 

RiverSphere Multimodal Facility, Louisiana ....................................................................................................... 500,000 

Rural Bus Program, Hawaii ............................................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

San Antonio—New Buses, Bus Facility Improvements, and Bus-Related Projects, Texas .............................. 200,000 

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 Facility, Oregon ..................................................... 1,000,000 

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, Rural, and Elderly and Disabled Agencies ............... 8,000,000 

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, Utah ..................................................................... 500,000 

Syracuse University, Bus Purchase for the Connective Corridor Project, New York ......................................... 1,500,000 

The UEL Bus Stop, University of Minnesota Twin Cities Transitway, Minnesota ............................................. 100,000

TN Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities ................................................................................................................ 10,000,000 

Town of Normal Multimodal Transportation Center, Illinois ............................................................................. 4,000,000 

Transit Center 9400 South Sandy, Utah ........................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Trolley Plaza, Alabama ....................................................................................................................................... 250,000 

Tucson SunTran Alternative Fuel Bus Replacement, Arizona ............................................................................ 3,000,000 

Tucson SunTran Bus Storage and Maintenance Facility, Arizona ..................................................................... 10,000,000 

Twin Transit, Washington .................................................................................................................................. 160,000 
98 

Project Name Committee recommendation 

UNI Multimodal Project, Cedar Falls, Iowa ........................................................................................................ 3,500,000 

Union Depot, downtown Saint Paul, Minnesota ................................................................................................ 750,000 

Union Station Intermodal Trade and Transit Center, Pennsylvania .................................................................. 2,500,000 

University of Montana bus maintenance facility .............................................................................................. 500,000 

Uptown Crossings Joint Development Transit Project, Cincinnati, Ohio ........................................................... 2,000,000 

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 Facilities Expansion for Shuttle Buses, Utah ....................... 250,000 

WI Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities ................................................................................................................ 10,000,000 

Williamsport Trade and Transit Centre Expansion, Pennsylvania ..................................................................... 1,350,000 

Winston-Salem Union Station Intermodal Facility, North Carolina ................................................................... 500,000 

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 
99 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION 

APPORTIONMENTS—Continued 

State Urbanized Area Apportionment 

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 
100 

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; 
101 

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 (RaleighDurham), North Carolina, $18,000,000; 

Washington County Commuter Rail Project, Oregon, 

$15,000,000; 

West Corridor Light Rail, Colorado, $5,000,000. 
102 

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 NortheastDowntown 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 
103 

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 ............................................................................................. .............................. ........................
104 

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. 
105 

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 sitepreparation 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. 
106 

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, 
107 

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 
108 

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 
109 

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 computerbased 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 reestablished ‘‘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. 
110 

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. 
111 

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 
112 

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. 
113 

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 

1Fiscal 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. 
114 

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 administra-
115 

tion 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

Appropriation Crediting 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 organi-
116 

zationally 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. 
117 

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. 
(118) 

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 
119 

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 2005 

enacted 

2006 Budget estimate Committee 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 
120 

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 11⁄2 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 
121 

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. 
122 

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 
123 

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 
124 

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 
125 

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 Ac-
126 

counts, 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 as-
127 

sumption 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 effec-
128 

tive 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 
129 

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 
130 

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 
131 

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. Accord-
132 

ingly, 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. 
133 

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 costeffective 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 pro-
134 

jected 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 redirect revenues generated by existing user fees from the general 

fund to the IRS. Currently, the IRS is required to return a share 
135 

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 noncompliant 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. 
136 

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 noncompliance 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 
137 

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 ex-
138 

penditure 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 Com-
139 

mittee 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. 
140 

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 Manage-
141 

ment 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. 
(142) 

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. 
143 

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 selfsufficiency 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 
144 

throughout the Nation, including the cost to the government due 

to its failure to promote or implement a policy for developing lowincome 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 as- sistance. 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 projectbased 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 Com-
145 

mittee 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 lowincome 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 
146 

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 hous-
147 

ing, 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 agree-
148 

ment 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. 
149 

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 
150 

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] 

Program account Limitation on 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. 
151 

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 Com-
152 

mittee 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 
153 

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 Hawai-
154 

ian-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 Hispanicserving 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 pro- gram 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; 
155 

$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; 
156 

$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; 
157 

$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; 
158 

$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; 
159 

$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-KilbyHammond 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; 
160 

$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; 
161 

$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; 
162 

$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; 
163 

$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; 
164 

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; 
165 

$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; 
166 

$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; 
167 

$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 lowand 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; 
168 

$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; 
169 

$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; 
170 

$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; 
171 

$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; 
172 

$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 guar- anteed 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 nonentitlement 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. 
173 

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 
174 

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 
175 

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 
176 

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 
177 

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 
178 

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 tenantbased 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 
179 

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. 
180 

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 direct 

loans 

Limitation on guaranteed loans Administrative 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 
181 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation on direct 

loans 

Limitation on guaranteed loans Administrative 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 
182 

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 moderateand 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. 
183 

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 
184 

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. 
185 

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 bound-
186 

aries, 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] 

Appropriation FHA funds GNMA 

funds 

CDBG 

funds 

Title VI 

transfer 

Indian 

housing 

block 

grant 

Native 

Hawaiian 

loan 

Total 

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 
187 

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 
188 

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)

Appropriation FHA funds by 

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. 
189 

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. 
190 

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. 
(191) 

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. 
192 

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. 
193 

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. 
194 

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 
195 

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 postBooker/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 
196 

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 
197 

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 Ini-
198 

tiative 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. 
199 

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. 
200 

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. 
(201) 

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 

1The 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 

1The 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 
202 

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 

1The 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 

1The 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. 
203 

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 

1The 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 ................................................................. ........................... 

1This 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 adminis-
204 

tration’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 

1The 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 

1This 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. 
205 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $98,609,000 to the Office of Admin- istration 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 
206 

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. 
207 

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 al-
208 

location 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. 
209 

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 Preven-
210 

tion 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 AntiDoping 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 AntiDoping 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 
211 

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. 
212 

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. 
(213) 

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 
214 

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. 
215 

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 
216 

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 parttime 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. 
217 

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 prospectuslevel 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 sup-
218 

port 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 Governmentowned 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 in-
219 

creased 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. 
220 

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. 
221 

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. 
222 

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 Governmentwide 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 pro-
223 

hibiting 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], cre-
224 

ating 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 ‘‘egov’’ 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. 
225 

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 
226 

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. 
227 

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 
228 

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, 
229 

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 
230 

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. 
231 

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 
232 

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 limitation Administrative 

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. 
233 

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. 
234 

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 ad-
235 

dition, 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 
236 

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 
237 

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 
238 

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 econ-
239 

omy, 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. 
240 

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. 
241 

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. 
242 

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 postmobilizationhealth-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 
243 

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 
244 

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. 
245 

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. 
(246) 

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, 
247 

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. 
(248) 

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. 
249 

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. 
250 

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. 
(251) 

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 
252 

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 
253 

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. 

TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS 

* * * * * * * 
254 

CHAPTER 14—FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS 

SUBCHAPTER I—DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN 

FUNDS 

§ 441a. Limitations on contributions and expenditures 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(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 

§ 127. Vehicle weight limitations—Interstate System 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(h) WAIVER FOR A ROUTE IN STATE OF MAINE DURING PERIODS

OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY.— 

ø(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. 
255 

ø(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 EXEMP- TION.— (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 

* * * * * * * 

§ 11319. Termination 

The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of this 

subchapter shall terminate, on October 1, ø2005¿ 2012. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 443—INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 

§ 44302. General authority 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) EXTENSION OF POLICIES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall extend through August 

31, ø2005,¿ 2006, and may extend through December 31, 

ø2005,¿ 2006, the termination date of any insurance policy 

that the Department of Transportation issued to an air carrier 
256 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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, ø2005,¿ 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

* * * * * * * 

§ 47108. Project grant agreements 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) CHANGE IN AIRPORT STATUS.— 
257 

(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. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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— 

ø(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 

* * * * * * * 
258 

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 Serviceø: 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, ø2005¿ 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 ø7 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. 

* * * * * * * 
259 

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. 
260 

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 

allocation Amount of bill Committee allocation Amount of 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 

2006 ......................................................................................... NA 28,821 NA 25,250 

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. 
261 

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] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 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 ............................ ............................
262 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 

Fund) .................................................................................................... 129,880 130,000 130,000 134,500 ∂4,620 ∂4,500 ∂4,500 

Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (Liquidation 

of contract authorization) .................................................................... (2,800,000 ) (3,300,000 ) (3,600,000 ) (3,390,000 ) (∂590,000 ) (∂90,000 ) (¥210,000 ) 

(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 
263 

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 

Fund) (Public Law 108–324) ..................................................... 25,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥25,000 ............................ ............................

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 ) 
264 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrative expenses) (liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................ (257,547 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥257,547 ) ............................ ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (255,487 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥255,487 ) ............................ ............................

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust Fund) 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................... ............................ (233,000 ) (215,000 ) (211,400 ) (∂211,400 ) (¥21,600 ) (¥3,600 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. ............................ (233,000 ) (215,000 ) (211,400 ) (∂211,400 ) (¥21,600 ) (¥3,600 ) 

National motor carrier safety program (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................ (190,000 ) ............................ (286,000 ) ............................ (¥190,000 ) ............................ (¥286,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (188,480 ) ............................ (286,000 ) ............................ (¥188,480 ) ............................ (¥286,000 ) 

Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) .............................................................................. ............................ (232,000 ) ............................ (278,620 ) (∂278,620 ) (∂46,620 ) (∂278,620 ) 

(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 contract 

authorization) ....................................................................................... (72,000 ) (227,367 ) (75,000 ) (226,688 ) (∂154,688 ) (¥679 ) (∂151,688 ) 

(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 contract 

authorization) ....................................................................................... (3,600 ) (4,000 ) (4,000 ) (4,000 ) (∂400 ) ............................ ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ............................................................. (3,571 ) (4,000 ) (4,000 ) (4,000 ) (∂429 ) ............................ ............................

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of 

contract authorization) ........................................................................ (225,000 ) (465,000 ) (551,000 ) (548,182 ) (∂323,182 ) (∂83,182 ) (¥2,818 ) 
265 

(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 

(Sec. 412) .......................................................................... ............................ (50,000 ) (30,000 ) (45,000 ) (∂45,000 ) (¥5,000 ) (∂15,000 ) 

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) 

(limitation on obligations) ................................................................... (67,704 ) ............................ (68,000 ) (66,133 ) (¥1,571 ) (∂66,133 ) (¥1,867 ) 

Office of the Administrator ............................................................. (892 ) ............................ (989 ) (925 ) (∂33 ) (∂925 ) (¥64 ) Office of Chief Counsel ................................................................... (4,067 ) ............................ (4,140 ) (4,200 ) (∂133 ) (∂4,200 ) (∂60 ) 
266 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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) (limitation on obligations) ............................................................................. (3,499,928 ) ............................ (3,754,450 ) (3,620,074 ) (∂120,146 ) (∂3,620,074 ) (¥134,376 ) 

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 Account) (limitation on obligations) ....................................................... ............................ (6,135,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥6,135,000 ) ............................

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 Transit 

Account) (limitation on obligations) ................................................... (5,208 ) ............................ (6,800 ) (4,837 ) (¥371 ) (∂4,837 ) (¥1,963 ) 

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 
267 

Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) ....................................................... (111,104 ) ............................ (136,276 ) (129,937 ) (∂18,833 ) (∂129,937 ) (¥6,339 ) 

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 

contract authorization) ........................................................................ (6,744,500 ) (690,000 ) (7,209,700 ) (6,824,667 ) (∂80,167 ) (∂6,134,667 ) (¥385,033 ) 

Capital investment grants ....................................................................... 414,014 ............................ 546,251 588,578 ∂174,564 ∂588,578 ∂42,327 Capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) ....................................................... (2,898,100 ) ............................ (3,095,424 ) (2,902,394 ) (∂4,294 ) (∂2,902,394 ) (¥193,030 ) Major capital investment grants ............................................................. ............................ 872,800 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥872,800 ............................Major capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit 

Account) (limitation on obligations) ................................................... ............................ (690,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥690,000 ) ............................

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 Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) .............................................. (108,500 ) ............................ (148,750 ) (101,292 ) (¥7,208 ) (∂101,292 ) (¥47,458 ) 

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 ) 
268 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 ............................
269 

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 Administration ......................................................................................... 69,409 116,716 116,270 116,380 ∂46,971 ¥336 ∂110 

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 
270 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 account .................................................................................................... 55,078 7,900 55,000 55,000 ¥78 ∂47,100 ............................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 ............................ ............................
271 

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 ) 
272 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 
273 

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 ............................ ............................
274 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 ) 
275 

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 Development 36,115,207 33,347,486 37,870,898 38,958,734 ∂2,843,527 ∂5,611,248 ∂1,087,836 

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 ) ............................ ............................ ............................
276 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

(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 ............................ ............................
277 

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 Judicial 

Services .................................................................................. 5,184,204 5,716,420 5,514,046 5,523,321 ∂339,117 ¥193,099 ∂9,275 

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 ............................
278 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 Appropriated to the President .................................................... 833,860 524,986 778,893 730,836 ¥103,024 ∂205,850 ¥48,057 

Appropriations .................................................................... (763,860 ) (524,986 ) (778,893 ) (730,836 ) (¥33,024 ) (∂205,850 ) (¥48,057 ) Emergency appropriations ................................................. (70,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥70,000 ) ............................ ............................
279 

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 

(transfer) .............................................................................................. (29,884 ) (29,965 ) (29,965 ) (31,000 ) (∂1,116 ) (∂1,035 ) (∂1,035 ) 

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 ............................
280 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 program .................................................................................................... 4,960 ............................ 7,500 5,000 ∂40 ∂5,000 ¥2,500 

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 ............................ ............................ ............................
281 

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 ) ............................ ............................
282 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

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 ) 

Æ