95–821 PDF 

Calendar No. 696 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 108–342 

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY AND GENERAL 

GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2005 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2004.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. SHELBY, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2806] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2806) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and the 

Treasury; the Executive Office of the President; and certain independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, 

and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends 

that the bill do pass. 

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2005 

Amount of bill as reported to Senate ...................... $44,052,003,000 

Amount of budget estimates, 2005 .......................... 43,783,352,000 

Fiscal year 2004 enacted .......................................... 46,146,853,000 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Total Obligational Authority Provided—General Funds and Trust Funds ........ 4 

Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 4 

Reprogramming Guidelines .................................................................................... 4 

Congressional Budget Justifications ...................................................................... 5 

TEA21 Authorizations Expiration .......................................................................... 6 

Title I—Department of Transportation: 

Office of the Secretary ...................................................................................... 8 

Federal Aviation Administration .................................................................... 20 

Federal Highway Administration .................................................................... 53 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ............................................... 65 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration .......................................... 74 

Federal Railroad Administration .................................................................... 88 

Federal Transit Administration ...................................................................... 94 

St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ........................................... 109 

Maritime Administration ................................................................................. 109 

Research and Special Programs Administration ........................................... 113 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 120 

Surface Transportation Board ......................................................................... 121 

Title II—Department of the Treasury: 

Departmental Offices ....................................................................................... 124 

Financial Crime Enforcement Network .......................................................... 136 

Financial Management Service ....................................................................... 139 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau .................................................. 140 

Bureau of the Public Debt ............................................................................... 141 

United States Mint ........................................................................................... 142 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing ................................................................. 143 

Internal Revenue Service ................................................................................. 144 

Title III—Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the 

President: 

White House Office ........................................................................................... 159 

Executive Residence at the White House ....................................................... 159 

Council of Economic Advisers .......................................................................... 160 

Office of Policy Development ........................................................................... 160 

National Security Council ................................................................................ 161 

Homeland Security Council .............................................................................

Office of Administration ................................................................................... 161 

Office of Management and Budget .................................................................. 162 

Office of National Drug Control Policy ........................................................... 164 

Funds Appropriated to the President ............................................................. 166 

Unanticipated Needs ........................................................................................ 172 

Special Assistance to the President ................................................................ 172 

Offical Residence of the Vice President .......................................................... 172 

Title IV—Independent Agencies: 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board .................... 174 

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled ............................................................................................................... 174 

Election Assistance Commission ..................................................................... 175 

Federal Election Commission .......................................................................... 176 

Federal Labor Relations Authority ................................................................. 176 

Federal Maritime Commission ........................................................................ 177 

General Services Administration .................................................................... 177 

Merit Systems Protection Board ..................................................................... 187 

Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental 

Policy Foundation ......................................................................................... 188 
Page

3 

Title IV—Independent Agencies—Continued 

National Archives and Records Administration ............................................. 189 

National Historical Publications and Records Commission .......................... 190 

National Transportation Safety Board ........................................................... 191 

Office of Government Ethics ............................................................................ 192 

Office of Personnel Management ..................................................................... 192 

Office of Special Counsel .................................................................................. 196 

United States Postal Service ........................................................................... 197 

United States Tax Court .................................................................................. 199 

White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance ........ 199 

Statement Concerning General Provisions ............................................................ 200 

Title V—General Provisions This Act .................................................................... 201 

Title VI—General Provisions, Departments, Agencies, and Corporations .......... 203 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate .......................................................................................................................... 206 

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 207 

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 208 

Budgetary Impact Statement ................................................................................. 209 

Comparative Statement .......................................................................................... 210 
(4) 

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY PROVIDED—GENERAL 

FUNDS AND TRUST FUNDS 

The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new budget 

(obligational) authority for the Department of Transportation, 

Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent agencies for 

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005. 

The Committee considered budget estimates for new budget authority for fiscal year 2005 in the aggregate amount of 

$43,783,352,000. Compared to that amount, the accompanying bill 

recommends new budget authority totaling $44,052,003,000. In addition to new budget authority for fiscal year 2005, large amounts 

of contract authority are provided by law, the obligation limits for 

which are contained in the annual appropriations bill. The principal items in this category are the trust funded programs for Federal-aid highways, for mass transit, and for airport development 

grants. For fiscal year 2005, estimated obligation limitations and 

exempt obligations total $46,902,908,000. 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2005, 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’’ 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. 511) establishing the 

authority by which funding available to the agencies funded by this 

Act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The provision spe-
5 

cifically 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 has included a new requirement that each agency shall submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act 

to establish the baseline for application of reprogramming and 

transfer authorities provided in this Act. Specifically, each agency 

should provide a table for each appropriation with columns displaying the budget request; adjustments made by Congress; adjustments for rescissions, if appropriate; and the fiscal year enacted 

level. The table shall delineate the appropriation both by object 

class and by PPA. The report must also identify items of special 

congressional interest. 

The Committee expects the agencies and bureaus to submit reprogramming requests in a timely manner and to provide a thorough explanation of the proposed reallocations, including a detailed 

justification of increases and reductions and the specific impact the 

proposed changes will have on the budget request for the following 

fiscal year. Except in emergency situations, reprogramming requests should be submitted no later than June 30. 

The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs and 

activities within the amounts appropriated by Congress. The Committee reminds agencies that reprogramming requests should be 

submitted only in the case of an unforeseeable emergency or a situation that could not have been anticipated when formulating the 

budget request for the current fiscal year. Further, the Committee 

notes that when a Department or agency submits a reprogramming 

or transfer request to the Committees on Appropriations and does 

not receive identical responses from the House and Senate, it is the 

responsibility of the Department to reconcile the House and Senate 

differences before proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, 

to consider the request to reprogram funds unapproved. 

The Committee would also like to clarify that this section applies 

to Working Capital Funds and Forfeiture Funds and that no funds 

may be obligated from such funds to augment programs, projects 

or activities for which appropriations have been specifically rejected 

by the Congress, or to increase funds or personnel for any program, 

project, or activity above the amounts appropriated by this Act. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS 

For fiscal year 2005, 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 Perform-
6 

ance and Results Act [Results Act]. The Committee has found the 

presentation of linking budgetary resources to specific performance 

targets to be a valuable tool for reviewing and evaluating agency 

priorities relative to financial proposals and continues to support 

the linkage of costs to performance in agency programs. The Committee, however, is troubled that the agencies funded under this 

Act have chosen to accommodate an increasing amount of performance information in budget justifications by eliminating fundamental programmatic budget data that is critical to the work of the 

Committee. This trend has made it increasingly difficult for the 

Committee to perform its necessary oversight work in reviewing 

agency budget proposals. 

Budget justifications are prepared not for the use of the agency, 

but instead are the primary tool used by the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations to evaluate the resource requirements and proposals of agencies. The Committee is aware that the 

format and presentation of budget materials is largely left to the 

agency within presentation objectives set forth by OMB. In fact, 

OMB Circular A–11, Part 6 specifically states that the ‘‘agency 

should consult with your congressional committees beforehand to 

ensure their awareness of your plans to modify the format of agency budget documents.’’ The Committee is disappointed that none of 

the agencies funded under this Act heeded that direction and only 

a small number of agencies even offered to brief the Committee regarding the new format for justification materials in advance of the 

submission of their fiscal year 2005 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 2006 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 2006 to the fiscal year 2005 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 2006 budget request. 

TEA21 AUTHORIZATIONS EXPIRATION 

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21] provides authorizations for most Federal highway, transit and highway safety programs, and most of those authorizations provide con-
7 

tract authority. The role of the appropriations process with respect 

to contract authority programs generally is to set obligation limitations so that overall Federal spending stays within legislated targets and to appropriate liquidating cash to cover the outlays associated with obligations that have been made. 

TEA21 authorized these Federal surface transportation programs 

through fiscal year 2003, and since then, Congress has enacted several short-term extensions to the programs and provided the necessary amount of contract authority. The Congress must reauthorize these programs in order to create new contract authority for fiscal year 2004 and later years. Both the Senate and House have 

passed reauthorization legislation. Until such legislation is enacted, 

there will not be new contract authority to fund such surface transportation programs as the Federal-aid highways, transit discretionary grants, or highway safety grants, although any unobligated 

balances from prior years will carry over and be available for obligation. 

In developing the fiscal year 2005 appropriations recommendations for the Federal surface transportation programs authorized 

by TEA21, the Committee has generally assumed continuation of 

the program structure and funding levels in current law as if authorized through the end of fiscal year 2005. 
(8) 

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 for 

Transportation Policy, including the offices of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for Transportation 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, 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, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $80,426,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 102,689,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 86,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $477,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect reduction of $2,136,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108– 

199. 

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 assistant secretaries, general counsel and other support offices. 

The Committee recommends a total of $86,000,000 for the Office 

of the Secretary of Transportation including $60,000 for reception 

and representation expenses. The recommendation provides in excess of a 6 percent increase over the fiscal year 2004 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 provide 

individual appropriations 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 instead of the consolidated immediate Office of Secretary and Deputy Secretary, as requested. 

The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 

5 percent of the funds from any office of the Office of the Secretary 

to another. The Committee directs the Assistant Secretary for 

budget and programs to submit a quarterly report detailing all 

transfers pursuant to this authority. Also, the Committee continues 
9 

language that permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the 

Office of the Secretary for salaries and expenses. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2004 enacted 1 2005 estimate 

Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary ......................... ........................ 5,308 ........................

Immediate Office of the Secretary ............................................................ 2,197 ........................ 2,400 

Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary ................................................ 696 ........................ 725 

Office of the General Counsel ................................................................... 15,312 16,920 15,700 

Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy ........................... 12,239 12,918 12,627 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs .................... 8,486 8,889 8,600 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ..................... 2,286 2,587 2,500 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ................................ 24,467 32,935 24,364 

Assistant to the Secretary and Director of Public Affairs ........................ 1,904 2,034 1,968 

Office of the Executive Secretariat ............................................................ 1,438 ........................ 1,484 

Board of Contract Appeals ........................................................................ 696 801 750 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ......................... 1,261 1,295 1,290 

Office of Intelligence and Security ............................................................ 1,988 2,260 2,200 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ..................................................... 7,456 16,742 11,392 

Total .............................................................................................. 80,426 102,689 86,000 

1 Reflects reductions of $477,000 pursuant to section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect reduction of $2,136,000 pursuant to 

section 517 of Public Law 108–199. 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has the 

primary responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and 

control of the Department. 

The Committee recommends $2,400,000 for fiscal year 2005 for 

the Immediate Office of the Secretary, $338,000 less than the budget request and $203,000 greater than the fiscal year 2004 enacted 

level. This recommendation provides in excess of a 10 percent increase for this office. 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

The Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of assisting 

the Secretary in the overall planning and direction of the Department. 

The Committee has recommended a total of $725,000 for the Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary, $345,000 less than the 

budget request and $29,000 greater than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

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. The Committee recommends $15,700,000 for expenses of the Of- fice of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2005, $1,220,000 less 
10 

than the budget request and $388,000 greater than the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

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. 

For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommendation includes 

$12,627,000 for the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy, 

$219,000 less than the budget request and $388,000 greater than 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

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. 

The Committee recommends a total of $8,600,000 for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, $289,000 less 

than the budget request and $533,000 over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee is disappointed with the level of detail 

being provided in the budget justification and supporting documentation and hopes that the fiscal year 2006 presentation will 

provide a more detailed program justification. 

Overdue Congressional Reports.—The Committee continues to direct the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs to report at 

the beginning of each fiscal quarter on the status of all outstanding 

reports and reporting requirements, including how delinquent congressionally mandated or requested reports are and an estimated 

date for delivery. 

Characterization of Budget Requests.—The Committee notes the 

proliferation of the use of the word ‘‘mandatory’’ to describe certain 

requested discretionary increases in the fiscal year 2005 budget 

justifications of the Department and its modal administrations. The 

Committee would encourage the Department to limit the use of the 

word ‘‘mandatory’’ in official budget presentation documents to the 

identification of mandatory spending as recognized by Congress 

and the Office of Management and Budget and as defined in budget acts. 
11 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

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. 

The Committee recommends a total of $2,500,000 for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, $87,000 less 

than the budget request and $214,000 over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

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. 

The Committee continues to be concerned about the rapid growth 

in this account. Considering the tight fiscal restraints that the 

Committee is operating under, it is hard to understand how the 

budget of this office continues to explode while at the same time 

its missions and responsibilities have diminished. Therefore, the 

Committee directs the Inspector General to review the spending 

priorities, budget justifications and mission of this office for the 

last three fiscal years to determine if the resources requested are 

commensurate with mission responsibilities. The Committee recommends $24,364,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, $8,571,000 below the budget request and $103,000 

below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

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. 

The Committee recommends $1,968,000 for the Office of Public Affairs, $66,000 less than the budget request and $64,000 greater 

than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the Deputy 

Secretary in carrying out their management functions and respon-
12 

sibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and external written materials. 

The Committee recommends $1,484,000 for the Executive Secretariat, $16,000 less than the budget request and $49,000 over the 

fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

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. 

The Committee has provided $750,000 for the Board of Contract 

Appeals Board, $51,000 less than the budget request and $54,000 

greater than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

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. The Committee recommends $1,295,000, equal to the 

budget request. 

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY

The Office of Intelligence and Security keeps the Secretary and 

his advisors informed on intelligence and security issues pertaining 

to transportation. The Office also ensures that transportation policy and programs support the national objectives of general welfare, economic growth and stability, and the security of the United 

States. 

The Committee recommends $2,200,000 for the Office of Intelligence and Security for fiscal year 2005. This amount is $60,000 

less than the budget request and $212,000 greater than the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

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. 

The budget request assumes a funding level that is almost 80 

percent more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,392,000, $5,350,000 

less than the budget request and $3,936,000 greater than the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level. This amount represents an increase of 

over 50 percent over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee is working within an extremely tight allocation level and 

would like to continue to work with the CIO to ensure that this office has the resources necessary to ensure that the Departments information technology infrastructure runs effectively and safely. 

Budget Justification.—The Committee is concerned about the 

lack of budget justification materials that document all funding uti-
13 

lized by the OCIO. The Committee directs that the Department 

shall provide in the fiscal year 2006 budget submission a detailed 

justification of all funds that are utilized and managed by this office regardless of the source. 

E-Payroll.—The Committee has learned from the Office of the Inspector General that the Department lacks a detailed action plan 

as it relates to the E-payroll project. This project has experienced, 

at a minimum, a 1 year delay and a cost overrun of $2,000,000 in 

fiscal year 2004 that may increase to as much as $10,000,000. The 

Committee directs the OCIO working with the Assistant Secretary 

for Administration to submit a plan to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment that addresses the weaknesses identified by the Inspector General as they 

relate to E-payroll. The plan at a minimum shall include: (1) the 

original cost; (2) the original scope of the project; (3) any deviation 

from the original scope; (4) all cost increases over the original cost; 

(5) the estimated cost of completion; and (6) specific steps taken to 

improve project oversight and accountability. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2004 1 2 ......................................................................... $8,518,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 8,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,700,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $51,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

2Does not reflect reduction of $153,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108– 

199. 

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. The Committee has provided a funding level of 

$8,700,000 for the Office of Civil Rights, the full amount requested. 

COMPENSATION FOR AIR CARRIERS

(RESCISSION)

Rescissions, 2004 ................................................................................... ...........................

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥$235,000,000 

The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act provided $5,000,000,000 to compensate air carriers for direct losses incurred during the Federal ground stop of civil aviation after the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and for incremental losses 

incurred between September 11 and December 31, 2001. There is 

currently a balance of approximately $270,000,000 in the program. 

The bill includes a rescission of $235,000,000 from balances 

available in this account. The Committee is aware that a number 

of issues considered by the Court of Appeals were found to be not 
14 

ripe for resolution at this point in time. Therefore, the Committee 

has retained sufficient resources in the event of future claims. 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $20,741,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 10,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $123,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect reduction of $314,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108– 

199. 

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. The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for transportation planning, research, and development, $5,741,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $4,200,000 more than 

the President’s budget request. The Committee directs funding to 

be allocated to the following projects that are listed below: 

Project Amount 

Circumpolar Infrastructure Task Force of the Arctic Council and Northern Forum, AK ..................................... $450,000

DOT privacy assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 750,000 

Inland waters freight mobility study, AL ............................................................................................................. 750,000 

SDSU instrument training capital initiative, SD ................................................................................................. 200,000 

UI NIATT transportation infrastructure research and technology transfer, ID .................................................... 300,000 

Transportation, infrastructure, and logistics research ........................................................................................ 750,000 

University of Nebraska—Kearney agricultural transportation pilot project, NE ................................................. 500,000 

Western Washington University Transportation and Border Research Institute, WA .......................................... 1,000,000 

Yellow Bend Port feasibility study, AR ................................................................................................................ 300,000 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2004 1 .................................................................................. $116,715,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 2 ......................................................................... 151,054,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 151,054,000 

1Does not reflect reduction of $17,816,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 

108–199. 2Proposed without limitation. 

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. 

The budget request proposes to remove the obligation limitation 

on the Working Capital Fund on services to the operating administrations of the Department. The Committee believes that the discipline of an annual limitation is necessary to keep assessments 

and services of the Working Capital Fund in line with costs. The 

accompanying bill provides a limitation of $151,054,000 on activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. As in past years, 

the limitation shall apply only to the Department and not to other 
15 

entities. The Committee directs that services shall be provided on 

a competitive basis to the maximum extent possible. 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $895,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 900,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 900,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $5,000 pursuant to Division F, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of Small 

and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides assistance in obtaining short-term working capital for disadvantaged, minority, 

and women-owned businesses. The program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime interest rates for transportation-related projects. 

In fiscal year 2001, the short-term lending program was converted from a direct loan program to a guaranteed loan program. 

In fiscal year 2005, the program will continue to focus on providing 

working capital to disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned 

businesses in order to strengthen their competitive and productive 

capabilities. Since fiscal year 1993, the short-term lending program 

has been a separate line item appropriation, which segregated such 

activities in response to changes made by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The limitation on guaranteed loans under the Minority Business Resource Center is at the administration’s requested level of $18,367,000. 

Of the funds appropriated, $500,000 covers subsidy costs and 

$400,000 is for administrative expenses to carry out the Guaranteed Loan Program. 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $2,982,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 3,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $18,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

2Does not reflect reduction of $24,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108– 

199. 

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 projects 

that involve Federal spending. It also provides support to historically black and Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is requested by 

the administration since this program provides grants and contract 

assistance that serves Department-wide goals and not just OST 

purposes. 

Minority Business Contractor List.—The Committee directs the 

Office of Minority Business Outreach to compile a master list of 

qualified minority business contractors that shall be posted on the 

Departments web page no later than May 2, 2005. 

NEW HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

Appropriations, 2004 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... $160,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 
16 

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. 

While the proposed headquarters building would consolidate 

most of the Department of Transportation in one location, it comes 

at a huge price. Under this proposal, the Federal Government 

would pay in excess of $1,250,000,000 over the next 15 years to 

customize and lease space in this building. This lease option would 

cost the Federal Government approximately $513,000,000 more 

than the projected costs of constructing a new Federal building. 

In fiscal year 2004, the Department of Transportation was appro- priated $42,000,000 under GSA’s Federal Buildings Fund. GSA 

later reprogrammed an additional $3,000,000 toward the new headquarters building. The Committee is aware of the strict timing 

issues associated with the construction and development of the new 

headquarters building as well as the need for better office space. 

The Committee denies the funding for the new building without 

prejudice. The Committee notes, however, that of the funds appropriated in fiscal year 2004, approximately $28,000,000 remains unobligated as of June 30, 2004. Therefore, the Committee directs the 

Department to use the unobligated fiscal year 2004 funds to extend 

the Department’s current lease at the Nassif building. In addition, 

with the remaining funds—approximately $9,000,000—the Department is encouraged to evaluate the existing space at the Nassif 

building for modifications to better suit the long-term needs of the 

Department and to continue to work with the GSA to evaluate 

costs and options to meet the Department’s future space requirements. 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations 2 Mandatory 3 Total 

Appropriations, 2004 1 ............................................................................... $51,693,000 $50,000,000 $101,693,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 .............................................................................. ........................ 50,000,000 50,000,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 52,000,000 50,000,000 102,000,000

1 Reflects reduction of $307,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

2 Payments to Air Carriers (Airport and Airway Trust Fund). 

3 From overflight fees. 

The Essential Air Service [EAS] and Rural Airport Improvement 

Program provides funds directly to commuter/regional airlines to 

provide air service to small communities that otherwise would not 

receive air service and for rural airport improvement as provided 

by the 1996 Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act. 

The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 authorizes 

user fees for flights that fly over, but do not land in, the United 

States. The first $50,000,000 of each year’s fees were to go directly 

to carry out the Essential Air Service Program and, to the extent 

not used for essential air service, to improve rural airport safety. 

If $50,000,000 in fees is not available, then the funds must be 
17 

made available from appropriations otherwise made available to 

the FAA Administrator. 

For fiscal year 2005, the administration has proposed a $50,000,000 EAS program, of which $36,000,000 is to be funded 

from overflight fees credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 

and $14,000,000 is to be derived from overflight fees previously collected and transferred to the Payments to Air Carriers account. 

The administration is also proposing major revisions to the program that would repeal the statutory entitlement that certain communities have to receiving at least a minimum level of scheduled 

air service. Specifically, the Department has proposed to continue 

to subsidize air service to the extent of 90 percent of the total subsidy required for the most isolated communities. Communities that 

are within certain distances of major airports would qualify for surface transportation subsidy. Communities within: (1) 100 highway 

miles of a large or medium hub airport; (2) 75 highway miles of a 

small hub; or (3) 50 highway miles of a non-hub airport with jet 

service would qualify for a surface transportation subsidy and 

would be required to contribute at least 50 percent of the subsidy. 

At all other subsidized communities, the administration would offer 

an array of options, including paying for 75 percent of the cost of 

the traditional EAS-type scheduled service. In addition, the administration would work with the communities and State departments 

of transportation to procure charter service, single-engine, singlepilot service, regionalized service or ground transportation in cases 

where these alternative services would be more responsive to communities’ needs. 

The Committee recommendation provides a total of $102,000,000 

for the Essential Air Service, which is comprised of an appropriation of $52,000,000 and $50,000,000 from mandatory funding. This 

level of funding, along with available carryover balances in the program from previous appropriations, is sufficient to continue subsidies for all current points receiving the service. The Committee 

has not included the requested general provision to restructure the 

EAS program. 

The following table reflects the points currently receiving service 

and the annual rates as of February 1, 2004 in the continental 

United States and Hawaii. 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 SUBSIDIZED ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE COMMUNITIES 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S, M, or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at EAS 

Point (YE 9/30/03) 

Ann. Sbsdy Rates 

at 3/1/2004 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 9/30/03) 

ALABAMA: 

Muscle Shoals ..................... 60 16 .6 $1,284,408 $123 .50 10,400 

ARIZONA: 

Kingman .............................. 103 7 .4 747,401 161 4,643 

Page .................................... 280 12 .4 1,552,631 200 7,760 

Prescott ............................... 102 12 .8 747,401 93 8,000 

Show Low ............................ 168 5 .7 692,423 194 3,569 

ARKANSAS: 

El Dorado ............................ 108 7 .5 898,283 192 4,679 

Harrison .............................. 77 8 .7 989,018 181 5,463 

Hot Springs ......................... 53 10 .5 989,018 151 6,571 

Jonesboro ............................ 79 5 .9 898,283 245 3,669 

CALIFORNIA: 

Crescent City ...................... 362 34 .9 333,717 15 21,825 
18 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 SUBSIDIZED ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE COMMUNITIES—Continued 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S, M, or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at EAS 

Point (YE 9/30/03) 

Ann. Sbsdy Rates at 3/1/2004 Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 9/30/03) 

Merced ................................ 114 24 .2 844,479 56 15,142 

COLORADO: 

Alamosa .............................. 162 11 .6 1,114,753 154 7,235 

Cortez .................................. 258 21 .1 896,007 68 13,189 

Pueblo ................................. 43 6 .0 883,016 236 3,748 

GEORGIA: 

Athens ................................. 72 21 .7 2 1,000,000 74 13,565 

HAWAII: 

Hana ................................... 32 10 .3 945,029 147 6,440 

Kalaupapa ........................... ........................ 4 .3 483,982 180 2,694 

Kamuela .............................. 39 8 .9 745,773 134 5,549 

ILLINOIS: 

Decatur ............................... 120 40 .3 917,077 36 25,205 

Marion ................................. 122 34 .0 1,253,076 59 21,303 

Quincy ................................. 108 26 .4 1,109,530 67 16,512 

IOWA: 

Burlington ........................... 96 24 .1 999,412 66 15,064 

Fort Dodge .......................... 94 22 .7 1,088,354 76 14,241 

Mason City .......................... 128 43 .7 1,088,354 40 27,382 

KANSAS: 

Dodge City .......................... 149 6 .8 1,224,838 286 4,277 

Garden City ......................... 201 19 .6 1,224,838 100 12,287 

Great Bend .......................... 120 1 .3 547,941 659 831 

Hays .................................... 180 16 .8 1,301,876 124 10,495 

Liberal ................................. 153 7 .9 684,578 138 4,944 

Manhattan .......................... 120 22 .0 360,803 26 13,801 

Salina .................................. 93 6 .1 360,803 95 3,812 

KENTUCKY: 

Owensboro ........................... 105 18 .4 1,032,673 90 11,513 

MAINE: 

Augusta ............................... 68 10 .3 1,069,228 166 6,438 

Bar Harbor .......................... 157 32 .4 1,069,228 53 20,260 

Presque Isle ........................ 276 45 .1 1,166,135 41 28,214 

Rockland ............................. 80 18 .3 1,069,228 93 11,468 

MICHIGAN: 

Escanaba ............................ 114 26 .7 2 300,000 18 16,739 

Ironwood .............................. 218 6 .1 479,879 126 3,797 

Iron Mountain ..................... 101 17 .5 478,693 44 10,930 

Manistee ............................. 180 4 .7 485,545 164 2,954 

MINNESOTA: 

Hibbing ............................... 178 27 .9 1,048,612 60 17,440 

Thief River Falls ................. 302 12 .8 707,017 88 8,035 

MISSISSIPPI: 

Laurel/Hattiesburg .............. 90 33 .9 1,056,991 50 21,218 

MISSOURI: 

Cape Girardeau ................... 123 23 .6 990,694 67 14,761 

Ft. Leonard Wood ................ 130 18 .1 885,918 78 11,317 

Kirksville ............................. 137 6 .9 968,249 223 4,348 

MONTANA: 

Glasgow .............................. 280 6 .8 823,591 195 4,230 

Glendive .............................. 223 3 .1 823,591 428 1,925 

Havre ................................... 248 3 .8 823,591 344 2,391 

Lewistown ........................... 125 2 .7 823,591 484 1,702 

Miles City ............................ 146 3 .5 823,591 378 2,178 

Sidney ................................. 273 6 .2 823,591 212 3,877 

West Yellowstone ................ 315 127 .6 418,488 5 79,860 

Wolf Point ........................... 293 4 .7 823,591 277 2,971 

NEBRASKA: 

Alliance ............................... 256 3 .3 542,413 265 2,050 

Chadron .............................. 311 3 .7 542,413 233 2,333 

Grand Island ....................... 140 13 .6 2 1,000,000 117 8,515 

Kearney ............................... 181 16 .5 1,019,014 99 10,309 

McCook ................................ 271 5 .3 1,398,330 419 3,337 
19 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 SUBSIDIZED ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE COMMUNITIES—Continued 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S, M, or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at EAS 

Point (YE 9/30/03) 

Ann. Sbsdy Rates at 3/1/2004 Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 9/30/03) 

Norfolk ................................. 109 3 .9 751,373 309 2,429 

North Platte ........................ 277 18 .3 751,373 66 11,432 

Scottsbluff .......................... 109 24 .1 2 1,000,000 66 15,102 

NEVADA: 

Ely ....................................... 237 2 .6 698,078 434 1,608 

NEW HAMPSHIRE: 

Lebanon .............................. 75 78 .1 1,084,930 22 48,912 

NEW MEXICO: 

Alamogordo ......................... 91 3 .5 849,235 388 2,186 

Carlsbad ............................. 141 8 .8 560,070 101 5,533 

Clovis .................................. 103 6 .0 1,118,197 299 3,744 

Hobbs .................................. 90 2 .6 560,318 347 1,615 

Silver City ........................... 133 5 .4 935,667 279 3,358 

NEW YORK: 

Massena .............................. 143 7 .7 429,337 89 4,830 

Ogdensburg ......................... 123 6 .3 429,337 110 3,920 

Plattsburgh ......................... 78 4 .1 721,198 284 2,539 

Saranac Lake ...................... 126 6 .9 721,198 166 4,341 

Watertown ........................... 65 9 .9 429,337 69 6,199 

NORTH DAKOTA: 

Devils Lake ......................... 405 5 .5 869,635 254 3,427 

Dickinson ............................ 319 10 .8 1,540,089 229 6,736 

Jamestown .......................... 332 6 .0 869,635 231 3,766 

OKLAHOMA: 

Enid ..................................... 84 7 .3 977,302 213 4,588 

Ponca City ........................... 81 5 .9 977,302 266 3,668 

PENNSYLVANIA: 

Altoona ................................ 108 23 .0 546,159 38 14,394 

Johnstown ........................... 82 32 .7 301,417 15 20,464 

Oil City/Franklin .................. 86 10 .3 874,067 135 6,453 

PUERTO RICO: 

Ponce .................................. 77 9 .4 552,388 94 5,856 

SOUTH DAKOTA: 

Brookings ............................ 206 2 .1 955,726 713 1,340 

Huron .................................. 279 4 .2 955,726 360 2,657 

Pierre ................................... 397 17 .3 318,861 29 10,841 

Watertown ........................... 207 41 .0 1,871,825 73 25,687 

TENNESSEE: 

Jackson ............................... 85 15 .2 1,156,325 122 9,493 

TEXAS: 

Brownwood .......................... 145 6 .1 964,677 253 3,807 

Victoria ................................ 108 65 .2 464,869 11 40,831 

UTAH: 

Cedar City ........................... 178 27 .5 770,285 45 17,221 

Moab ................................... 240 5 .5 674,804 195 3,452 

Vernal .................................. 174 6 .5 595,436 146 4,079 

VERMONT: 

Rutland ............................... 118 6 .3 804,102 203 3,967 

VIRGINIA: 

Staunton ............................. 133 22 .0 615,578 45 13,769 

WASHINGTON: 

Moses Lake ......................... 108 16 .5 1,344,557 131 10,299 

WEST VIRGINIA: 

Beckley ................................ 181 7 .2 1,033,847 230 4,486 

Bluefield .............................. 145 5 .0 1,033,847 329 3,144 

Greenbrier ........................... 172 8 .0 683,212 136 5,008 

WYOMING: 

Laramie ............................... 144 27 .1 366,473 22 16,963 

Riverton ............................... 310 31 .5 2 1,000,000 51 19,725 
20 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 SUBSIDIZED ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE COMMUNITIES—Continued 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S, M, or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at EAS 

Point (YE 9/30/03) 

Ann. Sbsdy Rates 

at 3/1/2004 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 9/30/03) 

Rock Springs ....................... 184 27 .3 141,240 8 17,078 

Worland ............................... 164 8 .0 353,345 71 4,985 

1 Hub classifications are subject to change annually based on the overall enplanement levels at the hubs and at all airports Nationwide. 2 Estimate. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the safe 

movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system 

of airports. The Federal Government’s regulatory role in civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch within the 

Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 

1926. This Act instructed the agency to foster air commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, operate, and maintain aids 

to navigation; arrange for research and development to improve 

such aids; issue airworthiness certificates for aircraft and major 

aircraft components; and investigate civil aviation accidents. In the 

Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to 

a new, independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority. 

Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and 

the Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of Transportation [DOT] began its operations in 1967, the Federal Aviation 

Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 

and became one of several modal administrations within DOT. The 

Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of 

the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist in 1984. 

Responsibility for the investigation of civil aviation accidents was 

given to the National Transportation Safety Board in 1967. FAA’s 

mission expanded in 1995 with the transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from the Office of the Secretary, and 

decreased in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the new Transportation Security Administration. 

The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 

2005 amounts to $13,913,427,000, which is $35,429,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The following table summarizes 

the Committee’s recommendations: 

Program Fiscal year 2004 enacted 1

Fiscal year 2005 

budget estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Operations 2 .......................................................................................... $7,486,493,000 $7,849,000,000 $7,784,000,000 

General fund appropriation ........................................................ 3,013,043,000 1,847,000,000 2,526,990,000 

Trust fund appropriation 3 .......................................................... 4,473,450,000 6,002,000,000 4,959,503,000 

Facilities and equipment 4 ................................................................... 2,892,831,000 2,500,000,000 2,500,000,000 

Research, engineering and development ............................................ 118,734,000 117,000,000 129,427,000 

Grants-in-Aid for airports 5 .................................................................. 3,379,940,000 3,500,000,000 3,500,000,000 

Total available budget resources ........................................... 13,877,998,000 13,966,000,000 13,913,427,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $82,366,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

2 Does not reflect reduction of $7,286,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108–517. 

3 Includes $2,000,000 for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in fiscal year 2005. 

4 Does not reflect fiscal year 2003 rescission of $30,000,000 of unobligated balances pursuant of Public Law 108–199. 

5 Does not include appropriation of $1,988,200 for Ft. Worth Alliance Airport pursuant to Division H, section 167 of Public Law 108–199. 
21 

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $7,486,493,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 7,849,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,784,000,000 

1Reflects reduction of $44,432,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect reduction of $7,286,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108– 

199. 

This appropriation provides funds for the operation, maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers administrative and 

managerial costs for the FAA’s regulatory, international, commercial space, medical, engineering and development programs, as well 

as policy oversight and agency management functions. The operations appropriation includes the following major activities: (1) the 

air traffic organization which operates, on a 24-hour daily basis, 

the national air traffic system, including the establishment and 

maintenance of a national system of aids to navigation, the development and distribution of aeronautical charts and the administration of acquisition, and research and development programs; (2) 

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; 

(4) headquarters, administration and other staff and support offices. 

The Committee recommends $7,784,000,000 for FAA operations, an increase of $297,507,000 above the level provided for fiscal year 

2004 and $65,000,000 below the President’s budget request. The 

Committee notes that the recommended rate of increase for this appropriation is approximately 4 percent, which is three times the 

government-wide average budgetary increase of 1.5 percent. The bill derives $4,959,503,000 of the total appropriation from 

the airport and airway trust fund. The level is consistent with the 

requirements of current law and is $1,042,497,000 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. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— 

Committee 

recommendations 2004 enacted 1 2005 budget 

estimate 

Air Traffic Organization [ATO] ......................................................... 2 (6,217,137 ) 6,522,109 (6,492,102 ) 

Air Traffic Services .......................................................................... 6,001,263 .......................... 6,267,870 

Regulation and Certification ........................................................... 871,148 905,194 905,194 

Research and Acquisitions .............................................................. 215,874 .......................... 224,239 

Commercial Space Transportation ................................................... 11,674 11,941 11,674 

Regions and Center Coordination .................................................... 86,049 .......................... 88,479 

Human Resources ............................................................................ 74,955 .......................... 78,660 

Financial Services ............................................................................ 48,719 .......................... 53,624 
22 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— 

Committee 

recommendations 2004 enacted 1 2005 budget 

estimate 

Staff Offices ..................................................................................... 3 140,120 409,756 150,739 

Information Services/CIO ................................................................. 29,405 .......................... 36,254 

Undistributed reduction ................................................................... ............................ .......................... ¥32,733 

TOTAL OPS .......................................................................... 7,479,207 7,849,000 7,784,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $44,432,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199, but does not reflect reduction of 

$7,286,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108–199. 2 The fiscal year 2005 request proposes to combine Air Traffic Services and Research and Acquisitions in Air Traffic Organization. 3 The fiscal year 2005 request proposes Financial Services, Human Resource Management, Regions and Centers Operations, and Information 

Services be combined with other Staff Offices. 

Air Traffic Services.—The Committee recommends 

$6,267,870,000 for the operation and maintenance of the national 

air traffic control and flight service system. The recommended level 

is $266,607,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The 

Committee is confident that although constrained, the recommended funding level is sufficient to continue safe and efficient 

management of the National Airspace System [NAS]. The recommendation gives the Administrator great flexibility to manage 

the reduction below the budget request. 

Controller Hiring Initiative.—Attrition in air traffic controller 

workforce is expected to rise sharply in upcoming years as controllers hired after the 1981 controllers’ strike become eligible for retirement. The FAA currently estimates that nearly 7,100 controllers or nearly half its workforce could leave the Agency between fiscal years 2004 and 2012. 

The Committee is aware that the number of controllers that will 

need to be hired depends on many factors, including future air traffic levels, new technologies, and initiatives that FAA undertakes to 

make its processes for hiring, placing, and training new controllers 

more efficient and cost effective. Nevertheless, the Committee believes it is prudent to begin hiring and training controllers in anticipation of an increased number of retiring controllers. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to hire and train additional air 

traffic controllers. 

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. For 

the past 22 years, the contract tower program has enhanced aviation safety by providing essential air traffic services at smaller airports that in many cases would not otherwise have a tower. The 

program consistently has received high marks for customer service 

from aviation users, and has been an incentive to aid small airports with retaining and developing commercial air service and corporate aviation. Currently, 223 smaller airports participate in the 

program, representing 45 percent of all control towers in the 

United States. Federal contract towers handle approximately 25 

percent of control tower aircraft operations for about 10 percent of 

FAA’s budget to operate all control towers in the national airspace 

system. 

The safety and efficiency record of the program for the past two 

decades has been validated numerous times by the DOT Office of 
23 

Inspector General [OIG] and FAA safety audits, as well as by the 

National Transportation Safety Board. The OIG also has verified 

the significant cost-effectiveness of the program. All Federal contract controllers are FAA certified air traffic controllers who meet 

the identical training and operating standards as other FAA controllers. Contract tower controllers operate together with FAAstaffed facilities throughout the country as part of a unified national air traffic control system. The FAA exercises management 

and oversight over all aspects of the program, including operating 

procedures, staffing plans, certification of contract controllers, security and facility evaluations. Without a Federal program that provides financial assistance, sets safety and training standards, certifies operations and monitors all aspects of contract tower facilities, many of these towers would have to close. The Committee recommends $86,000,000 to 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. Of the funds provided for the contract tower program, $500,000 is to deploy computer-based interactive training 

systems for controllers at FAA contract towers. In designing the 

system, the FAA should utilize existing interactive computer-based 

training and testing systems in use at airports. In addition to these 

resources, the Committee has provided $7,000,000 for the contract 

tower cost-sharing program. 

ATO Resource Tool.—The FAA must deploy and use the ATO resource tool [ART], its labor distribution system, to have the accurate cost and workforce data that is necessary to effectively manage the expected surge in controller attrition. According to the DOT 

Inspector General, ART could have provided credible workforce 

data for addressing concerns about controller staffing, related overtime expenditures, and determining how many controllers are 

needed and where. However, the Committee understands that deployment has now been on hold for almost 2 years while FAA and 

the controllers’ union continue negotiations over its full implementation. Considering the expected surge in controller retirements 

over the next several years, the Committee strongly urges the 

Agency and union to resolve their differences as quickly as possible 

so that all parties have objective data to determine how many controllers are needed and where. The Committee also expects ART to 

provide information on the time controllers spend controlling aircraft and conducting other duties in order to utilize the controller 

workforce more productively. 

Airway Facility Training.—The Committee believes that basic 

core skills training and certification for the Airway Facilities [AF] 

technical workforce is necessary for the safe operation of the NAS 

and for the viability of the FAA’s modernization program. In response to the growing demands of NAS modernization, the FAA 

recognized the need to establish a core set of information technology skills for the AF technical workforce. The Committee is 

aware that an analysis of AF technical workforce responsibilities 

was accomplished in order to identify the core skills required for 

the performance of their respective positions and that the FAA 

agreed to revise training with a focus on timely and efficient delivery to accommodate NAS modernization. Unfortunately, despite 
24 

this agreement to provide at least 20 percent of the workforce with 

these skills each year, less than 40 percent of the current AF workforce has received the training. The Committee strongly encourages 

the agency to do whatever is necessary to provide the AF technical 

workforce with necessary core skills training and certification, and 

to evaluate shifting the technical training focus to a decentralized 

model in fiscal year 2005. 

Medallion Program.—The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to 

continue the Medallion program, the same as the fiscal year 2004 

level. Strengthening the Medallion program is a key safety initiative in the FAA’s current strategic plan. 

Alien Species Action Plan [ASAP].—The Committee provides $3,000,000 out of available funds 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.—Of the funds provided, $4,000,000 

shall be for the NY/NJ Airspace Redesign effort and shall not be 

reprogrammed by the FAA for other activities, including airspace 

redesign activities outside the NY/NJ metro area. As the FAA 

moves forward with its redesign program in the New York/New 

Jersey and Philadelphia area, the Committee encourages the FAA, 

where appropriate, to consider air noise impacts as part of the redesign effort. 

Non-Precision GPS Approaches.—The Committee recommendation encourages to continue work associated with increasing the 

number of non-precision GPS instrument approaches developed 

and published for airports that are not Part 139 certificated. 

Accounting Operations.—The Committee is aware that the FAA 

has proposed to consolidate accounting operations in eight offices 

across the country at the Finance Center at Oklahoma City. The 

goals of improving financial information and implementing standardized accounting practices through process improvement can be 

achieved without relocation. The Committee directs the FAA not to 

proceed with this consolidation. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Second Career Training Program.—The Committee has included 

bill language which was included in the President’s budget request 

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 bill retains a provision, first included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations Act, which prohibits 

FAA from paying Sunday premium pay, except in those cases 

where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. This provision 

is identical to that which was in effect for fiscal years 1995–2004. 

It was requested by the administration for fiscal year 2005. 

Manned Auxiliary Flight Service Stations.—The Committee has 

retained bill language that was requested by the administration to 

prohibit the use of funds for operating a manned auxiliary flight 
25 

service station in the contiguous United States. There is no funding 

provided in the Operations account for such stations in fiscal year 

2005. 

Aeronautical Charting and Cartography.—The bill prohibits 

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. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $2,862,831,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 2,500,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,500,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $47,169,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect rescission of $30,000,000 of unobligated balances pursuant to Public Law 108– 

199. 

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]. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,500,000,000 

for the Facilities and Equipment of the Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee recommendation is the same as the budget 

estimate and is $362,831,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted 

level. The bill provides that $2,071,300,000 is available for obligation until September 30, 2007, and $428,700,000 is available until 

September 30, 2005. 

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. 

F&E Management.—The Federal Aviation Administration’s most 

recent estimate projects expenditures of approximately 

$43,523,000,000 on the air traffic control modernization effort from 

1981 through 2005. The estimate for the modernization of the system has continued to evolve and escalate since 1981. 

The Committee is concerned about the overhead and related 

costs in this account. Data provided by FAA shows that personnel 

and related expenses consume a greater share of the F&E appropriation each year. In fiscal year 1994, personnel expenses accounted for about 9 percent but have grown to 13 percent of F&E 

in fiscal year 2004. Under the budget estimate for fiscal year 2005, 
26 

the FAA requests growth for direct personnel and related expenses 

to almost 18 percent of the F&E appropriation. As dramatic as this 

growth has been, data accounting for only the direct personnel 

costs understate a true assessment of the administrative overhead 

of these activities. Most individual budget lines in this account also 

assume funding in the range of 10 to 25 percent for program and 

contract management. Further compounding this trend, the F&E 

account also provides resources for support contracts and system 

engineering support, and technical support services among other 

things. All of these costs ultimately translate into less funds for 

specific air traffic modernization projects. 

Just as growth in personnel and related expenses reduce the 

amount of funding that is available for procurement, cost escalation 

and delays in a few large acquisition programs are severely limiting the resources available for procuring and installing other 

equipment that will modernize the NAS. For example, funding for 

one new program, such as ERAM, and funding for other programs 

like WAAS and STARS that have chronic schedule delays and cost 

overruns threaten to take a disproportionate share of funding for 

modernization. 

The following table displays the aggregate amount of funding 

projected for just these three programs as a percentage of the total 

amount of F&E funding each year for the next 5 fiscal years: 
27 

The FAA faces difficult funding decisions on a number of fronts 

as a result of its inability to effectively manage large-scale acquisitions. In fact, the FAA has not delivered any major system within 

initial cost, schedule, or performance goals due primarily to a complete failure to impose acquisition management discipline. This is 

particularly perplexing considering the Congress provided FAA two 

unprecedented and powerful tools in 1996 by granting relief from 

Federal personnel and procurement rules, both of which the Agency 

believed were hindering its ability to modernize the National Airspace System. FAA has not taken full advantage of this flexibility. 

While contracts are awarded faster, there has been little bottom 

line impact on cost and schedule problems with major acquisitions 

remain the norm. For example, last year the DOT Inspector General analyzed 20 major acquisitions and found that 14 of these 

projects experienced cost overruns of over $4,300,000,000, which is 

more than the annual appropriation for modernizing the NAS. 

Clearly, the FAA must take immediate steps to control personnel 

cost growth and to impose budget and schedule discipline on major 

acquisition programs. Our Nation’s air traffic control system has 

failed to keep up with the increasing and changing demands, and 

the FAA will not be able to meet future demands and needs without changing and improving the ways we modernize 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.—Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the 

Federal Aviation Administration has formatted the budget activities of the Facilities and Equipment budget request in terms of 

strategic goals. If the purpose of that structure is to display the 

link between budget and performance, then the FAA has failed to 
28 

meet that objective. Clearly, the budget presentation for the past 

3 fiscal years has served only to obfuscate the significant programmatic and execution issues facing the FAA and has not facilitated any meaningful program benefits. One has only to review the 

agency’s highest cost programs to realize that the current topical 

groupings are not relevant to budgetary, programmatic, or operational considerations. 

The Committee recommendation is presented in a format used in 

prior appropriations reports to better assist the FAA in managing 

the Facilities and Equipment capital program. The Committee 

greatly prefers the following structure and believes that it offers a 

better delineation between developmental initiatives, procurement 

activities, infrastructure requirements, and personnel costs. The 

Committee directs that future requests for the Facilities and 

Equipment account conform to this format. 

The Committee’s recommended distributions of the funds for 

each of the projects funded by the appropriation: 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

Fiscal Year Committee recommendation 2004 enacted 2005 estimate 

Engineering Development, Test and Evaluation: 

Advanced Technology Development & Prototyping ........................... $70,100,000 $37,300,000 $56,575,000 

Safe Flight 21 ................................................................................... 30,300,000 40,454,000 44,454,000 

Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications ...................................... 10,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communications System 

(NEXCOM) ..................................................................................... 85,850,000 31,950,000 29,950,000 

Free Flight Phase 1 .......................................................................... 32,000,000 ........................ ........................

Free Flight Phase 2 .......................................................................... 100,000,000 92,500,000 92,500,000 

Louisville, KY technology demonstration .......................................... 8,000,000 ........................ ........................

Local Area Augmentation System ..................................................... 34,400,000 ........................ 10,000,000 

GCNSS ............................................................................................... 20,000,000 ........................ 20,000,000 

NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory ............................. ........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Technical Center Facilities ............................................................... 13,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 

Technical Center Building and Plant Support ................................. 3,500,000 4,300,000 4,300,000 

Total Activity 1 ............................................................................. 407,150,000 223,504,000 274,779,000 

Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment: 

En Route Automation Program ......................................................... 307,000,000 361,200,000 333,200,000 

Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) ....................................... ........................ 4,900,000 4,900,000 

ATOMS Local Area/Wide Area Network .............................................. 1,100,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) ............................................. 8,500,000 4,700,000 4,700,000 

ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements ........................ 28,000,000 35,000,000 28,000,000 

Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS) ................................... 32,800,000 24,100,000 24,100,000 

Air Traffic Management (ATM) ......................................................... 37,500,000 57,000,000 38,000,000 

Critical Telecommunication Support ................................................. 1,500,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 

Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure ...................................... 24,100,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 

Volcano Monitoring ........................................................................... 4,000,000 ........................ 4,000,000 

ATCBI Replacement (ATCBI–6) ......................................................... 20,000,000 15,100,000 15,100,000 

ATC En Route Radar Facilities Improvements ................................. 2,700,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

En Route Communications and Control Facilities Improvements .... 1,203,390 1,020,800 1,020,800 

Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) .................................... ........................ 14,100,000 14,100,000 

Aviation Weather Services Improvements (CIWS) ............................. 22,200,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) ................................... 51,200,000 71,150,000 71,150,000 

Guam Center Radar Approach Control (CERAP)—Relocate ............ 2,600,000 2,300,000 2,300,000 

Oceanic Automation System ............................................................. 67,000,000 50,850,000 42,000,000 

ARTS/DBRITE Sustainment ................................................................ 25,000,000 ........................ ........................

New York Integrated Control Complex .............................................. 5,000,000 ........................ ........................

ARSR–4 Automated Technical Documentation ................................. 3,000,000 ........................ 3,000,000 
29 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal Year Committee recommendation 2004 enacted 2005 estimate 

Subtotal—En Route Programs ..................................................... 644,403,390 664,220,800 608,370,800 

Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X (ASDE–X) ............. ........................ 51,300,000 51,300,000 

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) ........................................ ........................ 8,000,000 8,000,000 

Terminal Automation Program .......................................................... 122,100,000 21,700,000 21,700,000 

Terminal ATC Facilties Replacement ................................................ 158,245,000 95,100,000 126,100,000 

ATC/TRACON Facilities Improvement ................................................ 42,000,000 55,175,800 55,175,800 

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement/Enhanced TVS ........................ 16,000,000 10,200,000 16,000,000 

NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance .... 28,300,000 25,500,000 25,500,000 

Houston Area Air Traffic System ...................................................... 25,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 

NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS) .............................. 20,000,000 16,000,000 10,000,000 

ASR–9 SLEP ...................................................................................... 23,000,000 20,700,000 20,700,000 

Voice Recorder Replacement Program (VRRP) ................................. 3,300,000 5,100,000 5,100,000 

Terminal Digital Radar (ASR–11) ..................................................... 75,000,000 107,100,000 100,100,000 

DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer .............................................................. 3,250,000 1,200,000 3,200,000 

Precision Runway Monitors ............................................................... 8,000,000 7,400,000 7,400,000 

Terminal Radar Improvements ......................................................... ........................ 1,073,700 1,073,700

Terminal Communications—Improve ............................................... 112,000 1,129,400 1,129,400 

Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) ........ 119,800,000 113,900,000 113,900,000 

Terminal Applied Engineering ........................................................... 4,000,000 ........................ ........................

Terminal Interim Remote Tower Displays ......................................... 2,500,000 ........................ ........................

Tower Datalink Services (TDLS) ........................................................ 2,500,000 ........................ ........................

IDS—Terminal Facilities ................................................................... 2,000,000 ........................ ........................

Subtotal—Terminal Programs ..................................................... 655,107,000 552,578,900 578,378,900 

Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) ................................. 11,800,000 7,300,000 7,300,000 

FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation System 

(OASIS) .......................................................................................... 19,710,000 10,200,000 9,200,000 

Weather Message Switching Center Replacement ........................... 1,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Flight Service Facilities Improvement .............................................. 476,890 ........................ ........................

Flight Service Station Switch Modernization .................................... 2,000,000 ........................ ........................

Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization ...................................... 5,800,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 

Subtotal—Flight Service Programs ............................................. 41,286,890 19,800,000 18,800,000 

VOR/DME ........................................................................................... 8,600,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

Instrument Landing System (ILS) Establishment ............................. 48,615,000 5,800,000 25,250,000 

Wide Area Augmentation System ...................................................... 100,000,000 100,030,000 65,090,000 

Transponder Landing System (TLS) .................................................. 6,300,000 ........................ 6,300,000 

Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS)—Upgrade ................... 2,700,000 ........................ ........................

Runway Visual Range ....................................................................... 7,000,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 

NDB Sustainment .............................................................................. 1,100,000 ........................ ........................

Navigation and Landing Aids—Improve .......................................... 5,929,420 4,408,700 4,408,700 

Approach Lighting System Improvement Program (ALSIP) .............. 48,975,000 5,000,000 19,700,000 

VASI Replace With PAPI .................................................................... 5,900,000 ........................ ........................

DME Sustainment ............................................................................. 4,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Visual Navaids (PAPI/REIL) ............................................................... 5,000,000 3,200,000 3,200,000 

Loran-C ............................................................................................. 22,500,000 ........................ 10,000,000 

Instrument Approach Procedures Automation .................................. 4,000,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 

Navigation and Landing Aids Service Life Extension Pgm .............. ........................ 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Subtotal—Landing and Navigational Aids .................................. 270,619,420 127,938,700 143,448,700 

Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System (ANICS) ............ 900,000 ........................ ........................

Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring ............................. 5,600,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

FAA Buildings and Equipment .......................................................... 11,200,000 11,027,600 11,027,600 

Electrical Power Systems—Sustain/Support .................................... 45,000,000 45,000,000 40,000,000 

Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local Projects) ............... 2,200,000 2,300,000 2,300,000 

Aircraft Related Equipment Program ............................................... 12,580,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 

Computer Aided Eng and Graphics (CAEG) Modernization .............. 1,000,000 800,000 800,000 

Airport Cable Loop Systems—Sustained Support ............................ 6,500,000 4,600,000 9,600,000 
30 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal Year Committee recommendation 2004 enacted 2005 estimate 

Programs being rebaselined (ITWS, STARS, WAAS) .......................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Subtotal—Other ATC Facilities .................................................... 84,980,000 78,727,600 78,727,600 

Total Activity 2 ............................................................................. 1,696,396,700 1,443,266,000 1,426,726,000 

Non-ATC Facilities and Equipment: 

NAS Management Automation Program (NASMAP) .......................... 1,200,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Hazardous Materials Management ................................................... 19,000,000 17,000,000 17,000,000 

Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS) ........................................... 6,900,000 12,900,000 6,900,000 

Logistics Support Systems and Facilities (LSSF) ............................. 5,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Test Equipment—Maintenance Support for Replacement ............... 4,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center (NASDAC) ............... 1,900,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 

NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM) ........................................... 9,400,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Facility Security Risk Management .................................................. 30,000,000 40,000,000 40,000,000 

Information Security .......................................................................... 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 

Subtotal—Support Equipment ..................................................... 85,400,000 99,500,000 93,500,000 

Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization ............................ 13,000,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 

National Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities ........................ 4,200,000 ........................ ........................

Distance Learning ............................................................................. 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Subtotal—Training Equipment & Facilities ................................ 18,600,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Total Activity 3 ............................................................................. 104,000,000 109,500,000 103,500,000 

Mission Support: 

System Engineering and Development Support ............................... 25,800,000 30,400,000 27,765,000 

Safety Management System ............................................................. ........................ 1,700,000 1,700,000 

Program Support Leases ................................................................... 41,100,000 42,600,000 42,600,000 

Logistics Support Services (LSS) ...................................................... 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center—Leases .................................. 14,600,000 14,200,000 14,200,000 

Transition Engineering Support ........................................................ 35,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 

Frequency and Spectrum Engineering .............................................. 1,930,000 3,600,000 2,000,000 

PCS Moves ........................................................................................ 200,000 1,530,000 1,530,000 

Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC) .................................... 42,562,100 43,300,000 38,300,000 

Resource Tracking Program (RTP) .................................................... 3,600,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development ........................ 84,620,000 84,600,000 84,600,000 

NAS Aeronautical Info Management Enterprise System ................... 10,300,000 13,700,000 13,700,000 

DCAA Audits ...................................................................................... 3,000,000 ........................ ........................

Operational Evolution Plan ............................................................... 1,000,000 ........................ ........................

Research Aircraft Replacement ........................................................ 10,000,000 ........................ ........................

Total Activity 4 ............................................................................. 281,612,100 280,030,000 265,295,000 

Personnel and Related Expenses: 

Personnel and Related Expenses ...................................................... 420,841,200 443,700,000 428,700,000 

Total Activity 5 ............................................................................. 420,841,200 443,700,000 428,700,000 

Total .............................................................................................. 2,910,000,000 2,500,000,000 2,500,000,000 

ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.—The Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping program develops 

and validates technologies that support a range of timely and critical initiatives within the Engineering, Development, Test and 
31 

Evaluation activity. The Committee recommendation provides 

$56,575,000, to be distributed as follows: 

Committee recommendation 

Runway incursion reduction program ................................................................................................................ $9,100,000 

Aviation system capacity improvements ........................................................................................................... 6,500,000 

Separation standards ......................................................................................................................................... 2,500,000 

General aviation/vertical flight technology program ......................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Operational concept validation .......................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

NAS mission analysis and requirements development ..................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Domestic RVSM .................................................................................................................................................. 2,200,000 

Safer Skies ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,400,000 

NAS safety assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Juneau airport wind system ............................................................................................................................... 4,900,000 

Airborne automated flight alert system ............................................................................................................ 3,000,000 

Runway obstruction warning system ................................................................................................................. 375,000 

Airport technology .............................................................................................................................................. 10,100,000 

Airport cooperative research program ............................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Data exchange project ....................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Airborne Automated Flight Alert System.—The Committee has 

included $3,000,000 to continue the demonstration of a prototype 

rapid response capability to transmit flight data from commercial 

type aircraft using data management and communications equipment already installed on most modern aircraft, through software 

modernization. The Committee views this funding as a continuation of on-going AAFAS work. 

Runway Obstruction Warning System.—The bill includes 

$375,000 to continue the Runway Obstruction Warning System at 

Gulfport-Biloxi Airport and to support interim monitoring and certification of the system. 

Airport Technology.—The Committee recommends $10,100,000 

for airport technology. The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for 

the Airfield Pavements Research Program, the same level of funding as the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The program is designed 

to develop safer, more cost-effective, and durable airfield pavements by improving design, construction, rehabilitation and repair. 

This program examines both asphalt and concrete airfield pavements. 

Airport Cooperative Research Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to initiate the airport cooperative 

research program which will carry out applied research on problems that are shared by airports and are not being adequately addressed by existing Federal research programs. This research will 

help to improve aviation safety, enhance security and reduce environmental impacts at airports around the country. 

Data Exchange Project.—The Committee recommends $2,000,000 

for the data exchange project. The project will develop and demonstrate an innovative, low-cost, broadband, non-satellite, safety, 

security, and air traffic management communications system for 

aircraft. Project will configure hardware and equip at least three 

aircraft and one ground station to establish a broadband communications data link network between aircraft and ground. 

Aviation Maintenance Technology.—The Committee encourages 

the FAA to work with the appropriate parties to develop a trial to 

demonstrate the safety and efficiency gains to be achieved through 
32 

the automation of maintenance repair procedure information. The 

trial may include the identification of metrics and their measurement; configuration and installation of the automation system; and, 

data collection from the trial. 

Safe Flight 21.—The Committee supports the Safe Flight 21 pro- gram and recommends $44,450,000, an increase of $4,000,000 

above the budget estimate. Of the funds provided, $4,004,000 is for 

the Ohio River Valley project and $37,000,000 is for the Capstone 

program. The recommendation includes $7,000,000 for weather 

cameras and the Committee urges the FAA to improve weather information for highly traveled mountain passes, including Rainey 

Pass, Merrill Pass, and Ptarmigan Pass. 

Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground Communications System [NEXCOM].—The Committee recommends 

$29,950,000 for Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communications 

System [NEXCOM], which is $2,000,000 less than the budget request. The Committee is aware that FAA is deferring plans for the 

more expensive and ambitious elements of the NEXCOM program. 

It is now essentially a radio replacement program. FAA has faced 

numerous challenges with this program, including concerns about 

the agency’s preferred technology, how much it would cost airlines 

to equip with new radios, and whether or not Agency efforts would 

be compatible with steps taken in Europe. Notwithstanding FAA’s 

decision to dismantle NEXCOM, the program sought to address 

very real problems—an aging air-to-ground communications infrastructure and pending frequency depletion. Agency budgets and 

justifications are silent on these important problems that will affect 

capacity initiatives at some time in the future. Considering decisions about NEXCOM and the abrupt deferral of Controller-Pilot 

Data Link Communications, FAA is directed to report to the Committee on how it will meet the communication needs of the National Airspace System in the near-and long-term. 

Global Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance System 

[GCNSS].—The Committee provides $20,000,000 for the continuation of the FAA’s effort to develop network-centric NAS operations 

through System Wide Information Management. The Committee 

directs the FAA to utilize this funding to further define and analyze initial network-centric air traffic management operations and 

to demonstrate these concepts at one or more FAA sites. Specifically, the demonstration may include the following: flight deviation 

detection and assessment for security alerting and safety and capacity enhancement; rationalization and integration of NAS surveillance assets for reducing operational and maintenance costs 

while the existing levels of safety and security are fully maintained; dynamic traffic rerouting and flow re-planning for minimizing NAS disruptions caused by convective weather; and, trajectory-based approach and departure operations for increased terminal area and airport capacity and reduced flight delays. 

Local Area Augmentation System [LAAS].—The Committee recommendation provides $10,000,000 for the Local Area Augmentation system. The Committee notes that this program has evolved 

from a private vendor and airline effort to a private vendor and 

FAA effort, and now is an FAA procurement program for a category 

1 system. Since FAA awarded the LAAS contract in fiscal year 
33 

2003, the FAA has contemplated restructuring the program to 

focus on category 2 and category 3 systems and the fiscal year 2005 

request to OMB reflected that shift. Due to budgetary constraints 

and competing priorities, the budget estimate did not include funding for LAAS, and during the last several months, the FAA, the 

Congress, and the industry have been struggling with how to capture the benefits promised by LAAS technology in a constrained 

budgetary environment. After consultations with the FAA, the 

Committee includes funding for the LAAS procurement and believes that the most prudent means to successfully integrating this 

capability into the NAS is through an iterative approach starting 

with category 1 systems utilizing associated cockpit guidance systems and evolving as necessary to category 2 and category 3 systems. The Committee believes that this approach holds promise for 

delivering a cost-effective means of providing precision approaches 

to accommodate the shift to point-to-point air carrier service. The 

Committee appreciates the dialogue with the Department on this 

issue and anticipates a continuation of that process. 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

En Route Automation Modernization Program.—The En Route 

Automation Modernization Program [ERAM] is one of the most expensive and complex acquisitions that FAA has ever undertaken. 

The purpose of ERAM is to replace the Host computer and its 

backup at FAA’s 20 facilities that manage high altitude traffic nationwide. ERAM is also expected to provide future enhancements 

to Host computer capabilities to enhance the flow of air traffic in 

the National Airspace System. 

For well over 20 years, the Host computer system has been the 

core, or central nervous system, of the Nation’s air traffic control 

[ATC] network. Host computers integrate flight plan and radar 

data to provide air traffic controllers with precise aircraft identification and position information. This system and its associated 

back-up are aging and have limited expansion capability. 

The expense and complexity of ERAM is reflected in FAA’s overall program cost estimate of $2,100,000,000 and projected completion date of 2010. The agency is currently spending more than 

$10,000,000 per month on ERAM. The FAA budget request for fiscal year 2005 would increase the monthly burn rate to more than 

$20,000,000 per month. In 2007, FAA envisions spending more 

than $30,000,000 per month or more than $1,000,000 per day on 

ERAM. 

The FAA has developed a phased approach to the ERAM procurement and is 18 months into the effort. Thus far, FAA has met 

early program milestones, although it should be noted that work to 

date has focused on the Enhanced Back-up Surveillance system 

[EBUS], the least complex element of ERAM. Nevertheless, considerable work remains and continued oversight of this important program is critical. In fact, about 80 percent of each year’s budget request will involve development efforts, referred to as ‘‘solution development’’ in planning documents. 

Even modest cost or schedule problems with ERAM will have a 

cascading effect on other programs, particularly in today’s tight 
34 

budgetary environment. At this stage, two key risks must be aggressively managed: 

1. Managing a Cost-Plus Contract.—By far, the largest cost risk 

in the program lies in FAA’s ability to control the cost of the prime 

contract, which is a cost-reimbursable vehicle that generates the 

bulk of the anticipated program cost. The contract is currently valued at $971,000,000 for some of the development and deployment 

associated with ERAM. One pending adjustment to the ERAM contract, related to improvements to the Display System Replacement, 

will likely increase that cost by $200,000,000. Clearly, developmental initiatives with high degrees of undefined elements carry a 

greater risk of cost overruns and schedule delays—particularly 

when administered through a cost plus contract. 

2. Managing Complex Software Development.—The development 

and deployment of ERAM involves creating and integrating approximately 1.3 million lines of new and re-used computer code. 

The first software version of ERAM (release 1) will provide essentially the same capabilities that the Host possesses today with its 

current complement of over 3 million lines of code. Clearly, this is 

a challenging software engineering task, particularly because the 

contractor will have to integrate different programming languages 

and will rely on three different entities to develop and integrate the 

software. 

Later software versions of ERAM (releases 2.0 and 3.0) will be 

challenging to develop, test, and implement because they are expected to provide capabilities that do not exist today. Requirements 

for the later elements of ERAM are not well understood and serious questions exist about what it will take in terms of time and 

money to deliver these additional capabilities. 

Last year, the Committee admonished FAA for providing insufficient justification for ERAM given the size and magnitude of the 

program. This is still the case today. The Committee continues to 

be concerned about the lack of clarity in the goals and elements of 

this program. The Committee believes that an initiative of this size 

and importance to the agency warrants a much more comprehensive justification and repeated attempts by the Committee to find 

greater definition of the procurement elements have been less than 

illuminating. The more attention and scrutiny the Committee devotes to the ERAM program, the more troubling this initiative appears. FAA has not clearly articulated the level of development and 

risks associated with the later stages of this procurement and the 

agency’s plans to mitigate those risks. As a result, it remains unclear whether or not FAA is correctly positioned to manage the program with respect to complex software development and integration issues and what metrics can be used to gauge progress. 

The Committee Recommendation provides $333,200,000 for 

ERAM for fiscal year 2005, a decrease of $28,000,000 from the 

budget request and an increase of $26,000,000 over the fiscal year 

2004 appropriated level. The Committee believes this reduction can 

be easily accommodated with appropriate management of the procurement—particularly when considering that the FAA assures the 

Committee that program growth of $200,000,000 to $300,000,000 

can be accommodated as discussed above. In addition, the Committee directs the FAA to divide the current ERAM effort into sep-
35 

arate and distinct programs with individual budget line items and 

encourages the FAA to take advantage of fixed priced contracting 

vehicles for the individual program elements. At a minimum, the 

program could be divided into programs and budget line items that 

specifically address Host replacement from those that introduce 

new capabilities to the current infrastructure. 

ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.—The Committee recommendation provides $28,000,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 2004. 

Air Traffic Management [ATM].—The Committee provides $38,000,000 for ATM, which is $500,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004. 

Volcano Monitoring.—The Committee recommendation provides $4,000,000 for this activity, the same as the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

Aviation Weather Services Improvements.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to improve weather information 

for highly traveled mountain passes, including Rainey Pass, Merrill 

Pass, and Ptarmigan Pass. 

Oceanic Automation System.—The Committee continues to be 

concerned with the management of the effort to modernize the 

management of the oceanic airspace. While no program of this size 

has had the degree of congressional, Inspector General and GAO 

attention as the OAS procurement has over the past 15 years, the 

FAA seems to continue to find new and innovative ways to increase 

the cost of the procurement and the taxpayers’ exposure to future 

system and contract costs. The Committee recommendation provides $42,000,000, and notes that the FAA can accommodate this 

level by aggressively managing time and materials contract line 

items for software maintenance and support of FAA testing activities and by controlling testing, engineering and program management support. 

Automated Technical Support System.—The Committee includes 

$3,000,000 for the ongoing development and testing of an automated technical documentation pilot program utilizing complex 

schematic diagrams with capabilities for response and decision-support following a failure of short range radar systems. 

Wide Area Augmentation System.—The Committee continues to 

have serious concerns about the resource drain the WAAS program 

presents compared to the minimum benefits to aviation users demonstrated to date. In May, the FAA rebaselined the WAAS program 

for the fourth time in 10 years. With such little acceptance of this 

program from aviation users as measured by equipage rates, the 

Committee is concerned that this program may never realize its 

projected benefits. The Committee recommendation defers the 

$34,940,000 in funding requested for the additional geo-stationary 

satellite. 

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar [TDWR].—The Committee recommendation is $3,000,000, a slight increase from the fiscal year 

2004 appropriated level. 

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities Replacement.—The Committee recommendation includes $126,100,000 for new and replacement air traffic control tower [ATCT] and ATCT/TRACON consolidation projects, an increase of $31,000,000 above the budget re-
36 

quest. Funding shall be available for the following projects in the 

corresponding amounts: 

Location Amount 

Chicago, IL ........................................................................................................................................................... $5,000,000 

Cleveland, OH ....................................................................................................................................................... 7,025,000 

Portland, OR (TRACON) ........................................................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Dayton, OH ........................................................................................................................................................... 975,000 

Orlando, FL (TRACON) .......................................................................................................................................... 2,010,625 

Toledo, OH ............................................................................................................................................................ 975,000 

Abilene, TX ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,260,000 

Pensacola, FL (TRACON) ...................................................................................................................................... 1,133,900 

Washington, DC .................................................................................................................................................... 7,402,300 

Huntsville, AL ....................................................................................................................................................... 11,000,000 

Houston, TX .......................................................................................................................................................... 25,000,000 

Memphis, TN ........................................................................................................................................................ 10,200,000 

Dallas, TX (Addison) ............................................................................................................................................ 1,349,375 

Reno, NV ............................................................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Seattle, WA (ATCT) ............................................................................................................................................... 1,300,000 

Fort Wayne, IN ...................................................................................................................................................... 2,200,000 

Deer Valley, AZ ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Pt. Columbus, OH ................................................................................................................................................. 700,000 

Billings, MT .......................................................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Savannah, GA ....................................................................................................................................................... 700,000 

Roanoke, VA ......................................................................................................................................................... 700,000 

Merrimack, NH (BCT) ........................................................................................................................................... 834,000 

Phoenix, AZ ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,334,800 

Manchester, NH .................................................................................................................................................... 1,800,000 

Chantilly, VA ......................................................................................................................................................... 5,500,000 

Newport News, VA ................................................................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Sacramento, CA .................................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Jefferson County, CO ............................................................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Kona, HI ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Lihue, HI ............................................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Boise, ID ............................................................................................................................................................... 6,000,000 

Missoula, MT ........................................................................................................................................................ 4,000,000 

Las Vegas, NV (ATCT) .......................................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

North Bend, OR .................................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Spokane, WA ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Rogers, AR ............................................................................................................................................................ 700,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 126,100,000 

Airport Traffic Control Tower [ATCT]/TRACON Facilities Improvement.—The Committee recommendation includes $55,175,800 

for improvements to terminal facilities and equipment, which is 

equal to the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes funding for the projects listed below: 

IMPROVE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES 

Facility Description Amount 

Fairbanks, AK ............................................................. Replace ceiling tiles, lighting, flooring ..................... $92,100 

King Salmon, AK ......................................................... HVAC, LPGB, ceiling tiles, carpet, paint ................... 165,000 

Des Moines, IA ............................................................ Upgrade ATCT siding and replace roof ..................... 224,400 

Omaha, NE ................................................................. HVAC Replace ............................................................ 665,150 

Lincoln, NE ................................................................. HVAC replace, Interior refurbish ................................ 449,320 

Atlantic City, NJ .......................................................... Rehab mobile tower ................................................... 30,000 

Poughkeepsie, NY ....................................................... Seismic survey ........................................................... 260,000 

Lancaster, PA ............................................................. Replace air handling system ..................................... 402,600 

Parkersburg, WV ......................................................... Install equipment building ........................................ 190,290 

New Haven, CT ........................................................... Replace ESD carpet in cab ....................................... 97,900 

Boston TRACON .......................................................... Replace carpet for 11 locations ................................ 79,200 

Norwood, MA ............................................................... Seismic survey ........................................................... 260,000 
37 

IMPROVE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES—Continued 

Facility Description Amount 

Denver TRACON .......................................................... Correct functional problems ...................................... 850,000 

Great Falls, MT ........................................................... Seismic survey ........................................................... 260,000 

Ogden, UT ................................................................... General refurbish ....................................................... 6,360 

Pocatello, ID ............................................................... General refurbish ....................................................... 250,015 

Daytona Beach, FL ..................................................... Modernize ATCT cab ................................................... 32,373 

Fort Lauderdale, FL .................................................... Modernize cab ............................................................ 306,400 

Nashville, TN .............................................................. General refurbish ....................................................... 293,700 

Raleigh-Durham, NC .................................................. Mod ATCT Phase II ..................................................... 872,300 

Brownsville, TX ........................................................... Repair ATCT shaft and Base building engineering 

and drafting.

1,000,000 

Dallas Love, TX ........................................................... Modernize admin area Phase II ................................. 994,000 

Dallas-Ft Worth, TX .................................................... Mod Ops area Phase I ............................................... 110,000 

Kenai, AK .................................................................... Upgrade/Modernize ATCT ........................................... 1,140,945 

Grand Island, NE ........................................................ Replace foam insulation on roof ............................... 49,890 

Des Moines, IA ............................................................ Paint consoles, remodel restrooms ............................ 38,500 

Kansas City, MO ......................................................... Resurface parking lot ................................................ 127,450 

Cedar Rapids, IA ........................................................ Replace HVAC ............................................................ 632,500 

Clarksburg, WV ........................................................... Replace roof ............................................................... 618,200 

Caldwell, NJ ................................................................ Seismic survey ........................................................... 260,000 

Lancaster, PA ............................................................. Seismic survey ........................................................... 260,000 

Philadelphia, PA ......................................................... Seismic survey ........................................................... 260,000 

Anoka, MN .................................................................. Bldg 1840 warehouse support .................................. 45,000 

Lawrence, MA ............................................................. General modernization ............................................... 93,000 

Aspen, CO ................................................................... Replace carpeting humidifiers and base building 

roof.

383,885 

Great Falls, MT ........................................................... Facility modernization ................................................ 146,640 

Twin Falls, ID ............................................................. Mod ATCT/Provide Base building Phase I ................. 180,000 

Olympia, WA ............................................................... Modernize ATCT .......................................................... 510,772 

Paducah, KY ............................................................... Seismic survey ........................................................... 260,000 

Daytona Beach, FL ..................................................... Expand Base Building Phase II ................................. 2,004,200 

Mobile, AL ................................................................... Expand Base Building and FLS Phase II .................. 1,466,310 

Raleigh-Durham, NC .................................................. Replace HVAC ............................................................ 121,200 

Sarasota, FL ............................................................... Replace HVAC and Mod facility Phase II .................. 828,300 

Dallas-Ft Worth TRACON ............................................ Mod Ops area Phase II .............................................. 902,330 

Dallas-Ft Worth, TX .................................................... Mod Ops are Phase I ................................................. 110,000 

Dallas-Ft Worth, TX .................................................... Mod Ops area Phase I ............................................... 110,000 

Longview, TX ............................................................... General refurbish Phase II ......................................... 1,253,670 

Tulsa, OK .................................................................... Seismic survey ........................................................... 260,000 

Camarillo, CA ............................................................. Inservice upgrade to tower cab ................................. 603,064 

Santa Ana, CA ............................................................ Modernize ATCT .......................................................... 300,000 

Southern CA TRACON ................................................. Install ETG lab ........................................................... 1,200,000 

ACE ............................................................................. Various ....................................................................... 45,000 

AEA ............................................................................. Various ....................................................................... 117,000 

AGL ............................................................................. Various ....................................................................... 144,000 

ANE ............................................................................. Various ....................................................................... 45,000 

Midland, TX ................................................................ Expand Base Building Phase II ................................. 1,117,352 

Oklahoma City, OK ..................................................... Seismic survey ........................................................... 260,000 

Honolulu, HI ................................................................ Breakroom for tower .................................................. 358,784 

Scottsdale, AZ ............................................................ Modernize ATCT .......................................................... 200,000 

AAL .............................................................................. Various ....................................................................... 27,000 

ANM ............................................................................ Various ....................................................................... 81,000 

ASO ............................................................................. Various ....................................................................... 171,000 

ASW ............................................................................. Various ....................................................................... 108,000 

AWP ............................................................................. Various ....................................................................... 162,000 

Total .............................................................. .................................................................................... 24,893,100 

Regional Projects 

Kansas City, MO ......................................................... EFSTS ......................................................................... 143,995 

St. Louis, MO .............................................................. Replace carpet and linoleum .................................... 40,990 

Akron, OH .................................................................... Procure and install data display system .................. 146,159 

Philadelphia, PA ......................................................... Modernize ATCT cab ................................................... 75,800 

Pontiac, MI ................................................................. Repair base building ................................................. 80,000 
38 

IMPROVE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES—Continued 

Facility Description Amount 

Youngstown, OH ......................................................... General refurbish ....................................................... 108,000 

Flint, MI ...................................................................... Replace elevator control unit .................................... 35,100 

Minneapolis, MN ......................................................... Replace carpet admin/break room ............................ 95,085 

Seattle, WA ................................................................. Add positions ............................................................. 209,107 

Salem, OR ................................................................... Construct modular building ....................................... 104,050 

Peachtree City, GA ...................................................... Establish local control position ................................. 274,073 

Atlanta, GA ................................................................. Establish ground metering position .......................... 164,267 

Southwest ................................................................... Various ....................................................................... 200,000 

Los Angeles, CA .......................................................... Provide covering for parking ..................................... 104,150 

Santa Maria, CA ......................................................... Replace roof-top structure ......................................... 86,950 

Sacramento, CA .......................................................... Tower refurbish .......................................................... 123,000 

Kearny Mesa, CA ........................................................ Replace air conditioning system ............................... 74,500 

Chico, CA .................................................................... Replace HVAC ............................................................ 93,425 

Santa Barbara, CA ..................................................... Repair parking lot ...................................................... 20,400 

Kansas City, MO ......................................................... Electronic drop tube .................................................. 51,800 

Lansing, MI ................................................................. 7 SAIDS-IDS–4 stations ............................................. 166,359 

Atlantic City, NJ .......................................................... Repair mobile tower ................................................... 30,000 

Farmingdale, NY ......................................................... ACTA Improve ............................................................. 54,000 

Marion, IL ................................................................... Re-roof corners, misc repairs .................................... 52,000 

Pontiac, MI ................................................................. General refurbish ....................................................... 250,000 

Chicago, IL ................................................................. Remove and replace sealant on base building and 

tower.

236,000 

Burlington, VT ............................................................. Replace base building roof ....................................... 104,171 

Portland, OR ............................................................... Install ETVS, TEDs and associated equipment ......... 105,450 

San Diego, CA ............................................................ Replace water line ..................................................... 70,000 

Atlanta, GA ................................................................. Establish new ground control position ...................... 266,494 

Atlanta, GA ................................................................. Add TMC position ....................................................... 124,799 

Mesa, AZ ..................................................................... Provide covering for parking ..................................... 45,000 

Las Vegas, NV ............................................................ Repaint interior, replace floor and lighting fixtures 148,700 

So Lake Tahoe, CA ..................................................... Repaint exterior .......................................................... 28,600 

Deer Valley, AZ ........................................................... Replace HVAC ............................................................ 98,488 

La Verne, CA ............................................................... Upgrade air conditioning system .............................. 74,500 

Long Beach, CA .......................................................... Replace HVAC ............................................................ 90,388 

Total .............................................................. .................................................................................... 4,175,800 

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement/Enhancement Terminal 

Voice Switch.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$16,000,000 for the TVSR/ETVS switch replacement program, an 

increase of $5,800,000 from the budget request of $10,200,000 and 

the same amount as the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

NAS Infrastructure Management System [NIMS].—The Committee recommendation provides $10,000,000 for the NIMS program without prejudice due to budget constraints. 

Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR–9].—The Committee recommends the $20,700,000 for service life extension modifications to 

the ASR–9 airport surveillance radar. The Committee is aware that 

the ASR–9 is the principal airport radar used at the Nation’s busiest airports which serve 90 percent of enplaned passengers. 

Terminal Digital Radar (ASR–11).—The Committee recommends 

a reduction of $7,000,000 from the requested level of $107,100,000. 

The Committee recommendation fully funds the request to procure 

and install 12 new radar systems. In addition to funds for new production systems, the FAA is requesting funding for site surveys, 

site designs, and spare parts. The Committee notes that the number of site surveys and site designs that have been completed significantly exceeds the number of systems that have been procured. 

The Committee believes the recommendation provides a sufficient 
39 

level of resources if the FAA defers site surveys for systems that 

will not be installed for a number of years and limits spare parts 

purchasing to a reasonable level that is needed to sustain the current inventory. The Committee is aware of the need to install a 

new ASR–11 at the Bismarck Airport in North Dakota and is dismayed over the delay in the project moving forward. The Committee directs the FAA to work with the Bismarck Airport to come 

up with a suitable solution so as to ensure that there is improved 

radar coverage in the near-term and that safety is not impeded. 

DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $3,200,000, which is essentially the same level of funding 

that was appropriated in fiscal year 2004. Funding provided above 

the budget increase is for necessary improvements and continued 

operations of the airport radar approach control at Lawton/Fort Sill 

Regional Airport in Oklahoma. 

FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation System 

[OASIS].—The Committee recommends a $9,200,000, a reduction of 

$1,000,000. The recommendation is consistent with the amount 

that the FAA has reprogrammed from this program to other activities in previous fiscal years. 

Instrument Landing System [ILS] Establishment.—The Committee recommends $25,250,000 for establishment of instrument 

landing systems, which includes $2,500,000 for program management, engineering, testing, freight, and technical support. The 

Committee directs the funding to be distributed as follows: 

Facility Description Amount 

Alliance, NE ................................................................ Acquire and Install ILS .............................................. $1,000,000 

Andalusia-Opp Airport, AL .......................................... Acquire and Install ILS with MALSR ......................... 1,625,000 

Carbon County, UT ..................................................... Acquire and Install ILS .............................................. 2,000,000 

Colorado Springs, CO ................................................. Acquire and Install ILS .............................................. 2,000,000 

Eugene, OR ................................................................. Install CAT I ILS with ALS, PAPI, REIL ...................... 1,250,000 

Herbert Smart Downtown Regional, GA ..................... Acquire and Install ILS .............................................. 2,000,000 

Kirksville Regional, MO .............................................. Acquire and Install ILS .............................................. 975,000 

New York, NY (JFK) ..................................................... Installation of MALSR ................................................ 1,300,000 

O’Hare International, IL .............................................. CAT II/III ILS installation ........................................... 2,000,000 

St. Louis Lambert ....................................................... CAT III ILS for new runway ........................................ 2,000,000 

Sheboygan County, WI ................................................ Install ILS with localizer, DME, glidescope ............... 1,000,000 

Tooele, UT ................................................................... Install CAT I ILS with MALSR .................................... 2,000,000 

Walterboro Municipal, SC ........................................... Acquire and Install ILS .............................................. 1,600,000 

Winston-Salem, NC ..................................................... Installation of ALSF–2 ............................................... 2,000,000 

Transponder Landing Systems.—The Committee recommendation provides $6,300,000 for acquisition and installation of transponder landing systems [TLS], which is the same as the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level. The Committee directs the FAA to conduct surveys and cost-benefit analysis to site TLS at the following locations: 

Chevak; Emmonak; Hooper Bay Airport; Marshall; Scammon Bay; 

St. Michael; Selawik; Dillingham Airport; Unalaska Airport; 

McGrath Airport; Sand Point Airport; Unalalekeet; Fulton County 

Airport, IN; Danville, KY; Lawrence Smith Memorial Airport, MO; 

Dawson Community Airport, MT; Clinton County Airport, OH; 

Bandon State Airport, OR; Gatlinburg-Pigeon Forge Airport, TN; 

McGhee Tyson Airport, TN; Deer Park Airport, WA. 

Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP].—The 

recommendation includes $19,700,000 for procurement and installation of frangible approach lighting equipment, including ALSF– 
40 

2 and MALSR lighting systems. The Committee believes that using 

the latest lighting technology could improve reliability and reduce 

maintenance costs. The Committee encourages the FAA to complete a review of the specifications for procurements under the 

ALSIP program. The Committee encourages the FAA to consider 

the development of a certified supplier list once the updated specification is completed. Under the Committee recommendation, the 

funding is to be distributed as follows: 

Facility Description Amount 

Kingston, NC ............................................................... Install ALSF–2 ............................................................ $2,500,000 

Wilmington, DE ........................................................... Install MALSR ............................................................. 2,500,000 

Gulfport-Biloxi, MS ..................................................... Install TDZ and CL lighting RW 14–32 .................... 1,100,000 

Alaska statewide rural airfield lighting program ...... Acquire and Install airfield lighting .......................... 8,000,000 

North Las Vegas and Henderson Executive ............... REIL’s ......................................................................... 500,000 

Monroe Regional, LA ................................................... Airfield lighting .......................................................... 2,200,000 

Mobile Regional, AL .................................................... Acquire and Install MIRL for Runway 18/36 ............. 1,000,000 

Adak, AK ..................................................................... Upgrade instrument approach lighting ..................... 1,900,000 

The Committee has provided funding to continue the ongoing 

program to install runway and airfield lights at rural airports 

throughout Alaska. The Committee directs that priority consideration should be given to airports at Adak, Seldovia, and Soldotna. 

Medium-Intensity Approach Lighting System Replacement 

[MALSR].—The Committee is aware of the large inventory of 

MALSRs. The Committee encourages the FAA to consider using a 

small business MALSR provider for 3 to 6 turn-key next generation 

approach lighting systems which may reduce acquisition and life 

cycle costs. 

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. The Committee urges the Administrator to advance modernization of the Loran infrastructure in Alaska and directs that 

funds be requested in the fiscal year 2006 budget submission if additional resources are necessary to complete this modernization 

program. 

Electrical Power Systems—Sustain/Support.—The Committee 

provides $40,000,000 without prejudice due to budget constraints, 

a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request. 

Airport Cable Loop Systems—Sustained Support.—Of the funds 

provided, the Committee directs $1,000,000 for acquisition and installation of a fiber optic loop at Las Vegas-McCarran International 

Airport and $4,000,000 to replace the cable loop at Hartsfield International Airport. 

Programs Being Rebaselined.—The budget estimate did not allocate funding for ITWS, STARS, and WAAS and instead reserved a 

lump sum amount until completion of a revised baseline for each 

program. The Committee received revised requests for these programs and has recommended funding for these programs in the appropriate budget lines. 
41 

NON-AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

Aviation Safety Analysis System [ASAS].—The Committee recommendation provides $6,900,000, sufficient resources to maintain 

the present level of effort in the current constrained budget environment. 

MISSION SUPPORT

System Engineering and Development Support.—The Committee 

recommends $27,765,000 for this area of technical and management support. The Committee recommendation reduces the increase above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level to $1,950,000 due 

to budget constraints. 

Transition Engineering Support.—The Committee recommendation provides $30,000,000 for transition engineering support, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request and requests an 

analysis of which programs receive support from this line and an 

explanation of why such activities would not be more accurately 

budgeted within the programs receiving the support. 

Frequency and Spectrum Engineering.—The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for this program, the same level appropriated 

in fiscal year 2004. 

Technical Support Services Contract [TSSC].—The Committee 

recommendation provides $38,300,000, a reduction of $5,000,000 

from the requested amount due to budget constraints. 

Resource Tracking Program [RTP].—The Committee provide 

$1,000,000 for the resource tracking program due to higher budgetary priorities. 

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

Personnel and Related Expenses.—The Committee recommendation provides $428,700,000. 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $118,734,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 117,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 129,427,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $705,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Research, Engineering and Development [RE&D] appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic control system by increasing its safety and capacity, as well as reducing the environmental impacts of air traffic, as authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act, as amended. 

The programs are designed to meet the expected air traffic demands of the future and to promote flight safety through improvements in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order 

to ensure that the system will safely and efficiently handle future 

volumes of aircraft traffic. 

The Committee recommendation includes $129,427,000 for the 

FAA’s research, engineering, and development activities. The recommended level of funding is $12,427,000 more than budget re-
42 

quest and $10,692,690 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted 

level. 

A table showing the fiscal year 2004 enacted level, the fiscal year 

2005 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows: 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT 

Fiscal Year— Committee recommendation 2004 enacted 1 2005 estimate 

Improve Aviation Safety: 

Fire Research and Safety ................................................................. $9,667,622 $5,578,000 $6,578,000 

Propulsion and Fuel Systems ........................................................... 6,606,789 3,672,000 7,672,000 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety .............................................. 7,223,131 2,197,000 6,697,000 

Atmospheric Hazards/Digital Systems Safety ................................... 4,567,890 4,119,000 4,119,000 

Aging Aircraft .................................................................................... 20,498,342 18,351,000 19,151,000 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research .......................... 757,504 1,116,000 1,116,000 

Flightdeck/Maint./System Integration Human Factors ..................... 8,344,475 8,294,000 12,794,000 

Aviation Safety Risk Analysis ........................................................... 7,851,402 8,640,000 8,640,000 

Air Traffic Control/Airway Facilities Human Factors ........................ 8,846,496 9,467,000 9,467,000 

Aeromedical Research ....................................................................... 8,829,596 6,660,000 6,660,000 

Weather Research Safety .................................................................. 20,728,974 20,838,000 20,838,000 

Improve Efficiency of Air Traffic Control System: 

National Plan for Transformation of Air Service .............................. ........................ 5,100,000 5,100,000 

Wake Turbulence ............................................................................... ........................ 2,296,000 4,796,000 

Weather Research Efficiency ............................................................ 2,982,300 ........................ ........................

Reduce Environmental Impact of Aviation: Environment and Energy ...... 7,927,947 16,008,000 11,890,000 

Improve Efficiency of Mission Support: 

System Planning and Resource Management .................................. 497,050 1,275,000 520,000 

Technical Laboratory Facility ............................................................ 3,404,792 3,389,000 3,389,000 

Total R,E&D .................................................................................. 118,734,310 117,000,000 129,427,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $705,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168(b) of Public Law 108–199. 

IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

Fire Research and Safety.—The Committee recommends 

$6,578,000 for fire research and safety and includes $1,000,000 for 

continued comprehensive evaluation of advanced reticulated polyurethane safety foam in commercial aircraft. 

Propulsion and Fuel Systems.—The Committee recommendation 

provides a total of $7,672,000 for propulsion and fuel systems research to reduce commercial fatalities. The Committee provides 

$3,000,000 to continue the study of the effects of molecular markers designed for the purpose of detecting adulteration or dilution of 

jet fuel for use in aviation engines. This funding will support appropriate engine testing by the FAA as well as a closed field trial. 

The Committee directs the Department of Transportation [DOT] to 

report their findings to the Congress not later than 18 months after 

the date of enactment. 

The recommended level of funding includes $1,000,000 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 $6,697,000 for advanced materials/structural safety research. With the additional funds provided, $4,000,000 is to support and improve ongoing metallic and composite structures research at the National Institute for Aviation Research and 

$500,000 for advanced materials research at the University of 

Washington. 
43 

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 directs that the FAA provide no less than $1,500,000 to CGAR for 

its general aviation research efforts. 

Aging Aircraft.—The Committee recommendation includes a total 

of $19,151,000 for the aging aircraft program to reduce commercial 

aviation fatalities. The Committee has provided resources to continue the collaborative efforts between the FAA and several public 

and private organizations including the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability [CASR], the Airworthiness Assurance Center of 

Excellence [AACE] and the Engine Titanium Consortium [ETC]. 

Within the appropriation, the recommendation includes $2,000,000 

for the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability [CASR]; $1,000,000 

for the Engine Titanium Consortium [ETC]; $2,500,000 for the 

Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center 

[AANC]; and, $1,500,000 for the Center for Aviation Research and 

Aerospace Technology [CARAT]. 

Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors.— The Committee recommends $10,794,000 for flightdeck, maintenance, and systems integration human factors, an increase of 

$2,500,000 above the budget estimate. The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue development of inflight simulator training for commercial pilots and $500,000 to provide training and education in aircraft inspection, maintenance and 

repair at NH Community Technical College-Nashua. 

Cabin Air Quality.—Within the funds provided for aeromedical research, the Committee provides $3,000,000 to continue studies 

related to cabin air quality as authorized in Section 815 of the Vision 100—Century of Aviation Authorization Act. The Committee 

directs that this research be conducted through the recently established ‘‘Center of Excellence for Cabin Air Quality’’ and shall, to the 

extent that sufficient funds are available, include the following 

areas: identification of chemical exposures during sporadic air quality incidents; an animal study to assess the toxicity of inhaling a 

neurotoxic component of aircraft engine oils and hydraulic fluids; 

mechanical means of keeping flying insects out of the passenger 

cabin of commercial aircraft; aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research; in-flight decontamination procedures; and advanced 

cleansing and biological sensors. 

Mobile Object Technology.—The Committee recommendation for 

flightdeck, maintenance, and systems integration human factors includes $3,000,000 to further develop and implement a mobile object 

technology program to demonstrate the deployment of software 

quickly and efficiently into the complex National Airspace System 

and the System Wide Information Network [SWIM]. This demonstration should explore the mobile object technology’s ability to 

analyze remote monitoring and maintenance capabilities and its 

potential integration into the Surveillance Data Network [SDN]. 
44 

IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

National Plan for Air Transportation.—The Committee recommends $5,100,000, as requested, 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. 

Wake Turbulence.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$5,296,000 for the wake turbulence program, which is $3,000,000 

above the budget request. Funding provided above the budget estimate is to enhance the capability of pulsed laser Doppler radar 

[Lidar] to detect and track aircraft wakes. 

REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF AVIATION

Environment and Energy.—The Committee recommends 

$11,890,000 and provides an increase of 50 percent above the level 

enacted for fiscal year 2004 instead of the proposed increase of 64 

percent. 

IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF MISSION SUPPORT

System Planning & Resource Management.—The Committee provides $520,000, which is slightly more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $3,379,940,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 2,800,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,800,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $20,060,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 

authorizes a program of grants to fund airport planning and development, noise compatibility planning and projects, the military airport program, reliever airports, airport program administration, 

and other authorized activities for public use airports in all States 

and territories. The liquidation cash appropriation provides for liquidation of obligations incurred pursuant to contract authority and 

annual limitations on obligations for grants-in-aid for airport. 

The Committee recommends $2,800,000,000 in liquidating cash 

for grants-in-aid for airports, which is the same as the budget request. This is consistent with the Committee’s obligation limitation 

on airport grants for fiscal year 2005 and for the payment of obligations from previous fiscal years. 
45 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Obligation limitation, 2004 ................................................................... $3,379,940,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 3,500,000,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 3,500,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $20,060,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

Does not reflect $1,988,000 direct appropriation pursuant to Division H, section 167 of Public 

Law 108–199. 

The total program level recommended for fiscal year 2005 for 

grants-in-aid to airports is $3,500,000,000, which is the same as 

the budget request and $120,060,000 more than the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level. The Committee recommendation is intended to 

be 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 2004 level and the President’s 

budget request follows: 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS 

Fiscal Year 2004 Enacted 1Fiscal Year 2005 Request Committee Recommendation 

Obligation Limitation ........................................................................... $3,379,940,000 $3,500,000,000 $3,500,000,000 

Personnel and Related Expenses ................................................ 65,863,101 69,302,000 68,802,000 

Small Community Air Service ..................................................... 19,882,000 .......................... 20,000,000

Available for AIP Grants ......................................................... 3,294,194,899 3,430,698,000 3,411,198,000 

Primary Airports ................................................................................... 903,768,585 903,768,585 903,768,585 

Cargo Service Airports ......................................................................... 115,296,821 120,074,430 120,074,430 

Alaska Supplemental (Sec. 4714(e)) ................................................... 21,345,114 21,345,114 21,345,114 

States (General Aviation): 

Non-Primary Entitlement ............................................................. 341,047,527 341,147,527 341,147,527 

State Apportionment by Formula ................................................ 317,791,453 344,992,073 344,992,073 

Subtotal .................................................................................. 658,838,980 686,139,600 686,139,600 

Carryover Entitlement .......................................................................... 335,700,203 336,000,000 336,000,000 

Subtotal Entitlements ............................................................. 2,034,949,703 2,067,327,729 2,067,327,729 

Small Airport Fund: 

Non Hub Airports ........................................................................ 217,288,910 217,288,910 217,288,910 

Non Commercial Service ............................................................. 108,644,455 108,644,455 108,644,455 

Small Hub ................................................................................... 54,322,227 54,322,227 54,322,227 

Subtotal Small Airport Fund .................................................. 380,255,592 380,255,592 380,255,592 

Subtotal Non Discretionary ..................................................... 2,415,205,295 2,447,583,321 2,447,583,321 

Discretionary Set-Aside: Noise ............................................................. 307,646,361 344,090,138 344,090,138 

Discretionary Set-Aside: Reliever ......................................................... 5,801,331 6,488,557 6,488,557 

Discretionary Set-Aside: Military Airport Program ............................... 35,159,584 39,324,587 39,324,587 

Subtotal Discretionary Set-asides .......................................... 348,607,276 389,903,282 389,903,282 

C/S/S/N ................................................................................................. 397,786,746 444,908,548 444,908,548 
46 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS—Continued 

Fiscal Year 2004 

Enacted 1

Fiscal Year 2005 

Request 

Committee 

Recommendation 

Pure Discretionary ................................................................................ 132,595,582 148,302,849 128,802,849 

Subtotal Other Discretionary .................................................. 530,382,328 593,211,397 573,711,397 

Subtotal Discretionary ............................................................ 878,989,604 983,114,679 963,614,679 

GRAND TOTAL ......................................................................... 3,294,194,899 3,430,698,000 3,411,198,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $20,060,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168(b) of Public Law 108–199. Does not include direct appropriation of 

$1,988,200 pursuant to Division H, section 167 of Public Law 108–199. 

Airport Discretionary Grants.—Within the budgetary resources 

provided in the accompanying bill, $963,614,679 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 2005. 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 2005 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 subsequently issues), 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 Adak ................................................................................... Various improvements. 

AK Akutan SPB ........................................................................ Various improvements. 

AK Cold Bay ............................................................................ Air terminal improvements. 

AK False Pass ......................................................................... Various improvements. 

AK Juneau International .......................................................... Snow removal equipment building and site development 

for GA aircraft, terminal enhancement. 

AK Kenai .................................................................................. Various improvements. 

AK Ketchikan International ..................................................... Various improvements. 

AK Soldotna ............................................................................. Various improvements. 

AK Ted Stevens Anchorage International ................................ Laser lines of tug roads. 

AK Unalaska ............................................................................ Air terminal expansion. 

AK Portage Creek .................................................................... Runway extension and improvements. 

AL Atmore Municipal ............................................................... Land acquisition and apron expansion. 

AL Madison County Executive ................................................. Various improvements. 

AL Mobile Downtown ............................................................... Install Perimeter Security Fence. 

AL Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field) .............................. Terminal Renovation—Phase III. 

AL Mobile Downtown ............................................................... Cargo Apron Rehabilitation/Drainage Repairs. 

AL Huntsville International—Jones Field ............................... Taxiway E5 Extension. 

AL Bessemer Municipal .......................................................... Runway extension and security upgrade. 

AL Mobile Regional ................................................................. Rehabilitate Access Road to East Ramp. 

AL Mobile Downtown ............................................................... Land Acquisition in Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). 

AL Mobile Regional ................................................................. Asphalt Overlay of Runway 18/36 and Taxiway ‘‘R’’. 

AL Huntsville International—Jones Field ............................... Expand Intermodal Air Cargo Access Taxiway to 12,600 

ft. Runway (Taxiway L). 

AL Huntsville International—Jones Field ............................... Small Community Air Service Development Program for 

Competitive Fares/AIP Special Fund. 

AL Gragg-Wade Field .............................................................. Land Acquisition for Approach Zone. 
47 

State Airport Name Project Description 

AL Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field) .............................. Montgomery Regional Airport Terminal Expansion Phase 

III. 

AL Auburn-Opelika/Robert G Pitts .......................................... Ramp and taxiway improvements and property acquisition. 

AL Andalusia-Opp ................................................................... Apron and Connector Taxiway Construction, Runway/ 

Taxiway Extension Design, Land Acquisition, Runway 

Overlay, Road Relocation, and Runway/Taxiway Extension. 

AL Moton Field Municipal ....................................................... Land acquisition, taxiway extension, RSA improvements, 

other improvements. 

AL Franklin Field ..................................................................... Land acquisition, runway extension and parallel taxiway. 

AR Northwest Arkansas Regional ............................................ Taxiway construction. 

AR Texarkana Regional—Webb Field ..................................... Terminal renovation. 

AR Baxter County Regional ..................................................... Runway construction. 

AZ Chandler Municipal ........................................................... Heliport relocation. 

AZ Phoenix Sky Harbor International ...................................... Taxiways Delta and Echo Reconstruction. 

CA Gnoss Field ........................................................................ Runway extension. 

CA Sonoma County .................................................................. Various improvements. 

CA San Francisco International .............................................. SFO Access Control of Airport Ground Service Equipment 

(GSE) System. 

CT Tweed-New Haven .............................................................. Various improvements. 

DE New Castle County ............................................................ Reconstruct/construct Taxiway M, Taxiway K–4. 

FL Orlando International ......................................................... Elimination of Wildlife Attractants. 

FL Immokalee .......................................................................... Runway 9/27 Resurfacing and Repair Project. 

FL Miami International ........................................................... Runway Strengthening. 

GA Southwest Georgia Regional .............................................. Runway extension project and construction of a new 

Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Facility (ARFF). 

GA Fitzgerald Municipal .......................................................... Runway extension. 

GA Jackson County .................................................................. Runway Extension. 

GA Southwest Georgia Regional .............................................. Runway extension. 

GA Paulding County ................................................................ Land acquisition. 

GA Augusta Regional at Bush Field ....................................... Terminal Construction. 

GA Augusta Regional at Bush Field ....................................... Various improvements. 

HI Hilo International ............................................................... Runway Pavement Rehabilitation. 

HI Kahului ............................................................................... Taxiway Pavement Rehabilitation. 

IA Sioux Gateway .................................................................... Extend and reconstruct taxiways. 

IA Mason City Municipal ........................................................ Rehabilitation of primary runway 7/35. 

IA Atlantic Municipal ............................................................. New runway construction. 

IA Council Bluffs Municipal ................................................... Various improvements. 

IA Fairfield Municipal ............................................................. Various improvements. 

IA Council Bluffs Municipal ................................................... Paving and marking new runway 18/36 and paving new 

taxiway. 

IA Ankeny Regional ................................................................ Land acquisition for increased runway protection zone 

and 500-foot long runway extension. 

IL Southern Illinois ................................................................. Equipment and various airport improvements

IL MidAmerica St. Louis ......................................................... Various Improvements 

IL Waukegan Regional ........................................................... Environmental work 

IN New Castle-Henry County Municipal ................................. Land acquisition and reconstruction and widening of a 

runway. 

IN Indianapolis Metropolitan .................................................. Traffic/congestion mitigation study. 

IN Gary/Chicago ...................................................................... Improve and correct airfield safety area. 

IN Clark County ...................................................................... Various improvements. 

IN Indianapolis Executive ....................................................... Various improvements. 

KS Forbes Field ....................................................................... Taxiway improvements. 

KS Salina Municipal ................................................................ Apron repair. 

KY Henderson City-County ...................................................... New Terminal. 

KY Madisonville Municipal ...................................................... Runway extension. 

KY Louisville International-Standiford Field ........................... Runway extension—35L. 

KY Owensboro-Daviess County ................................................ Runway extension. 

KY Bowman Field .................................................................... Airfield pavement replacement. 

KY Louisville International-Standiford Field ........................... Voluntary relocation program. 

KY Taylor County ..................................................................... Various improvement projects. 

KY Louisville International-Standiford Field ........................... Voluntary Relocation Program. 

LA New Orleans International (Moisant) ................................ Various Improvements/Rehabilitate Runway. 

LA Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan Field .............................. Various Improvements. 
48 

State Airport Name Project Description 

LA Houma-Terrebonne ............................................................. North South Runway Upgrade. 

LA Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan Field .............................. Air Carrier Apron Phase I (South). 

LA Lafayette Regional ............................................................. Runway 4R/22L Safety Zone Improvements. 

LA Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan Field .............................. Noise Mitigation. 

LA Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan Field .............................. Runway 4L–22R Extension. 

LA Houma-Terrebonne ............................................................. Runway Upgrade. 

LA Lafayette Regional ............................................................. Taxiway Bravo rehabilitation/widening and strengthening. 

LA Monroe Regional ................................................................ New Terminal. 

LA Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan Field .............................. Airfield Drainage Phase II. 

LA Lafayette Regional ............................................................. Runway extension and other improvements. 

LA Monroe Regional ................................................................ Various improvements. 

LA Morehouse Memorial .......................................................... Runway Expansion. 

LA Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan Field .............................. Runway 4L Drainage/Safety Area improvement. 

LA Alexandria International .................................................... Taxiway B Reconstruction. 

MD Martin State ....................................................................... Runway, safety, and taxiway improvements.

MD Baltimore-Washington International .................................. Various improvements. 

MD Cumberland Regional ........................................................ Various Improvements 

ME Machias Valley ................................................................... Airport relocation. 

MI Detroit City ......................................................................... Gateway Development Program. 

MI Oakland-Pontiac ................................................................ Relocation of T–Hangars, runway, associated apron, 

taxiways, and fencing. 

MI Detroit Metropolitan-Wayne County ................................... Runway and Airfield Safety Improvements. 

MI W K Kellogg Regional ........................................................ Runway and taxiway construction. 

MI Capital City ........................................................................ Runway extension. 

MI Manistee County Blacker ................................................... New terminal building. 

MI Manistee County Blacker ................................................... Snow removal equipment procurement. 

MN Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-Chamberlain ...... Pavement Rehabilitation—Aprons. 

MN Willmar ............................................................................... Paving and electrical and security components. 

MO Joplin Regional .................................................................. Terminal Replacement. 

MO Kansas City International .................................................. Various Improvements. 

MO Springfield—Brenson Regional ......................................... Runway construction. 

MO Rosencrans Memorial ........................................................ Expansion/improvements 

MS Bruce Campbell Field ........................................................ Relocate terminal. 

MS Philadelphia Municipal ...................................................... Airport expansion. 

MS Jackson International ......................................................... Carrier Apron Replacement. 

MS Gulfport-Biloxi Regional ..................................................... Taxiway Improvements. 

MS Trent Lott International ..................................................... Runway expansion. 

MS Olive Branch ...................................................................... Various Improvements. 

MS Winona-Montgomery County .............................................. Various Improvements. 

MS Hawkins Field .................................................................... Runway extension. 

MT Helena Regional ................................................................. Terminal Remodeling and Expansion Project. 

MT Missoula International ....................................................... Land Acquisition. 

MT Havre City-County .............................................................. Terminal Remodeling and Expansion Project. 

MT Great Falls International ................................................... Northside Interstate Access Road. 

MT Great Falls International ................................................... Runway Improvements. 

NC Statesville Municipal ......................................................... Runway expansion. 

NC Rowan County .................................................................... Land acquisition. 

NC Sampson County ................................................................ Runway expansion. 

NC Morganton-Lenoir ............................................................... Various improvements. 

NC Concord Regional ............................................................... Concord Airport Runway Extension. 

NC Andrews-Murphy ................................................................ Various improvements. 

NC Hickory Municipal .............................................................. Runway Improvements. 

NC Franklin County .................................................................. Runway extension. 

NC Burlington Municipal ......................................................... Runway extension. 

NC Ashe County ....................................................................... Expand terminal apron and construct taxiway. 

NC Wilmington International ................................................... Rehabilitation and Overlay of Runway 6–24. 

NC Monroe ............................................................................... Runway extension and taxiway improvements. 

ND Jamestown Municipal ........................................................ Runway improvements. 

ND Hector International ........................................................... Runway improvements. 

NE Central Nebraska Regional ................................................ North Ramp Rehabilitation. 

NJ Lakewood ........................................................................... Airport Improvement Projects. 

NJ Newark International ......................................................... Access Control of Airport Ground Service Equipment 

(GSE) System. 

NM Dona Ana County at Santa Teresa .................................... Runway extension. 

NM Double Eagle II .................................................................. Rehabilitation of runway and taxiway. 
49 

State Airport Name Project Description 

NV Reno/Tahoe International ................................................... Terminal Apron reconstruction. 

NV Reno/Stead ......................................................................... Ramp Road reconstruction. 

NV Reno/Stead ......................................................................... Airport Access Road Construction. 

NV Reno/Tahoe International ................................................... Cargo ramp construction. 

NV Reno/Tahoe International ................................................... Northeast Ramp (Cargo) Reconstruction. 

NV Reno/Stead ......................................................................... Runway reconstruction. 

NV Reno/Stead ......................................................................... Overlay of Taxiway ‘‘E’’. 

NV Reno/Stead ......................................................................... Existing T–Hangar Taxilane Reconstruction. 

NV Reno/Tahoe International ................................................... Checked Baggage In Line Security Screening System Installation. 

NV Beatty ................................................................................. Airport Improvement. 

NV Reno/Tahoe International ................................................... FAR Part 150 Noise Insulation Program. 

NV Carson ................................................................................ Property Acquisition for the Reconstruction/Realignment 

of Runway 9–27. 

NY Niagara Falls International ............................................... New passenger terminal. 

NY Niagara Falls International ............................................... East Apron Expansion. 

NY Buffalo Niagara International ........................................... Internal Perimeter Road. 

NY Greater Rochester International ........................................ Runway Extension. 

NY Niagara Falls International ............................................... Permeter Access Road. 

NY Buffalo Niagara International ........................................... Runway 5/23 extension and various improvements. 

NY Niagara Falls International ............................................... East Apron Expansion. 

NY Niagara Falls International ............................................... Circulatory Road and Airport Parking. 

NY Plattsburgh International .................................................. Various improvements. 

OH Cleveland-Hopkins International ....................................... Runway Safety Area Improvements—Partial Runway 10/ 

28. 

OH Toledo Express ................................................................... Terminal Reconfiguration. 

OH Ohio University ................................................................... Airport Safety, Security, and Economic Development Initiative. 

OH Cleveland-Hopkins International ....................................... Residential Sound Insulation, Noise Exposure Map Update, and Noise Monitor Upgrade. 

OH Dayton Wright Brothers ..................................................... Land Acquisition. 

OH Cleveland-Hopkins International ....................................... Residential soundproofing. 

OK Richard Lloyd Jones, Jr ...................................................... Access and Perimeter Road Reconstruction. 

OK Richard Lloyd Jones, Jr ...................................................... Drainage Project. 

OK Tulsa International ............................................................ Taxiway Rehabilitation. 

OK Tulsa International ............................................................ Charlie Taxiway Extension. 

OK Altus Municipal .................................................................. Airport Improvements. 

OK Sallisaw Municipal ............................................................ Runway Extension. 

OK West Woodward .................................................................. Various improvements. 

OK Richard Lloyd Jones, Jr and Tulsa International ............... TUL and RVS Pavement and Seal Coating. 

OK Ponca City Municipal ......................................................... Runway 17–35 and Taxiway Rehabilitation. 

OK Tulsa International ............................................................ Taxilanes Project. 

OK Eaker Field ......................................................................... Various improvements. 

OK Tulsa International ............................................................ Noise Mitigation. 

OR Roberts Field ...................................................................... Taxiway reconstruction. 

OR Rogue Valley International—Medford ............................... Terminal Construction. 

OR North Bend Municipal ........................................................ Terminal Construction. 

OR Madras/Jefferson County ................................................... Construction of new flight services building 

PA Clarion County ................................................................... Runway extension. 

PA Pittsburgh International .................................................... Runway/terminal maintenance complex 

PA Philadelphia International ................................................. Environmental Impact Statements. 

PA Indiana County/Jimmy Stewart .......................................... Runway extension. 

SC Newberry Municipal ........................................................... Security fence installation. 

SC Rock Hill Municipal/Bryant Field ....................................... Runway Extension Feasibility Study. 

SC Columbia Owens Downtown .............................................. Terminal Project. 

SC Pickens County .................................................................. Runway Rehabilitation. 

SC Chester Municipal .............................................................. Runway improvements. 

SC Georgetown County ............................................................ Terminal and ancillary improvements. 

SC Dillon County ..................................................................... Land Acquisition and runway construction 

TN John C Tune ....................................................................... Runway Safety Improvements. 

TN Nashville International ...................................................... Rescue and Firefighting Facility Expansion. 

TN Upper Cumberland Regional ............................................. Runway extension. 

TN Nashville International ...................................................... Rehabilitation of Runway 13/31. 

TX Nacogdoches-A L Mangham, Jr Regional .......................... Runway expansion. 

TX Valley International ............................................................ Expansion of concrete parking area. 

TX Denton Municipal ............................................................... Runway expansion and other improvements. 
50 

State Airport Name Project Description 

TX Fort Worth Alliance ............................................................ Runway extension. 

TX Brownsville/S Padre Island International .......................... Runway extension. 

TX Edinburg International ....................................................... Runway extension. 

UT Logan-Cache ...................................................................... Various improvements. 

VT Edward F Knapp State ...................................................... Emergency Response Center Hangar. 

VT Newport State .................................................................... Taxiway and Apron Improvements. 

VT Caledonia County ............................................................... Runway Lighting 

WA Spokane International ........................................................ Taxiway ‘‘C’’ Extension Project. 

WI La Crosse Municipal .......................................................... Construct parallel taxiway to enhance safety. 

WI Eagle River Union .............................................................. Land reimbursement and improvements. 

WI Dane County Regional ....................................................... Various improvements. 

WI John F Kennedy Memorial .................................................. Install security fencing. 

WI General Mitchell International ........................................... Alternative Fuel Vehicles. 

WI L O Simenstad Municipal .................................................. Various improvements. 

WI Rice Lake Regional-Carl’s Field ........................................ Various improvements. 

WI Waukesha County .............................................................. Various improvements. 

WI Outagamie County Regional .............................................. Various improvements. 

WI Kenosha Regional .............................................................. Develop hangar area and construct perimeter road. 

WI Manitowoc County .............................................................. Various Improvements 

WV Raleigh County Memorial .................................................. Various Improvements 

WV Yeager ................................................................................ Various Improvements 

WV Benedum ............................................................................ Various Improvements 

WV Tri-State/Walker-Long Field ............................................... Various Improvements 

WV Greenbrier Valley ................................................................ Various Improvements 

WV Morgantown Municipal-Walter L Bill Hart Field ................ Various Improvements 

WV Wood County/Gill Robb Wilson Field ................................. Various Improvements 

WV Mercer County .................................................................... Various Improvements 

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

WV Elkins-Randolph County-Jennings Randolph Field ............ Various Improvements 

WV Fairmont Municipal ............................................................ Various Improvements 

WV Logan County ..................................................................... Various Improvements 

WV Eastern WV Regional/Shephard Field ................................ Various Improvements 

WV Marshall County ................................................................. Various Improvements 

WV Grant County ...................................................................... Various Improvements 

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 Municipal ................................................................ Various Improvements 

WV Wheeling-Ohio County ........................................................ Various Improvements 

WV Mingo County ..................................................................... Various Improvements 

Letters of Intent.—Congress authorized FAA to use letters of intent [LOI’s] to fund multiyear airport improvement projects that 

will significantly enhance systemwide airport capacity. FAA is also 

to consider a project’s benefits and costs in determining whether to 

approve it for AIP funding. FAA adopted a policy of committing to 

LOI’s no more than roughly 50 percent of forecasted discretionary 

funds allocated for capacity, safety, security, and noise projects. 

The Committee viewed this policy as reasonable because 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. 

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. 

Current letters of intent assume the following grant allocations 

for fiscal year 2005: 
51 

Amount 

Alaska: Ted Stevens Anchorage International ..................................................................................................... $12,362,000 

California: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International ......................................................................................... 3,843,000 

Colorado: Denver International ............................................................................................................................ 3,250,000 

Florida: 

Southwest Florida International .................................................................................................................. 4,000,000 

Miami International ..................................................................................................................................... 8,000,000 

Orlando International .................................................................................................................................. 7,360,000 

Georgia: The William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International ................................................................................... 20,368,000 

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 ........................................................................................ 19,153,000 

Maryland: 

Baltimore-Washington International ........................................................................................................... 7,748,000 

Hagerstown Regional-Richard A. Henson Field .......................................................................................... 8,000,000 

Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County ..................................................................................................... 18,790,000 

Minnesota: Minneapolis-St Paul International/World-Chamberlain ..................................................................... 8,000,000 

Missouri: 

Springfield-Branson Regional ..................................................................................................................... 5,400,000 

Lambert-St Louis International ................................................................................................................... 17,789,000 

North Carolina: Piedmont Triad International ..................................................................................................... 12,900,000 

Nebraska: Eppley Airfield ..................................................................................................................................... 1,300,000 

New Hampshire: Manchester ............................................................................................................................... 5,144,000 

Ohio: 

Cleveland Hopkins International ................................................................................................................. 10,211,000 

Port Columbus International ....................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Pennsylvania: Harrisburg International ............................................................................................................... 6,660,000 

Rhode Island: Theodore Francis Green State ...................................................................................................... 1,100,000 

Tennessee: Memphis International ...................................................................................................................... 6,149,000 

Texas: 

Dallas/Fort Worth International ................................................................................................................... 5,692,000 

George Bush Intercontinental ..................................................................................................................... 17,500,000 

Utah: Salt Lake City International ....................................................................................................................... 7,000,000 

Washington: Seattle-Tacoma International .......................................................................................................... 25,504,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 279,095,000 

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 

December 31, 2002, 341 airports were approved to collect PFC’s in 

the amount of $43,000,000,000. During calendar year 2003, airports collected $2,014,991,244 in PFC charges, and $2,045,000,000 

is estimated to be collected in calendar year 2004. 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, 200 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. 
52 

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 accompanying bill provides $68,802,000 for 

administration of the airport program from within the overall limitation on obligations. The Committee recommendation fully funds 

the request for global aviation safety and strategic management 

pilot programs and limits funding for e-grant data transfer systems 

to $500,000. 

Small Community Air Service Development Program.—The Committee includes $20,000,000, within the overall limitation on obligations for grants-in-aid to airports, for the small community air 

service development program. This is the same amount as the level 

provided in fiscal year 2004. 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, 2004 ..................................................................................... ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥$265,000,000 

The Committee recommends a rescission of contract authorization of $265,000,000. 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. In fiscal year 2004, $265,000,000 was made available 

pursuant to section 48112. However, such funds exceed the obligation limitation for that fiscal year and are therefore available for 

rescission. This recommendation will have no programmatic impact 

on the grants-in-aid program. 

GENERAL 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 

350 in fiscal year 2005. 

Section 103 prohibits funds in this Act to be used to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide the Fed-
53 

eral Aviation Administration ‘‘without cost’’ buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to 

negotiations between FAA and airport sponsors concerning ‘‘below 

market’’ rates for such services or to grant assurances that require 

airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air 

traffic control facilities. 

Section 104 authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to 

use funds from airport sponsors, including the airport’s ‘‘Grants-inAid for Airports’’ entitlement funds, for the hiring of additional 

staff or for obtaining services of consultants for the purpose of facilitating environmental activities related to airport projects that 

add critical airport capacity to the national air transportation system. 

Section 105 extends the terms and conditions of the aviation insurance program, commonly known as ‘‘war risk insurance,’’ and 

air carrier liability for third party claims arising out of acts of terrorism from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2005. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration is 

to, in partnership with State and local governments, 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. 

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of 

$35,834,632 would be provided for the activities of the Federal 

Highway Administration in fiscal year 2005. The following table 

summarizes the fiscal year 2004 program levels, the fiscal year 

2005 program request and the Committee’s recommendations: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Program 

Fiscal year— 

Committee 

2004 program recommendation 

level 

2005 budget 

estimate 

Federal-aid highways limitation ................................................................ 1 33,643,326 33,643,326 34,900,000 

Limitation on administrative expenses ............................................ 2 (335,612 ) (349,594 ) (349,594 ) 

Exempt Federal-aid obligations ................................................................. 1,195,139 834,632 834,632 

Appalachian Development Highway System .............................................. 3 124,263 ........................ 100,000 

Miscellaneous Highway Trust Fund ........................................................... 4 49,705 ........................ ........................

Miscellaneous Appropriations .................................................................... 5 3,479 ........................ ........................

Total .............................................................................................. (35,351,524 ) (34,827,552 ) 35,834,632 

1 Reflects $199,640,000 rescission pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect $2,578,204 reduction per Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108–199. 2 Reflects $1,992,000 rescission pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect $1,997,000 reduction per Division F, section 517 of public law 108–199. 3 Reflects $738,000 rescission pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

4 Reflects $295,000 rescission pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

5 Reflects $21,000 rescission pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $335,612,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 349,594,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 349,594,000 

1 Reflects $1,992,000 rescission pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect $1,997,000 reduction per Division F, section 517 of public law 108–199. 
54 

The limitation on administrative expenses controls spending for 

virtually all the salaries and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

changed the funding source for the highway research accounts from 

the administrative takedown of the Federal-Aid Highway Program 

to individual contract authority provisions. The Committee recommends a limitation of $349,594,000. 

The following table reflects the fiscal year 2004 level, the 2005 

level requested by the administration, and the Committee’s recommendation: 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2004 level 2005 budget esti- mate 

Administrative Expenses: 

Salaries and benefits ................................................................. 237,450 246,235 246,235 

Travel .......................................................................................... 9,577 12,757 12,757 

Transportation ............................................................................. 470 470 470 

GSA rent ...................................................................................... 25,598 25,708 25,708 

Communications, rent, and utilities ........................................... 9,712 10,894 10,894 

Printing ....................................................................................... 1,428 2,454 2,454 

Supplies ...................................................................................... 1,988 2,500 2,500 

Equipment ................................................................................... 5,702 5,026 5,026 

Other ........................................................................................... 43,687 43,550 43,550 

Total ........................................................................................ 335,612 349,594 349,594 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,992,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect reduction of $1,997,000 

pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108–199. 

Rail-Highway Crossing.—Title 23 United States Code, Section 

130(d) requires each State to conduct and systematically maintain 

a survey of all highways to identify those railroad crossings which 

may require separation, relocation, or protective devices, and establish and maintain a schedule of projects for this purpose. 

In an effort to assist Congress in allocating scarce Federal funds, 

the Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA] to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations no later than March 31, 2005. The report shall 

contain the schedule of State projects required by 23 U.S.C. 130(d) 

related to the installation of protective devices including cost, location, priority status and project description. 

LIMITATIONS ON ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES

Grants for the National Amber Alert Network.—On April 30, 

2003, the president signed into law the PROTECT Act (Public Law 

108–21), formally establishing the Federal Government’s role in the 

Amber Alert system. Amber Alerts use technology to disseminate 

information about child abductions in a timely manner in an effort 

to quickly recover kidnapped children through utilization of an integrated response network. Amber Alert plans are voluntary partnerships including law enforcement agencies, highway departments, and media companies that provide emergency alert broadcasts and utilize the Emergency Alert System [EAS], highway messages boards, telephone alert systems, the internet, and e-mail. 
55 

The Committee is supportive of the National Amber Alert Network and agrees that national coordination of the many State 

Amber Alert systems is essential if the network is to become a vital 

law enforcement tool in child abduction cases. The Committee has 

included $15,000,000 to support grants for the National Amber 

Alert Network. 

Delta Region Transportation Development Program.—The Committee recommendation for additional LAE activities includes 

$50,000,000 for grants pursuant to the Delta Region Transportation Development Program. The Committee is encouraged by this 

innovative approach to facilitate multistate transportation planning 

and corridor development, transportation decision-making, and expedited project delivery for severely economically challenged areas, 

and directs the agency to proceed quickly on this program. Priority 

consideration is to be given to highway upgrades and improvements on U.S. 60 from Carter County to Howell County, Missouri; 

U.S. 67 Improvements from Madison County to Butler County, 

Missouri; East/West corridor realignment and reconstruction between Montgomery, Alabama and Cuba, Alabama; widening of LA 

Highway 671, Jeanerette, Iberia Parish, Louisiana; repair of the 

Georgie Ridge Bridge, Richland and Morehouse Parishes, Louisiana; improvements to US 412 between Mountain Home and 

Highway 101 and between Paragould and Big Slough Ditch, Baxter, Clay, and Greene Counties, Arkansas; the Mississippi Regional 

Corridors Project; and Desha County, Arkansas. 

Environmental Streamlining.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $5,000,000 for Federal Highway Administration environmental streamlining initiatives. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2004 1 .................................................................................. $33,643,326,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 33,643,326,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 34,900,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $199,674,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108– 199. Does not reflect reduction per Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108–199 of $2,578,000. 

The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal year 

2005 Federal-aid highways obligations to $34,900,000,000, which is 

$1,256,674,000 more than the budget request and the fiscal year 

2004 comparable level. The following table displays the State-byState distribution of funds under the Committee recommendation, 

the President’s request and the fiscal year 2004 level. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2005 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION 

LIMITATION 

States Estimated Fiscal Year 

2004 Distribution 1 3

Fiscal Year 2005 

President’s Budget 2 3

Fiscal Year 2005 

Committee Recommendation 2 3

Alabama ................................................................................... $577,467,570 $611,280,766 $628,046,051 

Alaska ...................................................................................... 294,287,566 324,572,483 332,240,908

Arizona ..................................................................................... 511,224,069 547,691,113 562,349,173

Arkansas .................................................................................. 357,394,759 392,327,433 403,114,275 

California ................................................................................. 2,681,210,252 2,938,681,544 3,020,798,084 
56 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2005 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION 

LIMITATION—Continued 

States Estimated Fiscal Year 

2004 Distribution 1 3

Fiscal Year 2005 

President’s Budget 2 3

Fiscal Year 2005 

Committee Recommendation 2 3

Colorado ................................................................................... 375,270,871 413,011,467 424,524,694 

Connecticut .............................................................................. 406,335,972 441,483,072 453,109,615 

Delaware .................................................................................. 126,928,685 141,478,026 145,393,950 

District of Columbia ................................................................ 121,142,744 130,696,906 134,537,235 

Florida ...................................................................................... 1,391,946,967 1,488,757,772 1,527,671,225 

Georgia ..................................................................................... 1,023,684,867 1,092,873,247 1,121,936,876 

Hawaii ...................................................................................... 149,717,592 160,736,786 165,165,992

Idaho ........................................................................................ 208,200,453 223,122,371 229,120,290 

Illinois ...................................................................................... 979,479,163 1,053,895,520 1,083,807,444 

Indiana ..................................................................................... 635,773,030 697,633,246 716,398,310

Iowa .......................................................................................... 353,301,851 380,390,883 391,279,417 

Kansas ..................................................................................... 344,026,297 370,459,121 381,083,890 

Kentucky ................................................................................... 513,084,626 543,304,650 558,373,773 

Louisiana .................................................................................. 430,260,918 480,845,267 494,218,508 

Maine ....................................................................................... 155,287,705 166,924,389 171,601,796

Maryland .................................................................................. 488,094,759 523,210,217 537,827,200 

Massachusetts ......................................................................... 538,671,401 589,243,652 606,007,600 

Michigan .................................................................................. 897,815,769 963,557,273 989,982,309 

Minnesota ................................................................................. 403,302,576 452,636,575 465,494,025 

Mississippi ............................................................................... 343,381,286 376,487,057 387,043,288 

Missouri .................................................................................... 652,335,564 716,292,758 736,480,475

Montana ................................................................................... 270,253,084 295,777,150 303,523,763 

Nebraska .................................................................................. 238,480,446 256,796,727 264,159,023 

Nevada ..................................................................................... 211,395,813 226,696,139 232,846,161 

New Hampshire ........................................................................ 145,641,399 156,417,932 160,749,599 

New Jersey ................................................................................ 781,704,685 840,510,889 864,148,255 

New Mexico .............................................................................. 269,649,652 296,659,634 304,782,174 

New York .................................................................................. 1,449,490,153 1,555,105,225 1,598,240,499 

North Carolina .......................................................................... 818,628,471 872,601,020 896,152,003 

North Dakota ............................................................................ 188,358,939 207,577,455 213,379,389 

Ohio .......................................................................................... 963,246,831 1,052,938,403 1,082,145,537 

Oklahoma ................................................................................. 462,796,057 498,308,858 512,583,357 

Oregon ...................................................................................... 332,217,342 365,303,798 375,581,667

Pennsylvania ............................................................................ 1,396,817,738 1,480,526,093 1,522,032,494 

Rhode Island ............................................................................ 172,975,997 188,897,991 194,149,844 

South Carolina ......................................................................... 479,490,022 513,493,248 527,311,948 

South Dakota ........................................................................... 197,300,274 217,048,937 223,056,255 

Tennessee ................................................................................. 623,571,991 674,414,731 693,048,102 

Texas ........................................................................................ 2,312,433,868 2,477,807,757 2,544,280,389 

Utah ......................................................................................... 229,063,221 246,573,313 253,611,558 

Vermont .................................................................................... 133,369,431 146,421,641 150,565,010 

Virginia ..................................................................................... 712,325,661 778,720,282 799,991,006 

Washington .............................................................................. 518,418,747 557,887,818 573,752,554 

West Virginia ............................................................................ 293,966,446 313,521,146 322,265,127 

Wisconsin ................................................................................. 563,831,680 604,145,665 620,350,017 

Wyoming ................................................................................... 190,846,450 216,434,506 222,579,866 

SUBTOTAL ................................................................... 28,915,901,710 31,262,179,952 32,122,892,000 

Allocated Programs 4 ................................................................ 4,724,846,387 2,386,146,348 2,777,108,000 

TOTAL .......................................................................... 33,640,748,097 33,648,326,300 34,900,000,000 

1 Fiscal year 2004 amounts are estimated pending additional action of Congress during the fiscal year. Amounts do not include additional 

obligation authority provided by Chapter 4, Section 14003 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005, Public Law 108–287. 2 Obligation limitation distributed among the States based on fiscal year 2004 distribution. 

3 Amounts for each State include special limitation for minimum guarantee and Appalachia and exclude exempt minimum guarantee and

emergency relief. 4 Includes territories. Fiscal year 2004 amount includes funding for section 115 projects. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS

The roads and bridges that make up our nation’s highway infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the joint ef-
57 

forts of Federal, State, and local governments. States have much 

flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA’s assistance and oversight. 

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21], the 

highway, highway safety, and transit authorization through fiscal 

year 2003 makes funds available in the following major categories: 

National Highway System.—The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] of 1991 authorized the National 

Highway System [NHS], which was subsequently established as a 

163,000-mile road system by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This system serves major population centers, 

intermodal transportation facilities, international border crossings, 

and major destinations. It is comprised of all interstate routes, selected urban and principal rural arterials, defense highways, and 

major highway connectors carrying up to 76 percent of commercial 

truck traffic and 44 percent of all vehicle traffic. A State may 

transfer up to half of its NHS funds to the Surface Transportation 

program [STP] and all NHS funds with the concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation. The Federal share of the NHS is an 80 

percent match and funds remain available for 4 fiscal years. 

Interstate Maintenance.—The 46,567-mile Dwight D. Eisenhower 

National System of Interstate and Defense Highways retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program finances projects to 

rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges, interchanges, and over-crossings 

along existing interstate routes is also an eligible activity if it does 

not add capacity other than high occupancy vehicle [HOV] and auxiliary lanes. 

All remaining Federal funding to complete the initial construction of the interstate system has been provided through previous 

highway legislation. The 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 
58 

State. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an amount 

based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts reserved 

for these areas may be spent on rural minor collectors. The Federal 

share for the STP program is 80 percent with a 4-year availability 

period. 

Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program.—The program 

provides assistance for bridges on public roads, including a discretionary set-aside for high cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit 

of bridges. Fifty percent of a State’s bridge funds may be transferred to the NHS or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer 

is deducted from the national bridge needs used in the program’s 

apportionment formula for the following year. 

At least 15 percent, but not more than 35 percent, of a State’s 

apportioned bridge funds must be spent on bridges not on the Federal-aid system. 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.— 

This program provides funds to States to improve air quality in 

non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range of transportation activities are eligible, as long as DOT, after consultation 

with EPA, determines they are likely to help meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA21 provides greater flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and expands and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate matter [PM–10] nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. If a State has no non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be used as if they were STP funds. 

On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be appropriate 

candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both sectors are 

critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ program, including 

regional emissions and verifying new mobile source control techniques. 

Federal Lands Highways.—This program provides authorizations 

through three major categories—Indian reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways category)—as well as a new 

category for Federally-owned public roads providing access to or 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System. TEA21 also establishes a new 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.—Under TEA21, 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. To achieve the minimum guarantee 

each fiscal year, $2,800,000,000 nationally is available to the States 

as though they are STP funds (except that requirements related to 

set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety, and sub-State 
59 

allocations do not apply), and any remaining amounts are distributed among core highway programs. 

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.—Section 1207 of 

TEA21 authorized 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. The Committee recommendation provides $26,500,000 for this program in fiscal year 

2005. 

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. 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation.—The 

Committee bill includes a rescission of $100,000,000 from this program. However, the Committee notes that, even with this rescission, sufficient funds will remain available to entertain additional 

applications. The Committee is aware of a proposal to use TIFIA 

financing to support the expansion of a fast ferry project in the 

Great Lakes region. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 

consider such an application should the project be creditworthy and 

fully eligible for TIFIA financing. 

New Mexico Muscatel Avenue Bridge Project.—Amounts made 

available in fiscal year 2004 for the Muscatel Avenue bridge project 
60 

shall be available for other bridge projects in or around the city of 

Carlsbad damaged by flooding. 

I–15 from Utah—Salt Lake County Line to SR–92.—Amounts 

made available in fiscal year 2004 for I–15 from the Utah—Salt 

Lake County Line to SR–92 shall be available for I–15 Utah County. 

Market Street Bridge Pennsylvania.—Amounts made available in 

fiscal year 2004 for the Market Street Bridge shall be available for 

the Walnut Street Bridge in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

University of Delaware Intermodal Transportation Facility.— 

Amounts made available in fiscal year 2004 for the University of 

Delaware Intermodal Transportation Facility shall be available for 

the Pedestrian-Bicycle Bridge at the University of Delaware. 

Pierre Rail Bypass.—Amounts made available in fiscal year 2003 

for the Pierre Rail Bypass shall be available for expenses incurred 

after the date of that appropriation by the city of Pierre, South Dakota associated for the proposed bypass and for a mitigation plan 

associated with the Dakota, Eastern and Minnesota Railroad line 

through Pierre, South Dakota. 

Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle, WA.—The Committee is dismayed 

that the FHWA has failed to respond to the Committee’s request 

in last year’s Committee report to review the eligibility of the Alaskan Way Viaduct project for additional emergency relief funds. The 

viaduct and the adjacent seawall were damaged in the Nisqually 

earthquake in 2001. While emergency relief funds were allocated to 

the viaduct for immediate repairs needed to keep the facility open 

to traffic, significantly further damage resulting from the earthquake has become evident. The extent of this damage will require 

the near-term replacement of the facility since another earthquake 

of similar magnitude could easily result in a catastrophic failure of 

the roadway. The Committee directs FHWA to report to the Committee not later than December 31, 2004 on the eligibility of the 

viaduct for additional emergency relief funds, taking into account 

all engineering information that has become available subsequent 

to the initial allocation of funds to the facility. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $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, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $124,263,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 2 ......................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 100,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $737,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

2The budget estimate requests funding under the Federal-Aid Highway obligation limitation. 

The Committee recommendation includes $100,000,000 for the 

Appalachian Development Highway System [ADHS]. The recommended amount provided is $24,263,000 less than the fiscal year 

2004 comparable level. Funding for this initiative is authorized 
61 

under section 1069(y) of Public Law 102–240—the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. The ADHS program provides 

funds for the construction of the Appalachian corridor highways in 

the 13 States that comprise the Appalachian region. These highways, in many instances, are intended to replace some of the most 

deficient and dangerous segments of rural roadway in America. 

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Limitation, 2004 1 2 ................................................................................ $459,771,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 1 ........................................................................ 428,699,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 462,500,000 

1 Resources requested in fiscal year 2005 are assumed within the Federal aid highway obligation limitation in the budget request for fiscal year 2005. 2 Reflects $2,729,000 reduction per Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not 

reflect reduction of $581,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. The Committee recommendation provides an obligation limitation for transportation research of 

$462,500,000. This limitation is consistent with current law as extended and is the same level appropriated in fiscal year 2004. 

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH 

Surface transportation research .......................................................................................................................... $103,000,000 

Technology Deployment program ......................................................................................................................... 50,000,000 

Training and education ........................................................................................................................................ 18,000,000 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics .................................................................................................................... 31,000,000 

ITS Standards, research, operational tests, and development ........................................................................... 110,000,000 

ITS Deployment ..................................................................................................................................................... 124,000,000 

University transportation research ....................................................................................................................... 26,500,000 

Subtotal ....................................................................................................................................................... 462,500,000 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Within the funds provided for highway research and development, the Committee makes the following recommendations for the 

surface transportation research program: 

Project Amount 

Environment, Planning & Right-of-way ............................................................................................................... $17,000,000 

Research and Technology Program Support ........................................................................................................ 10,000,000 

International Research ......................................................................................................................................... 400,000 

Structures ............................................................................................................................................................. 13,000,000 

Safety ................................................................................................................................................................... 11,000,000 

Highway Operations ............................................................................................................................................. 12,500,000 

Asset Management ............................................................................................................................................... 2,750,000 

Pavements Research ............................................................................................................................................ 15,750,000 

Policy Research .................................................................................................................................................... 9,200,000 

Long Term Pavement Project [LTPP] .................................................................................................................... 10,000,000 

Advanced Research .............................................................................................................................................. 400,000 

R&T Strategic Planning/Performance Measures .................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 103,000,000 

Environment, Planning, and Right of Ways.—The Committee recommendation includes $17,000,000 for environment, planning, and 
62 

right of way research. Within the funds provided for this research 

activity, the Committee has provided $1,000,000 to continue dust 

and persistent particulate abatement research in Emmonak, Alaska and $350,000 for the North Carolina University Center for 

Transportation and Environment to promote environmental awareness in the civil engineering and traditional engineering curricula. 

Research and Technology Program Support.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000. Within the funds available for research and 

technology, the Committee has provided $750,000 for the Center on 

Coastal Transportation Research at the University of South Alabama, $400,000 for NEPA training at the Pellissippi State Community College in Tennessee, and $1,000,000 for the University of 

Vermont to conduct research related to Dynamic Transportation 

Modeling and Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar [GPR] Systems. 

International Research.—The Committee recommendation includes $400,000 for international research. 

Structures.—The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for structures research. This research effort allows FHWA to reduce deficiencies on National Highway System bridges and should facilitate 

continued progress on high performance materials and engineering 

applications to design, repair, retrofit, inspect, and rehabilitate 

bridges. Within the funds provided for this research activity, the 

Committee has provided $200,000 for the University of Maine, to 

study the use of composite materials to extend the life of ports, 

$250,000 to continue to support non-destructive structural evaluation technology at the New Mexico State University’s Bridge Research Center, $200,000 for the University of Dayton and the Ohio 

Department of Transportation to develop a portable, low cost, wireless bridge inspection system, and $500,000 for Oklahoma’s Center 

for Structural Control and Vibration Research for implementing an 

intelligent vehicle bridge sensor system. The Committee recommendation also has provided $500,000 to West Virginia University Constructed Facilities Center for fire and blast resistant composite barriers research and $250,000 for the University of Delaware’s innovative bridge research program. In addition, the Committee continues to be concerned about the damage that alkali-silica reactivity [ASR] causes to concrete structures and pavements 

since ASR is difficult to detect in its early stages. The Committee 

strongly encourages FHWA to continue its research and deployment of lithium technologies to prevent and mitigate ASR since advances in these lithium technologies have the potential to help increase the durability of our transportation infrastructure. 

Safety.—The Committee recommendation provides $11,000,000 

for safety research. This program develops engineering practices, 

analysis tools, equipment, roadside hardware, safety promotion and 

public information that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway fatalities and injuries. Within the funds provided 

for safety, the Committee has provided $750,000 for Mississippi 

State University to develop a regional center for Transportation 

Safety. 

Highway Operations.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$12,500,000 for research activities regarding highway operations. 

The Highway operations research program is designed to develop, 

deliver, and deploy advanced technologies and administrative 
63 

methods to provide pavement and bridge durability, and to reduce 

construction and maintenance-related user delays. Within the 

funds provided, the Committee has included $400,000 for Utah 

State University Transportation Center to conduct follow-on research related I–15 and mitigation of traffic congestion, $2,000,000 

for the Puget Sound In-Vehicle Traffic Map Demonstration Initiative in Washington State and $500,000 for the Pacific Northwest 

Freight Mobility Research Program at Washington State University, the University of Washington, and North Dakota State University. 

Asset Management.—The Committee recommends $2,750,000 for 

asset management research activities. 

Pavements Research.—The Committee recommends $15,750,000 

for highway pavement research, including work on asphalt, Portland cement pavement research, polymer additives, and recycled 

materials for the National Center for Asphalt Technology [NCAT]. 

Within the funds provided, the Committee has included $1,000,000 

to the Center for Portland Cements Concrete Pavement Technology 

at Iowa State University, $500,000 to fund pilot studies in Ohio, 

Montana and South Carolina to test newly developed Road Pave 

Map which was designed to increase road life spans. 

Policy.—The Committee recommends $9,200,000 for policy research. Within the funds provided for this research activity, the 

Committee has $750,000 for the University of Kentucky Academy 

for Community Transportation Innovation planning to continue research into methods to integrate transportation facilities into communities in rural areas. 

Advanced Research.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$400,000. 

R&T Strategic Planning and Performance Measures.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for research and technology strategic planning and performance measures. The Committee anticipates that this level of funding will be sufficient to support planned 

strategic planning activities, research outreach, and development 

and refinement of performance measures, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. 

ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests, Development, and 

Deployment.—The Committee recommends $124,000,000 for ITS 

deployment projects and $110,000,000 for ITS research and associated activities in fiscal year 2005 to be allocated in the following 

manner: 

Research and Development ................................................................................................................................. $52,000,000 

Operational Tests ................................................................................................................................................. 10,000,000 

Evaluation/Program Policy Assessment ............................................................................................................... 7,000,000 

Architecture and Standards ................................................................................................................................. 18,000,000 

Program Support .................................................................................................................................................. 11,500,000 

Integration ............................................................................................................................................................ 11,500,000 

ITS Deployment Incentive Program ...................................................................................................................... 124,000,000 
64 

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $30,817,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 32,199,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 31,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $183,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect a reduction of $581,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108– 

199. 

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS], which is charged 

with compiling, analyzing, and disseminating statistical information on the Nation’s transportation systems, commenced operation 

in December 1992 after being established by section 6006 of the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] (Public 

Law 102–240). BTS was reauthorized, and its role expanded, by 

section 5109 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

[TEA21] (Public Law 105–178) under which it currently operates. 

BTS’ data collection programs for aviation and motor carrier information are authorized under separate legislation enacted when the 

Civil Aeronautics Board [CAB] and Interstate Commerce Commission [ICC] were terminated. 

Consistent with current law, the Committee has provided 

$31,000,000 for BTS, which is $1,199,000 less than the budget request and $183,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 level. In doing 

so, the Committee denies BTS’ request for $4,045,000,000 in reimbursable funding from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to fund 

its air transportation activity. The Committee maintains BTS’ total 

full time positions at 136. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2004 ............................................................................. $34,000,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 34,000,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,000,000,000 

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of 

$35,000,000,000. The recommended level is $1,000,000,000 more 

than the budget request and is necessary to pay outstanding obligations from various highway accounts pursuant to prior appropriations acts. 

GENERAL 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 related to administrative take downs. 

Section 113 rescinds Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act funds under section 188(A)(1) of title 23. 

Section 114 amends section 115, division F, title I of Public Law 

108–199. 
65 

Section 115 clarifies eligibility of the Port of Anchorage for certain highway programs. 

Section 116 clarifies RETRAC project contingency fund for payment of projects. 

Section 117 relates to project funding in Utah. 

Section 118 names the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge as the Mike 

O’Callaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was 

established within the Department of Transportation through Congress’ enactment of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act 

[MCSIA] (Public Law 106–159) in December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway Administration. 

FMCSA’s primary mission is to improve the safety of commercial 

vehicle operations on our Nation’s highways. To accomplish this 

mission, FMCSA is focused on reducing the number and severity 

of large truck crashes. FMCSA is responsible for ensuring that 

Mexican commercial vehicles entering the United States operate in 

accordance with the North American Free Trade Agreement 

[NAFTA] and comply with all U.S. hazardous material and safety 

regulations. In addition, FMCSA oversees compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Commercial Regulations through increased 

household goods carrier enforcement, education and outreach. 

Agency resources and activities contribute to safety in commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, including the use of 

stronger enforcement measures against safety violators; expedited 

safety regulation; technology innovation; improvements in information systems; training; and improvements to commercial driver’s license testing, recordkeeping, and sanctions. To accomplish these 

activities, FMCSA works closely with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual citizens. 

MCSIA and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

[TEA21] provide funding authorizations for FMCSA, including administrative expenses, motor carrier research and technology, the 

national Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP] and 

the Information Systems and Strategic Safety Initiatives [ISSSI] 

program. FMCSA’s scope was expanded by the U.S.A. Patriot Act, 

which created new and enhanced security measures. In addition, 

the Appropriations Acts since fiscal year 2002 have included funding for border enforcement and safety related activities associated 

with implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement 

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 2005, it is necessary to reauthorize those 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. As in fiscal year 2004, 

the Committee has followed the program structure found in current 
66 

law for FMCSA and assumes funding levels as if authorized 

through the end of fiscal year 2005. 

The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003 eliminated the 

takedown and instead authorized a line item appropriation for this 

account. 

The Committee recommends a total of $450,000,000 for FMCSA 

in fiscal year 2005, which is $5,450,000 less than the requested 

amount and $21,589,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 level. The 

Committee provides this funding with the expectation that Congress will soon act to provide sufficient contract authority to reflect 

this amount. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $175,031,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 (limitation) 2 .................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 260,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,039,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

2 No funding requested under this account for fiscal year 2005. 

The motor carrier safety account provides salaries, expenses, research, and safety program funding for FMCSA. The Committee 

has provided a limitation on administrative expenses of 

$260,000,000 for the Motor Carrier Safety Account, which is 

$5,450,000 less than the requested amount and $83,930,000 more 

than the annual authorized level of $176,070,000. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee provides $141,064,000 for FMCSA’s operating expenses. Within this amount the Committee provides the following 

funding levels: 

Amount 

General Operating Expenses ................................................................................................................................ $93,494,000 

Border Operating Expenses .................................................................................................................................. 31,735,000 

Administrative Infrastructure Completion ............................................................................................................ 8,000,000 

Household Goods Enforcement ............................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Reviews of Conditional Carriers .......................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Working Capital Fund Desktop Services .............................................................................................................. 135,000 

Non-Entrant Initiative .......................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

HAZMAT Permitting .............................................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

HAZMAT Sampling ................................................................................................................................................ 200,000 

HAZMAT Routing ................................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Administrative Infrastructure Completion.—The Committee provides a total of $8,000,000 for FMCSA’s administrative infrastructure completion initiative, which is $2,558,000 less than the budget 

request and $1,041,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 level. Based 

upon the justification for this funding, the Committee is confident 

that this is a sufficient amount for this effort. 

Household Goods Enforcement.—The Committee provides 

$2,000,000 for household goods enforcement, which is $700,000 

more than the budget request and $1,085,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level. The Committee provides this additional 
67 

funding for five new safety specialists to audit motor carriers transporting household goods. Each year FMCSA receives approximately 

5,000 complaints from consumers regarding the practices of movers 

of household goods. The Committee maintains that additional auditors are needed that consumers are protected and that these shipments are conducted safely. 

Working Capital Fund Desktop Services.—The Committee pro- vides $135,000 to cover the increase in FMCSA’s estimated DOT 

working capital fund contribution. This is $842,000 less than the 

budget request, as the Committee believes that the amount provided for FMCSA’s information management program is sufficient 

for this balance. 

Safety Enforcement Activities.—The Committee believes that 

FMCSA should revisit the effectiveness of its safety enforcement 

activities. Beginning in the late 1990’s, in response to pointed congressional criticism over lax enforcement and in response to the 

concerns raised by the United States Government Accountability 

Office [GAO] and the DOT Office of Inspector General [OIG], 

FMCSA indicated a willingness to increase both the amount of effort devoted to enforcement against carriers and the severity of action when safety problems are found. After having given FMCSA 

ample time to implement this new resolve and to demonstrate results, the Committee believes that an independent review is both 

warranted and timely. Therefore, the Committee requests that 

GAO assess the agency’s safety enforcement actions as a means of 

increasing large commercial truck safety. 

PROGRAM EXPENSES

The Committee provides $118,936,000 for FMCSA’s program expenses. Within this amount the Committee provides the following 

funding levels: 

Amount 

Federal New Entrant Program .............................................................................................................................. $4,700,000 

State New Entrant Grants .................................................................................................................................... 28,711,000 

Research & Technology ........................................................................................................................................ 10,791,000 

Regulatory Development ....................................................................................................................................... 11,143,000 

Outreach & Education .......................................................................................................................................... 4,513,000 

Information Management Program ...................................................................................................................... 15,300,000 

24-Hour Telephone Hotline ................................................................................................................................... 378,000 

Crash Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 7,400,000 

Border Enforcement Grants .................................................................................................................................. 33,000,000 

Commercial Drivers License Improvement Grants ............................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Federal New Entrant Program.—The administration’s budget re- quest proposes a total of $33,411,000 for the new entrant program, 

which includes $16,411,000 for the Federal share of the Program 

and $17,000,000 for the State share. The Committee believes that 

a greater proportion of the total request should be provided to the 

States and that FMCSA’s role should focus on overseeing this program and managing third party auditors as they conduct reviews 

of new entrants in those States that do not fully participate in this 

activity. Accordingly, the Committee provides $4,700,000 for the 

Federal new entrant program, which is $11,711,000 below the 

budget request and $1,200,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee has provided a corresponding 
68 

$11,711,000 increase in State new entrant program grant funding 

in order to maintain the balance that was struck in fiscal year 

2004 and to continue effective State participation in the program. 

More than 40 States have submitted applications for fiscal year 

2004 new entrant program funding and few States expect to use 

third party contractors to conduct these audits. The Committee 

therefore denies FMCSA’s request for 20 additional FTEs for program management, review, and approval. The Committee instead 

provides 5 FTEs to conduct follow-up compliance reviews of new 

entrants. Sufficient funds are also provided to allow for the 

annualization of the 5.5 FTEs initially funded in fiscal year 2004. 

State New Entrant Grants.—Because the Committee believes 

that State officials and MCSAP program managers need the certainty of Federal support in order to properly incentivize their permanent participation in the new entrant program, the Committee 

has provided $28,711,000 for State New Entrant Grants, which is 

$11,711,000 greater than the requested amount and $3,811,000 

more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

New Entrant Safety Audits.—The Committee is concerned that 

the new entrant safety audit program is being conducted as an 

education and outreach initiative rather than an enforcement program. Consequently, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, 

FMCSA is directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations a letter that explains the audit procedure improvements the agency’s plans to implement in order to maximize 

the program’s safety benefits and to enhance carrier compliance. 

The Committee expects that FMCSA will evaluate and consider 

adopting each of the following options: (1) specifying to its investigators and State personnel that criteria that would trigger an enforcement action should apply equally to new entrants as well as 

to other carriers; (2) collecting sufficient data, whenever possible, 

that could lead to the assignment of a safety rating as a result of 

a new entrant audit; and (3) selecting new entrants to be audited 

based on risk and inspection data. This letter should detail which, 

if any, of these options are being implemented and the reasons for 

any that are not. 

Federally Conducted Compliance Reviews.—The Committee is 

concerned that the number of federally conducted compliance reviews and enforcement actions has 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, the 

Committee directs FMCSA to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the number of completed compliance 

reviews and new extrant safety audits with the agency’s fiscal year 

2006 budget request. 

Research and Technology.—The Committee provides $10,791,000 

for FMCSA’s Research and Technology [R&T] activities, consistent 

with the requested amount and $3,832,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level. Within this amount, funds are provided for 

the testing and evaluation of both stationary and mobile radiation 

detection devices. 
69 

A significant volume of anecdotal evidence indicates that truck 

driver history and past violations are reliable predictors of future 

accidents and safety violations. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of 

scientific research analyzing the potential correlation between 

these factors. The Committee therefore provides $200,000 within 

R&T for FMCSA to partner with industry to study this relationship 

and develop appropriate enforcement strategies that will reduce 

the likelihood of future safety violations and accidents. 

As in previous fiscal years, R&T funds are intended to remain 

available for obligation for a period of 3 years. 

Outreach and Education.—The Committee provides $4,513,000 

for FMCSA’s outreach and education Program [O&E], which is 

$1,000,000 more than the requested amount and $4,264,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

This amount reflects a decrease of $1,000,000 from the amount 

requested for household goods outreach and education, which is 

partially offset by the provided increase in funding for Household 

Goods Enforcement. The Committee believes that these amounts 

represent a better balance in FMCSA Household Goods efforts. 

Approximately 79 percent of fatalities resulting from crashes involving large trucks are occupants of other vehicles. Preliminary 

data from the large truck crash causation study [LTCCS] indicate 

an important role that noncommercial drivers play in crashes involving large trucks. In order for FMCSA’s safety program to be a 

truly performance-based effort, it is necessary that the agency take 

a balanced approach in addressing the key causal or contributing 

factors adversely affecting commercial motor vehicle safety. To accomplish this objective, the Committee provides $2,000,000 under 

O&E to support a public outreach and evaluation program targeted 

to reduce the number and severity of commercial/passenger vehicle 

crashes. Working closely with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance [CVSA] and NHTSA, FMCSA should use these funds to ensure that effective and targeted public outreach efforts are made 

available as soon as possible to bolster its comprehensive enforcement efforts. 

In particular, FMCSA should use these additional funds to develop and test targeted safety O&E initatives that are designed to 

change the behavior of both commercial and passenger vehicle drivers. FMCSA, drawing upon the expertise and experience of 

NHTSA, should undertake efforts to develop and distribute targeted media messages and media outreach tool kits, solicit donated 

multimedia ad space, and conduct market research to guide communications outreach, and enhance driver training manuals and 

tests. In doing so, FMCSA should pay particular attention to improved messages that would reduce the concerns noted in the 

LTCCS. FMCSA should ensure that the knowledge acquired as a 

result of the LTCCS is effectively used to develop and test improved outreach and enforcement countermeasures to reduce commercial and passenger vehicle interactions. These efforts could include programs to enhance driver awareness, improve driver decisions, increase driver control, or reduce problems encountered during turning at or crossing intersections. The Committee directs 

FMCSA to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appro-
70 

priations on its planned use for these additional funds in this regard within 180 days after enactment of this Act. 

Information Management Program.—The Committee provides 

$15,300,000 for FMCSA’s information management program [IMP], 

which is $3,274,000 less than the budget request and $3,527,000 

more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. Within this amount, 

the Committee provides the following funding levels: 

Amount 

Program Evaluation Initiatives ............................................................................................................................ $2,000,000 

IT Strategic Improvement ..................................................................................................................................... 6,300,000 

IT Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Field Support Systems ......................................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Motor Carrier Safety Status Measurement System Improvements ...................................................................... 1,000,000 

The Committee does not provide any funding for FMCSA to assume the collection and analysis of information submitted under 

Form M from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS]. The 

Committee questions whether this function is necessary for 

FMCSA to carry out its mission and believes that these activities 

should remain within the province of the BTS, which receives sufficient funding to continue these activities. 

Motor Carrier Safety Status Measurement System.—The Motor 

Carrier Safety Status Measurement System [SafeStat] is FMCSA’s 

data-driven system that determines the current relative safety status of individual motor carriers based upon analysis in four areas— 

accidents, driver violations, vehicle violations and safety management record—and by which FMCSA selects carriers for on-site compliance reviews. In a report released in February 2004, the DOT 

Inspector General [OIG] identified a number of SafeStat deficiencies, particularly concerning the timeliness, quality and accuracy of commercial motor vehicle crash data used, and made recommendations for improvement. The Committee therefore directs 

FMCSA to use no less than $1,000,000 of the provided IMP funds 

to establish and implement data quality control systems and procedures to prevent incorrect or duplicative data from entering the 

system, as well as procedures to provide timely correction of inaccurate safety data regarding a motor carrier’s operations. The Committee also directs FMCSA to use these funds to correct deficiencies in the SafeStat methodology, particularly those deficiencies 

related to the use of motor carrier ‘‘power units’’ in the accident 

evaluation area. This system revalidation should be directed toward ensuring that FMCSA properly targets potentially non-compliant and potentially unsafe motor carriers. 

The Committee understands that FMCSA has removed certain 

information from its SafeStat Internet site until data quality issues 

are resolved. The Committee expects that future funding requests 

from FMCSA will identify the scope and success of FMCSA’s actions to improve data quality, and also identify milestones for resolving the data quality problems raised by the OIG. 

Commercial Vehicle Analysis Reporting System.—The Commercial Vehicle Analysis Reporting System [CVARS] is a joint effort 

between FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to provide grant funding to the States in order to improve 

the collection and reporting of all truck and bus crash-related data 
71 

into the motor carrier management information system. The Committee provides $7,400,000 for FMCSA’s CVARS activities, which is 

consistent with the requested amount and $2,429,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

A continuing concern in the safety community is the quality of 

information that FMCSA uses to make its decisions. For example, 

GAO pointed out in July 2000 that FMCSA had adopted a safety 

action plan without the underlying data to ascertain the extent to 

which the initiatives in the Plan were likely to contribute to improved safety. As noted above, the OIG recently reported that 

SafeStat, FMCSA’s primary tool for targeting carriers for safety reviews, needs to be revalidated. Similarly, the Committee is concerned that many States have not yet received CVARS grant funding to improve their data reporting, and question whether all of the 

States that have received CVARS funds have efficiently allocated 

these resources in a timely manner. Therefore, the Committee requests GAO to perform an audit of the progress that FMCSA has 

made in fulfilling its safety information needs. This audit should 

include—but should not be limited to—assessing the benefits that 

have been obtained from the CVARS program and what might be 

done to improve the effectiveness of the program. The requested 

analysis should consider ways that NHTSA and FMCSA might 

maximize the results of this investment and how the CVARS program could be better targeted to address the concerns raised in the 

OIG’s February 2004 SafeStat report. 

Border Enforcement Program.—The North American Free Trade 

Agreement [NAFTA] set forth a schedule for implementation of its 

trucking provisions that would have opened the border States to 

cross-border trucking competition on December 17, 1995, and all of 

North America on January 1, 2000. However, the previous Administration halted implementation of these provisions and DOT has 

announced that until safety concerns regarding Mexican trucks 

have been resolved, the trucks would continue to be restricted to 

the commercial zone adjacent the border. In the fiscal year 2002 

Department of Transportation Appropriations Act (Public Law 107– 

87) Congress addressed these concerns by setting 22 safety-related 

preconditions for opening the border to long-haul Mexican trucks. 

On November 27, 2002, the Secretary of Transportation announced 

that all the preconditions had been met and directed FMCSA to 

begin to open the border. However, on January 16, 2003 the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals in Public Citizen v. Department of Transportation delayed opening the southern border pending completion 

of environmental impact statements and a Clean Air Act conformity determination on the FMCSA’s implementing regulations. 

The United States Supreme Court has since overruled the decision of the Ninth Circuit and thus domestic long haul operations 

by Mexican commercial motor carriers appear imminent. Therefore, 

the Committee reiterates and underscores the importance of 

FMCSA’s adherence to the requirements of Section 350 of Public 

Law 107–87 in order to ensure the safety of all cross-border long 

haul operations and has included a general provision continuing 

the cross-border safety provisions included therein. 

Consistent with the budget request, the Committee has provided 

total funding of $64,735,000 for border related programs. As re-
72 

quested, the Committee provides $31,735,000 for FMCSA border 

operating expenses, $23,000,000 for State operations grants to the 

southern border States, and $10,000,000 for State operations 

grants to the northern border States. 

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(Liquidation of contract authorization) (Limitation on 

obligations) 

Appropriations, 2004 1 ................................................................................................ $188,879,000 $188,879,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 2 ............................................................................................. .............................. ..............................

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... 190,000,000 190,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,121,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

2 No funding requested under this account for fiscal year 2005. 

The FMCSA’s National Motor Carrier Safety Program [NMCSP] 

was authorized by TEA21 and amended by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two major 

areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP] and 

the information systems and strategic safety initiatives [ISSSI]. 

MCSAP provides grants and project funding to States to develop 

and implement national programs for the uniform enforcement of 

Federal and State rules and regulations concerning motor safety. 

The major objective of this program is to reduce the number and 

severity of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants 

are made to qualified States for the development of programs to enforce the Federal motor carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The 

basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle safety inspections of 

both interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic. 

ISSSI provides funds to develop and enhance data-related motor 

carrier programs. 

The Committee provides $190,000,000 in liquidating cash for this 

program. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$190,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants to be distributed as 

follows: 

Amount 

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program: 

Core MCSAP Grants ..................................................................................................................................... $133,350,000 

Safety Performance Incentive Grants ......................................................................................................... 7,100,000 

High Priority Initiatives Grants ................................................................................................................... 8,450,000 

Commercial Drivers License Improvement Grants ...................................................................................... 18,000,000 

State Training and Administration ............................................................................................................. 2,100,000 

Subtotal .................................................................................................................................................. 169,000,000 

Information Systems and Strategic Safety Initiatives: 

Performance and Registration Information Systems Management ............................................................ 5,000,000 

Motor Carrier Management Information System/Data Analysis ................................................................. 14,000,000 

Driver Programs (CDL Grants) .................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 
73 

Amount 

Subtotal .................................................................................................................................................. 20,000,000 

Large Truck Crash Causation Study .................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 190,000,000 

Safety Performance Incentive Grants.—The Committee provides 

$7,100,000 for safety performance incentive grants, which is 

$3,939,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. Before 

awarding any of these funds under the regulations specified in 49 

CFR 350, FMCSA is directed to allocate $1,000,000 to leverage ongoing State and Federal efforts to improve reported data quality, 

as outlined in the DOT IG’s February 2004 SafeStat report. 

Commercial Drivers License Improvement Program.—The Committee agrees with a recent management advisory issued by the 

OIG that expresses concern over vulnerabilities within the current 

commercial driver’s license [CDL] program. In contrast to applicants for CDLs with a hazardous material [hazmat] endorsement, 

applicants for non-hazmat CDLs do not have to demonstrate or 

provide proof of citizenship or legal presence. The OIG noted that 

because nearly 70 percent of the 11,000,000 CDLs issued since 

1989 are for the non-hazmat category, this presents a significant 

loophole. The OIG management advisory recommends that all CDL 

applicants demonstrate that they are either a U.S. citizen, a permanent legal resident, or otherwise legally present in the United 

States. 

The Committee notes that this is not the first time that the OIG 

has raised this issue. Two years ago, in response to an audit for 

improving testing and licensing of commercial drivers, FMCSA 

agreed with the Inspector General’s recommendation and stated 

that it would initiate a planned rulemaking in October 2003. However, the Committee understands that this rulemaking has now 

been pushed back until May 2005. Because this continuing delay 

exposes the entire nation to an undue increased risk, the Committee expects that there will be no further delays in promulgating 

this rule and directs FMSCA to initiate this rulemaking by the 

scheduled date. 

The Committee is aware of various technologies available to 

States to improve State CDL protection against counterfeiting. One 

such technology involves the use of color-shifting pigment that can 

deter as well as detect counterfeit licenses. This technology is currently in use on the newly designed U.S. currency and has never 

successfully been counterfeited. The Committee encourages FMCSA 

to work with State and other stakeholders to incorporate this technology as part of a layered system to improve CDL security. 

Large Truck Crash Causation Study.—The Committee provides 

$1,000,000 for the large truck crash causation study [LTCCS] consistent with the budget request. In providing this funding, it is the 

Committee’s expectation that FMCSA will utilize the knowledge acquired from the LTCCS to develop and implement improved outreach and enforcement measures in order to reduce accidents involving commercial vehicles. 
74 

GOVERNMENT-WIDE E-GOV INITIATIVES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... ........................... Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... $450,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

1 No funding requested under this account for fiscal year 2004. 

The Committee declines to provide the $450,000 requested for 

Government-Wide E-Gov Initiatives, as it feels that FMCSA’s existing IMP resources are sufficient to absorb this expense. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 130 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 131 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

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2005 PROGRAM

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] is 

responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety behavioral programs, and the motor vehicle information and automobile fuel economy programs. The Federal Government’s regulatory role in motor 

vehicle and highway safety began in September 1966 with the enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 

1966 (codified as chapter 301 of title 49, U.S. Code) and the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (codified as chapter 4 of title 23, U.S. Code). 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 instructs the Secretary to reduce traffic crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic crashes; establish motor vehicle safety 

standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in interstate commerce; carry out needed safety research and development; 

and expand the national driver register. The Highway Safety Act 

of 1966 instructs the Secretary to increase highway safety by providing for a coordinated national highway safety program through 

financial assistance to the States. 

In October 1966, these activities, originally under the jurisdiction 

of the Department of Commerce, were transferred to the Department of Transportation, to be carried out through the National 

Traffic Safety Bureau. In March 1970, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established as a separate 

organizational entity in the Department. It succeeded the National 

Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic 

and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration. 

NHTSA’s mission was expanded in October 1972 with the enactment of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (codified as chapters 321, 323, 325, 327, 329, and 331 of title 49, U.S. 
75 

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. 

Consistent with the general guidance provided in the report, the 

Committee has followed the program structure found in TEA21 and 

other current laws. The Committee recommendation of 

$458,300,000 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 2004 enacted 1

Fiscal year 2005 estimate Committee recommendation 

Operations and research ............................................................... $220,420,000 $233,300,000 $228,300,000 

National driver register .................................................................. (3,579,000 ) (4,000,000 ) (4,000,000 ) 

Highway traffic safety grants ........................................................ 223,673,000 456,000,000 225,000,000 

Total .................................................................................. 447,672,000 689,300,000 453,300,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,774,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... ($223,999,000) 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 233,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. (228,300,000) 

1 Reflects a reduction of $446,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199 

and a reduction of $1,701,300 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends a total of $228,300,000 in new budgetary resources which includes $72,000,000 in contract authority 

and $152,300,000 under the Federal-aid highway obligation to finance operations and research activities eligible under title 23 

U.S.C. 403. In accordance with the budget request, the Committee 
76 

has provided $4,000,000 to be derived from the highway trust fund 

to maintain the National Drivers Register. 

The accompanying bill provides appropriations totaling $228,300,000 to be distributed as follows: 

Program Committee 

recommendation 

Salaries and benefits ......................................................................................................................................... $71,250,000 

Travel .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,347,000 

Operating expenses ............................................................................................................................................ 23,749,000 

Contract Programs: 

Safety performance ................................................................................................................................... 11,552,000 

Safety assurance ....................................................................................................................................... 17,751,000 

Highway safety .......................................................................................................................................... 46,374,000 

Research and analysis .............................................................................................................................. 68,624,000 

General administration ............................................................................................................................. 663,000 

Grant administration reimbursement ................................................................................................................ ¥17,010,000 

National Drivers Register .......................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 228,300,000 

OPERATING EXPENSES

Computer Support.—The Committee feels that the equivalent of 

a 100 percent rise in an account that provides no measurable increase or benefit to continuing safety programs is excessive given 

the budget limitations facing the Committee and the highway trust 

fund. The Committee recommendation provides $2,850,000 for computer support. 

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

Safety Standards Support.—The Committee recommends 

$2,604,000 for safety standards support, which is $500,000 more 

than the budget request. The Committee directs that these additional funds be used to advance efforts to address mounting safety 

challenges confronting NHTSA. These challenges include, but are 

not limited to, roof crush problems, the adverse consequences of 

side and frontal impacts, driver aggressivity, and vehicle compatibility as well as occupant ejections. The Committee requests the 

Administrator of NHTSA to submit a plan to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations by March 31, 2005, summarizing 

the scope of NHTSA’s plan to address the growing number of safety 

issues. The plan shall include the nature of issues and what actions 

are being taken to address each of the key safety challenges facing 

NHTSA. 
77 

New Car Assessment Program.—The Committee recommends 

$7,800,000 for the New Car Assessment Program [NCAP]. Within 

the funds provided the Committee recommendation includes 

$200,000 to be used to accelerate purchase schedules for vehicle 

testing. 

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 

budget request: 

Occupant Protection: Outreach initiatives to increase seatbelt use ................................................................ $13,400,000 

Impaired Driving ................................................................................................................................................ 14,095,000 

Judicial and Prosecutorial Awareness ...................................................................................................... (1,500,000 ) 

Target Populations .................................................................................................................................... (1,000,000 ) 

Peds/Bicycle ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,250,000 

Highway Safety Research ................................................................................................................................... 6,933,000 

Emergency Medical Services .............................................................................................................................. 2,271,000 

Motorcycle Safety ............................................................................................................................................... 800,000 

Enforcement and Justice Services ..................................................................................................................... 2,217,000 

Records and Licensing ....................................................................................................................................... 2,621,000 

Emerging Traffic Safety Issues .......................................................................................................................... 1,187,000 

NOPUS ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,600,000 

Total, Highway Safety Programs .......................................................................................................... 46,374,000 

Share the Road Safely.—NHTSA is the agency with the primary 

responsibility for behavioral programs geared toward passenger car 

drivers. The Committee is disappointed that NHTSA and FMCSA 

have shown an inability to work together on this important initiative. The Consolidated Omnibus Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 

2004 provided clear direction that NHTSA is the Agency responsible for administering this program. The bill directs that NHTSA 

administer the funds and the Committee expects the full cooperation of the relevant agencies to ensure successful implementation 

of this program. 

To ensure the smooth transition of full responsibility for the 

Share the Road program to FMCSA in fiscal year 2006, the Committee directs FMCSA to provide one FTE, for a 12-month detail, 

to NHTSA to help oversee the program. NHTSA will recruit and 

hire a full time communications/program manager at the full performance level, with the assistance and cooperation of FMCSA. The 

staffer will be housed in NHTSA’s Office of Communications and 

Consumer Information, and will work closely with NHTSA’s Program Development and Delivery Office and FMCSA in the development and management of the Share the Road demonstration effort. 

As an FMCSA employee, this individual will obtain the necessary 

experience from the pilot program to maintain the continuity and 

quality of the program when it is returned to FMCSA to manage. 

National Occupant Protection Program.—The objectives of the occupant protection program are to increase seat belt use and decrease the number of child occupant fatalities. The Committee is 

encouraged by recent statistics showing that safety belt use stands 

at a national average of 79 percent, surpassing NHTSA’s goal of 78. 

Statistics show that for each percentage point increase in the national safety belt use rate about 2.8 million more Americans are 

buckling up, saving an estimated 270 additional lives and preventing 4,000 serious injuries. In 2003, of the 31,904 passenger ve-
78 

hicle occupants killed in U.S. traffic crashes, 56 percent were not 

wearing a seat belt. 

To continue this progress, the Committee believes that NHTSA 

must be vigilant and creative in its efforts to increase the national 

safety belt use rate, with particular attention to those groups that 

are high risk and difficult to reach. The Committee recommends 

$13,400,000 for NHTSA’s occupant protection efforts which is 

$1,800,000 more than the budget request. In reviewing NHTSA’s 

2003 Assessment, the Committee is especially concerned that nearly two-thirds of teen passenger vehicle occupants (ages 16–20) who 

were killed in 2003 were not wearing a seat belt, a statistic virtually unchanged from 2002. The Committee believes that if teenagers and young adults can be convinced to wear safety belts now 

they will continue to wear a seatbelt throughout their adult lives. 

The Committee directs that these additional funds be used to continue outreach activities towards teens, minority populations and 

rural populations. The Committee encourages NHTSA to: (1) initiate and continue programs with public sector organizations and 

private sector employers and insurance companies to raise the safety belt use among the Nation’s workforce; (2) develop new strategies to reach cultural and ethnic groups with lower seatbelt use 

rates; and (3) develop and evaluate the next generation of combined public education/communication and enforcement strategies 

to increase occupant protection and determine the most effective 

ways to encourage and increase booster seat use. 

To supplement NHTSA’s overall safety belt effort, the Committee 

has included language in the Section 157 program to continue the 

‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ national public service message program that 

began in fiscal year 2002. 

Impaired Driving.—In August 2004, NHTSA released its most 

current assessment of the 2003 data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System [FARS]. Of the 42,643 people who died on the Nation’s highways in 2003, 17,013 or 40 percent were alcohol-related. 

This most recent FARS assessment indicates that, while far too 

many people are still dying at the hands of drunk drivers, the 

number of alcohol-related fatalities decreased for the first time 

since 1999. This is a positive first step in what remains a very difficult and challenging highway safety problem. However, since alcohol-related crashes cause an estimated 275,000 injuries and roughly $50,000,000,000 in economic costs each year, the Committee believes that NHTSA should commit adequate resources toward this 

tragic problem and remains disappointed that the agency continues 

to send up budgets that cut the funding dedicated toward the impaired driving core program. In fiscal years 2004 and 2005, NHTSA 

recommended reductions to the impaired driving account by 28 percent and 35 percent respectively. As for the FARS data, the Committee is mystified by the large discrepancy in the overall number 

of alcohol-related fatalities between the early and current assessment of the data and believes that the State-by-State data warrants further scrutiny and explanation. 

The Committee recommends funding of $14,095,000 to support 

the impaired driving program. This amount is $4,150,000 more 

than the budget request. These additional funds will allow NHTSA 

to continue to: (1) promote high visibility law enforcement; (2) edu-
79 

cate 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 significantly reduce 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 $20,000,000 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. 

To better understand what strategies and factors work best to reduce alcohol fatalities and crashes, the Committee directs the Department’s Office of Inspector General to review and compare the 

scope and direction of programs and activities conducted by States 

with the highest and lowest rates of alcohol-related fatalities using 

a 5-year average of fatality data. The Inspector General should, at 

a minimum, focus on: State and Federal resources dedicated to reducing alcohol-impaired driving; an analysis of those expenditures; 

State law enforcement efforts, including the use of sobriety checkpoints or other high-visibility enforcement methods; law enforcement officer training standards; and the use of paid and earned 

media. The OIG shall report to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations no later than April 1, 2005. 

Judicial and Prosecutorial Awareness.—The Committee has provided $1,500,000 for Judicial and Prosecutorial Awareness to expedite the detection, identification and tracking of hard core drunk 

drivers. The Committee is aware that one of the major factors in 

alcohol-related crashes is the number of habitual drunk drivers involved in alcohol-related traffic crashes. 

The Committee directs NHTSA to work with State and local law 

enforcement officials, judges, prosecutors and parole officers to assist them in developing strategies that specifically target the removal of habitual drunk drivers from the road. 

The Committee directs NHTSA to provide a report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations by June 1, 2005, on the 

strategies developed to measure the effectiveness of this program 

and NHTSA’s plan to carry it out. The report shall also include a 

detailed study of the effectiveness and the costs related to the implementation of a Statewide cellular drunk driving reporting program that provides free air time and allows motorists with a cell 

phone to dial a special number [*DUI] to report drunk drivers. The 
80 

Committee is aware that at least three States are currently providing this service to motorists. The Committee also directs 

NHTSA to look at the effectiveness of other innovative techniques 

employed by States to discourage repeat offenders from drinking 

while driving. 

Impaired Driving and Targeted Populations.—The Committee is 

concerned that there continues to be certain segments of the population that are over represented in alcohol-related motor vehicle 

crashes. For example in 2002, 24 percent of drivers 15–20 years old 

killed in crashes had levels of alcohol at or above a blood alcohol 

level of 0.08. The Committee strongly encourages NHTSA to aggressively pursue strategies that reduce impaired driving among 

the age groups and ethnic populations that are over-represented in 

alcohol-related fatalities. Within the funds provided for NHTSA’s 

impaired driving programs the Committee has included $1,000,000 

to increase outreach efforts that target these populations. The 

Committee directs NHTSA to notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, no later than 90 days after enactment of 

this Act, detailing the target populations, strategies, and activities 

that will be utilized. 

Pedestrian Safety.—The Committee has provided $1,250,000 for 

pedestrian and bicycle safety. Within the funds provided under this 

account the Committee has included $50,000 for NHTSA to conduct 

a study to identify the characteristics of vehicle-related accidents, 

injuries and fatalities that involve pedestrians on the roadside or 

travel lane. NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System indicates 

that there were 4,749 pedestrians killed and approximately 70,000 

pedestrians injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2003. 

The Committee is particularly interested in NHTSA’s countermeasure recommendations concerning the unintended pedestrian— 

a driver and or passenger of a broken-down vehicle or one involved 

in a previous accident afoot on the shoulder of the roadway working on the car, pushing it, inspecting damage to the vehicle, trading information with another driver or simply waiting/walking on 

the roadside seeking assistance. The Committee directs NHTSA to 

provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 31, 2005, which shall include countermeasures 

aimed at the unintended pedestrian. In addition, the Committee is 

interested in receiving data and recommended countermeasures on 

vehicle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities involving law enforcement and public safety officers who have exited their vehicles 

and are standing alongside the roadway. 

Highway Safety Research.—The Committee includes $6,933,000 

for NHTSA’s highway safety research program. Within the funds 

provided, the Committee includes $400,000 to support the Drivers 

Edge Safety Program, a non-profit program that provides real life 

driver training to young drivers to combat teen accidents and driving fatalities. 

Emergency Medical Services.—The Committee recommends 

$2,271,000 for emergency medical services. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $500,000 to support pediatric trauma research, TraumaLink, at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. There have been a number of highly publicized cases of crash 

victims who were stranded for extended periods of time because 
81 

their vehicles were not easily located. Advanced location technology 

associated with wireless E 9–1–1 can assist law enforcement and 

EMS personnel in reaching victims quickly. The Committee has 

also included $500,000 within the total amount for research at the 

USA Center for the study of Rural Vehicular Trauma. 

The Committee is aware that national databases exist that support police and fire services; however, there has been no similar national repository for Emergency Medical Services [EMS] data and 

no current method to easily link disparate EMS databases to allow 

analysis at a local, State, and national level. It is the Committee’s 

understanding that NHTSA, in cooperation with the Health Resources and Services Administration, has funded a cooperative 

agreement with the National Association of State EMS Directors to 

develop and implement a National EMS Information System 

[NEMSIS], which is necessary for post crash injury control. The 

Committee encourages NHSTA to continue the implementation of 

NEMSIS which will provide data entry and reporting capabilities 

at the local and State EMS levels and a national EMS database 

with a resource center to assist EMS systems in data collection and 

use. 

Motorcycle Safety.—The Committee provides $800,000 for 

NHTSA’s motorcycle safety efforts. The Committee remains concerned that for a sixth year in a row the number of motorcycle fatalities increased. In 2003, the number of motorcycle fatalities has 

increased 12 percent. The Committee has provided increased funding to further assist in the implementation of the urgent and essential recommendations included in the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety. Further, the Committee urges NHTSA to focus on 

strategies to reduce the alarming numbers of motorcyclists killed 

and injured in alcohol-related crashes. 

Highway Safety Oversight.—Statement of Managers accompanying the Consolidated Omnibus Appropriations Act, fiscal year 

2004, directed NHTSA to examine its policies with regard to the 

State grant programs and to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on current guidance provided to 

States on crafting effective highway safety plans. The conference 

report also directed NHTSA to examine what steps it would undertake if, in reviewing a State’s plan, NHTSA disagreed with the 

State’s planned use of Federal grant funds. 

The Committee has reviewed NHTSA’s report and finds its proposed response to the concerns raised by the GAO to be insufficient. The response from NHTSA proposes to perform management 

reviews of individual States as infrequently as every 3 years. While 

NHTSA has outlined other procedures to provide guidance to 

States in its report, the Committee is concerned about the lack of 

oversight NHTSA exercises with respect to State use of Federal 

highway safety funds. 

Alcohol-related fatalities have increased over the past several 

years, however, attachment ‘‘A’’ of NHTSA’s report shows that section 402 grant expenditures for alcohol programs decreased by 

more than 19 percent (from $25,300,000 to $20,400,000) between 

2000 and 2003. While NHTSA claims that increasing seat belt use 

is its highest priority, section 402 expenditures for occupant protection programs declined almost 7 percent (from $21,800,000 to 
82 

$20,300,000) over the same time period. These spending patterns 

suggest that the priorities of the States are markedly different 

from those of NHTSA. 

The Committee directs NHTSA to develop uniform criteria that 

hold the States accountable for the Federal dollars provided from 

the grant program. The Committee expects that this spending 

should be result-oriented and NHTSA should require the States to 

demonstrate the nexus between the safety goals and the plan to attain those goals. 

The Committee directs NHTSA to provide an updated report on 

implementation of policies to oversee State highway safety programs by category, including expenditures of section 402 funds. 

The Committee also is concerned that NHTSA’s policy lacks sufficient clarity as to when a performance enhancement plan would be 

required. The Committee urges NHTSA to work with its regional 

offices to develop specific criteria that would require a State to develop a performance enhancement plan. As part of the report, the 

Committee directs NHTSA to provide the number of completed 

management and special management reviews along with a detailed description of any required performance enhancement plans. 

The report shall be submitted to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations by March 1, 2005. In addition, the Committee directs NHTSA to solicit public comments on the subject of management and oversight of federally funded State highway safety programs. The Committee expects NHTSA to incorporate a summary 

of the comments in the updated report. The Committee has provided $50,000 in operating expenses to complete this updated report. 

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Safety Systems Research.—The Committee recommends 

$9,818,000 for safety systems research which is $500,000 more 

than the budget request. The Committee directs that $500,000 be 

used to accelerate research related to the increased safety challenges including but not limited to, rollovers, roof crush problems, 

the adverse consequences of side and frontal impacts, vehicle 

aggressivity and compatibility, as well as, occupant ejections. These 

funds are to be used in tandem with the increased funding provided under safety system support. 

Biomechanical Research.—The Committee provides a total of 

$14,475,000 for biomechanics research. The Committee’s recommendation includes necessary resources for the continued research of the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network program. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes 

$2,000,000 to continue research related to traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries caused by motor vehicle, motorcycle, and bicycle 

accidents at the Southern Consortium for Injury Biomechanics, and 

$1,000,000 to support a joint research initiative between the University of Vermont’s College of Medicine [UVM] and Fletcher Allen 

Health Care that will assist victims of automobile accidents in 

rural areas to determine the capabilities and outcomes of advanced 

mobile telecommunications links. 

Driver/Vehicle Performance.—The Committee recommends 

$3,795,000 for driver/vehicle performance research, which is 
83 

$300,000 more than the budget request. With in the funds provided, the Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for research and development of eye-tracking and monitoring devices to 

detect driver drowsiness and fatigue. The Committee directs that 

NHTSA to explore existing patented technologies for this research 

in an effort to reduce accidents and injuries related to driver 

drowsiness. 

Driver Behavior/Simulation Research.—The Committee recommends $3,650,000 for NHTSA’s driver behavior/simulation research efforts, which is $95,000 more than the budget request. 

Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for the National Advanced Driving Simulator in 

order to conduct research on the driving capabilities of individuals 

that suffer from moderate visual loss and whether bioptic telescopes improve their driving performance. 

Crash Avoidance Initiative.—This program will assist NHTSA in 

evaluating technologies such as electronic stability control systems, 

alternate braking, vision enhancement and lane departure warnings. The Committee believes that this technology holds potential 

to assist drivers in avoiding accidents. While the Committee supports this initiative it is unable to provide funding for the request 

due to budgetary limitations. The Committee would encourage 

NHTSA to seek funding for this initiative through other funding 

sources such as the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative. 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System.—The Committee recommends $6,763,000 for the Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

[FARS]. This represents an $850,000 increase over the budget request. The Committee is aware that the proposed budget for the 

FARS data collection for fiscal year 2005 is insufficient to pay State 

FARS analysts for the entire data collection year. As a result, 

NHTSA will have to lay off well trained staff. The Committee is 

providing an increase of $850,000 to the base FARS program to ensure that sufficient funding is available. 

FAST FARS.—The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for this 

new initiative. With the FAST FARS data collection program, 

NHTSA will implement a data collection system that will provide 

more timely fatality data. 

Examples of the need for effective instant feedback program evaluations are (1) impaired driving (drunk & drugged driver campaign), (2) safety belt usage (‘‘Click It or Ticket’’), and (3) holiday 

period fatality statistics (Memorial Day weekend summary fatality 

counts). An effective FAST FARS data collection program will permit the agency to analyze effectiveness more quickly, thereby improving decision making to better utilize limited safety funding resources. 

Human Occupant Computer Models.—The Committee encourages 

NHTSA to work with members of the Global Human Body Models 

Partnership and Consortium in developing a set of computer models of human occupants that can be used in automotive safety design. These models have the potential of reducing the cost of testing and may also enable the designer to study directly the injury 

potential of safety systems on the human occupant instead of its 

effect on dummies. The Committee understands that there are a 

number of technical challenges that need to be addressed before 
84 

virtual testing can become a functional reality. The Committee 

looks forward to learning about the results and progress of this 

partnership. 

National Automotive Sampling System.—The Committee pro- vides $12,100,000 for the National Automotive Sampling System 

[NASS]. The NASS General Estimates System data assists in assessing the trend and magnitude of the crash situation in this 

country, and the NASS Crashworthiness Data System provides 

more in-depth and descriptive data allowing NHTSA to quantify 

the relationships between the occupants and vehicles in the realworld crash environment. 

National Tire Fuel Efficiency Study.—The Committee continues 

to be interested in the progress of the study that the National 

Academy of Sciences has underway commissioned by NHTSA on a 

national tire fuel efficiency study to consider the relationship that 

low rolling resistance replacement tires have on fuel consumption 

and tire wear life. The Committee would appreciate a progress report to the Committee on Appropriations by December 31, 2004 on 

the initial findings of that effort and an anticipated schedule for 

completion of the study. 

Tread Act Compliance.—The primary purpose of the TREAD Act 

is to improve the safety of the motoring public. The Committee is 

concerned that some producers of tires exported to the United 

States may not comply with the early warning reporting and future 

tire testing requirements of the TREAD Act. Therefore the Committee urges NHTSA to aggressively monitor compliance with the 

TREAD Act to ensure that all tire manufacturers comply with the 

letter and the spirit of those requirements that are being implemented to improve safety. 

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2004 1 .......................................................................... ($3,579,000) 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... (4,000,000) 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. (4,000,000) 

1 Reflects reduction of $21,240 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The National Driver Register [NDR] is a central repository of information on individuals whose licenses to operate a motor vehicle 

have been revoked, suspended, canceled, or denied. The NDR also 

contains information on persons who have been convicted of serious 

traffic-related violations such as driving while impaired by alcohol 

or other drugs. State driver licensing officials query the NDR when 

individuals apply for a license to determine whether driving privileges have been withdrawn by other States. Other organizations 

such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration also use NDR license data in hiring and certification decisions in overall U.S. transportation operations. 

The bill includes $4,000,000 for the NDR which is an increase of 

$421,000 over the fiscal year 2004 authorized level and equal to the 

budget request. 
85 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $223,673,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 456,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 225,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,328,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

For fiscal year 2005, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century must be reauthorized. Consistent with the general guidance provided in the report, the Committee has followed the structure provided in TEA21 which authorizes the following State grant 

programs: The section 402 State and community formula grant program, the section 410 alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grant program, and the section 405 occupant protection incentive grant program. 

Under the Section 402 grant program, grant allocations are determined on the basis of a statutory formula established under 20 

U.S.C. 402. Individual States use this funding in national priority 

areas established by Congress which have the greatest potential for 

achieving safety improvements and reducing traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries. The section 410 alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grant program encourages States to enact stiffer laws and implement stronger programs to detect and remove impaired drivers from the roads. The section 405 occupant protection 

program encourages States to promote and strengthen occupant 

protection initiatives. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation of 

contract authorization of $225,000,000 for the payment of obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of these grant programs. 

The Committee has continued a provision 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. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred 

under the various highway traffic safety grants programs. Separate 

obligation limitations are included in the bill with the following 

funding allocations: 

Fiscal year 2004 enacted 1Fiscal year 2005 estimate Committee recommendation 

State and Community Formula Grants .......................................... $164,027,000 $396,000,000 $165,000,000 

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants ....................... 39,764,000 ............................ 40,000,000 

Occupant protection incentive grants ........................................... 19,882,000 ............................ 20,000,000 

Section 412 State highway safety data grants ............................ ............................ 50,000,000 ............................

Emergency Medical Services .......................................................... ............................ 10,000,000 ............................

Total ...................................................................................... (223,673,000 ) (456,000,000 ) (225,000,000 ) 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,327,500 pursuant to section 168(b) of Public Law 108–199. 

Safety Belt Usage.—While outcome data is not yet available, the 

May 2004 ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ Mobilization built on the successful 

previous effort with significant law enforcement participation from 
86 

across the country and increase use of the media. The Committee 

is pleased that the funding that has been provided for the ‘‘Click 

It or Ticket’’ campaign and the accompanying public safety messages continues to prove effective in increasing usage rates but believes that NHTSA’s work in this area is not done. The Committee 

encourages NHTSA to build upon its successes and continue to 

work with State and local governments to further increase seat belt 

usage rates in 2005. 

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 2004, NHTSA again used 

this funding to support State high-visibility ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ enforcement programs and bolstered these programs with almost 

$30,000,000 in targeted State and national advertising. The fiscal 

years 2003 and 2004 campaign specifically addressed young drivers 

who are at higher risk of being in a car crash and less likely to 

use seat belts than other age groups. As a result, in 2003 usage increased seven percentage points among 16–24 year olds, compared 

to 4 percentage points in the overall population. The Committee is 

encouraged by NHTSA’s efforts to reach out to this and other target populations whose seat belt usage rates are below the national 

average. 

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. 

Just as high visibility enforcement programs have proven so effective in increasing seat belt use, research has also concluded that 

sobriety checkpoints are highly effective in reducing alcohol-related 

traffic fatalities and injuries. NHTSA’s own survey has indicated 

that 4 out of 5 Americans support increased enforcement and 

tougher laws to protect themselves and their families from impaired drivers. 

The Committee continues to be concerned with the high number 

of alcohol-related fatalities. The Committee believes that NHTSA 

should continue to implement a more proactive role in working 

with States to recognize and develop new and innovative measures 

that target impaired drivers. For fiscal year 2005, the Committee 

has continued bill language providing $20,000,000 from the impaired driving grant program to be used as directed by the NHTSA 

Administrator for broadcast advertising to support a national law 

enforcement mobilization aimed at controlling impaired driving. It 

is the Committee’s intent that these funds support a national mobilization and sustained enforcement of impaired driving laws, and 

that NHTSA work on this initiative with the States and non-profit 

safety organizations that have been active in conducting recent mobilizations. Further, the Committee has specified that no less than 
87 

$6,000,000 be provided to the States to ensure that they have adequate resources for impaired driving enforcement activities to support the mobilization and for sustained impaired driving enforcement throughout the year. The Committee believes that continued 

funding for evaluation is unnecessary as it appears that mobilization coupled with paid advertising is an effective deterrent. 

NHTSA has set aggressive goals for achieving seat belt use and 

has exceeded these goals resulting in saving countless lives, reducing injuries, and economic costs. The Committee is pleased with the 

results of this multiyear effort and directs NHTSA to continue 

their successful model of high visibility enforcement and paid 

media to support national law enforcement mobilization aimed at 

increasing seat belt use. NHTSA has recently undertaken a similar 

course of action in impaired driving which holds promise to stimulate national action through high visibility enforcement, including 

sobriety checkpoints, saturation patrols, and paid media to support 

a national law enforcement mobilization. These two mobilizations 

scheduled for the peak travel times of summer, Memorial Day and 

Labor Day holidays, must continue to be implemented and evaluated to have an impact on the motoring public. The Committee applauds NHTSA’s efforts to implement sustained impaired driving 

enforcement as a complement to mobilizations. 

The Committee also recognizes NHTSA and the highway safety 

community, including the States, law enforcement, and non-profit 

safety organizations, achievement in successfully reducing alcohol 

related crashes around the winter holidays, including New Year’s 

Eve. The impaired driving holiday messaging and enforcement has 

become a routine part of the winter celebrations, including paid 

and earned media messages and heightened law enforcement activity with limited Federal resources. The Committee awaits the 

pending results of last year’s combined seat belt and impaired driving messages to assess its potential in future highway safety programs. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 140 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. 

Section 141 requires NHTSA to retain the lead responsibility for 

developing the national share the road safely program strategy and 

work with the FMCSA to ensure the effective implementation, 

monitoring and evaluation of this program. 

Section 142 allows the Secretary of Transportation for fiscal year 

2005, to use the funds necessary to carry out the provisions of section 157 of title 23. 
88 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2005 PROGRAM

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. 

The Committee recommends $1,437,074,000 for the activities of 

the Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 2005, which is 

$348,653,000 more than the budget request and $6,608,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations: 

Program 

Fiscal year— 

Committee recommendation 2004 enacted 1 2005 budget 

estimate 

Safety and Operations ....................................................................... $130,053,000 $142,396,000 $139,849,000 

Railroad Research and Development ................................................ 33,824,000 36,025,000 35,225,000 

Next Generation High-Speed Rail ...................................................... 37,179,000 10,000,000 20,000,000 

Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation .......................................................... 24,853,000 .......................... 25,000,000 

Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation ......................... 1,217,773,000 900,000,000 1,217,000,000 

Total budgetary resources .................................................... 1,443,682,000 1,088,421,000 1,437,074,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $8,568,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $130,053,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 142,396,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 139,849,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $772,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA rail 

safety activities and all other administrative and operating activities related to staff and programs. 

The Committee recommends $139,849,000 for Safety and Operations for fiscal year 2005, which is $2,547,000 less than the budget request and $10,313,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted 

level. Of this amount the bill specifies that, $15,350,000 remains 

available until expended. The Committee denies the requests of 

$91,000 for a financial analyst for the Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Financing program, $300,000 for workforce planning, 

and $193,000 for citizen centered government because it believes 

that FRA’s existing operational resources are sufficient to undertake these tasks. 

Student Inspector Trainees.—In support of FRA’s efforts to gain 

both diversity and experience by training new railroad inspectors, 
89 

the Committee provides funding for 8 of the 16 requested positions 

for this new initiative. 

Track Geometry Vehicle.—Recognizing the safety advantages 

gained by doing so, the Committee provides funding for the requested additional Track Geometry Vehicle. However, because 

manufacturing constraints preclude this equipment from being delivered in fiscal year 2005, the Committee provides only $1,500,000 

of the funding necessary for the vehicle’s purchase. It is the Committee’s intention to provide the remaining $1,500,000 in fiscal 

year 2006. 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety.—The Committee notes that 

FRA has agreed with OIG recommendations to develop a means for 

including Federal Transit Administration statistics in its grade 

crossing accident tabulations and to identify those States with the 

highest number of grade crossing accidents. In order to ensure 

FRA’s timely progress in implementing these recommendations, the 

Committee directs FRA to report on the status of its efforts in this 

regard, including expected milestones, no later than 90 days following the enactment of this Act. 

Washington Union Station Air Rights Development Project.—The 

Committee is concerned that the congressionally-directed sale of air 

development rights over the rail yard at Union Station in Washington, DC, which was to have been completed by the end of fiscal 

year 2002, remains pending because of a potential leasehold encroachment into the air rights parcel subject to the sale. While negotiations among the affected parties are ongoing, the Committee 

is troubled by the slow progress in completing this transaction. The 

Committee therefore directs FRA to work with all parties involved 

in order to resolve the outstanding issues and reach a timely and 

equitable solution. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $33,824,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 36,025,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,225,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $201,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,225,000 for 

railroad research and development, which is $800,000 less than the 

budget request and $1,401,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 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 recommends the following funding levels within 

the Railroad research and development programs: 

Amount 

Railroad System Issues ........................................................................................................................................ $3,225,000 

Human Factors ..................................................................................................................................................... 4,178,000 

Rolling Stock and Components ............................................................................................................................ 2,587,000 
90 

Amount 

Track and Structures ........................................................................................................................................... 4,125,000 

Track and Train Interaction ................................................................................................................................. 3,350,000 

Train Control ........................................................................................................................................................ 950,000 

Grade Crossings ................................................................................................................................................... 1,935,000 

Hazardous Materials Transportation .................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Train Occupant Protection ................................................................................................................................... 6,450,000 

R&D Facilities and Test Equipment .................................................................................................................... 1,425,000 

NDGPS .................................................................................................................................................................. 6,000,000 

Track and Structures.—The Committee provides $4,125,000 for 

FRA’s track and structures research efforts. Track and structures 

provides for research in inspection techniques, material and component reliability, track and structure design and performance, and 

track stability data processing and feedback. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $250,000 for structural integrity research utilizing fiber reinforced recyclable thermoplastic composite 

shell and discarded tire core on railroad ties at West Virginia University’s Constructed Facility Center. 

Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System.—The Committee has provided $6,000,000 for continued deployment of the 

Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System network, which 

is $800,000 less than the requested amount and $234,220 more 

than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. This amount includes 

$5,000,000 for maintaining existing sites and $1,000,000 for new 

site installations, which the Committee believes is sufficient for 

FRA’s role in the continuation of this project. 

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 2005. 

NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $37,179,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $221,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee provides $20,000,000 for NGHSR, which is 

$10,000,000 more than the budget request and $17,179,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee recommends the following funding levels within this amount: 
91 

Amount 

High-speed train control systems ........................................................................................................................ $10,000,000 

High-speed non-electric locomotives ................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Grade crossing hazard mitigation/Low-cost innovative technologies ................................................................. 2,000,000 

Track and structures technology ......................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Corridor planning ................................................................................................................................................. 4,000,000 

Magnetic levitation .............................................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Train Control Systems.—The Committee notes that progress has 

been made on several pilot projects that are important to demonstrating the operational and safety benefits of wider deployment 

of train control system technologies on freight railroads. The Committee encourages FRA to utilize a portion of its train control systems funding to further the development and testing of safety overlay train control technologies that work in conjunction with existing methods of operation and signal and control systems and enforce movement authorities and track restrictions generated by 

those systems to protect against the consequences of human and 

technology failures. 

High-Speed Non-Electric Locomotive.—The Committee provides 

$1,000,000 for the high-speed non-electric locomotive program and 

directs FRA to submit a plan, detailing the location and timetable 

for demonstrating the non-electric locomotive, within 90 days of the 

enactment of this Act. 

Grade Crossing Hazard Mitigation/Low-cost Innovative Technologies.—The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for grade crossing hazard mitigation and low-cost innovative technology initiatives. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes the following allocation: 

Amount 

Alaska Railroad Luminescent Grade Crossings ................................................................................................... $1,000,000 

Vicksburg, MS Fairgrounds Street Grade Crossing Mitigation ............................................................................ 1,000,000 

Corridor Planning.—The Committee includes $4,000,000 for passenger rail corridor planning. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes the following allocations: 

Amount 

Central Utah High Speed Rail Corridor Study ..................................................................................................... $400,000 

Florida High Speed Rail Corridor Study ............................................................................................................... 1,200,000 

Gulf Coast High Speed Rail Corridor Study ........................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Memphis Region High Speed Rail Study ............................................................................................................. 400,000 

Spokane Region High Speed Rail Corridor Study ................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Magnetic Levitation Transportation.—The Committee provides 

$2,000,000 for magnetic levitation activities, $1,000,000 of which is 

provided for the California-Nevada Interstate Maglev Project and 

$1,000,000 of which is provided for the Pennsylvania Maglev Deployment Project. 

RAIL-HIGHWAY CROSSING HAZARD ELIMINATIONS

Section 1103 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21] provides $5,250,000 for the elimination of rail-high-
92 

way crossing hazards on high speed rail corridors. Of these setaside funds, the following allocations are made: 

Amount 

Grade Separation of CSX/US 90 at Hamilton Boulevard, Mobile, AL ................................................................. $1,000,000 

Grade Separation at McCord Road, Lucas County, OH ....................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Illinois Statewide Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Program .................................................................................. 500,000 

Vermont Statewide Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Program ............................................................................... 1,000,000 

Wisconsin Railway-Highway Crossing Hazard Elimination Project ..................................................................... 500,000 

ALASKA RAILROAD REHABILITATION

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $24,853,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $147,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee provides $25,000,000 for rail safety and infrastructure improvements benefiting passenger and freight operations of the Alaska Railroad. 

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

(AMTRAK)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $1,217,773,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 900,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,217,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $7,227,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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 agencies. Congress created Amtrak in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 

1970 (Public Law 91–518) in response to private carriers’ inability 

to profitably operate intercity passenger rail service due a steady 

decline in ridership that began in the 1920s. 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 
93 

$28,000,000,000 in Federal subsidy assistance during this time. 

During this time, Amtrak has accumulated a significant backlog of 

both deferred maintenance costs and capital investment while also 

failing to make any substantial progress toward financial self-sufficiency or even operational solvency. 

Recently, Amtrak’s annual deficits have grown from approxi- mately $900,000,000 during the 1990s to well over $1,000,000,000 

each year since 2001. Even with the efforts of Amtrak’s current 

management team to control core expenses and institute disciplined financial controls, its most recent strategic plan forecasts 

a budget deficit of over $1,200,000,000 in fiscal year 2004, increasing to over $1,500,000,000 by fiscal year 2009. Meanwhile, Federal 

grants to Amtrak have increased from $571,000,000 in fiscal year 

2000 to over $1,200,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 with projections 

that this amount must increase to approximately $1,800,000,000 in 

fiscal year 2005 and each year through fiscal year 2009 in order to 

maintain Amtrak as an ongoing viable entity. 

Today, Amtrak serves less than 1 percent of America’s intercity 

passengers, even while its operating losses continue to increase, its 

on-time performance continues to decrease and its Federal subsidy 

requests spiral upward. The Committee remains convinced that 

Amtrak’s current operating structure is not a sustainable business 

model and that Amtrak is in need of comprehensive reform. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Federal Resources Available to Amtrak in Fiscal Year 2005 Amount 

Federal Subsidy ................................................................................................................................................ $1,217,000,000 

JOBS Act Tax Credits ....................................................................................................................................... 330,000,000 

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 1,547,000,000 

The Committee provides $1,217,000,000 for Amtrak, which is 

$317,000,000 more than the budget request. The Committee notes 

that section 636 (Railroad Revitalization and Security Investment 

Credit) of the ‘‘Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act [JOBS]’’ (S. 

1637), which passed the Senate on May 11, 2004 and is currently 

awaiting consideration by House and Senate conferees, will provide 

an estimated $330,000,000 for Amtrak’s ongoing operations and 

capital investment during fiscal year 2005. The Committee believes 

that these combined resources, totaling $1,547,000,000, will be sufficient to meet Amtrak’s Federal funding requirements during fiscal year 2005. 

The Committee also includes bill language maintaining the accountability measures put in place by the fiscal year 2004 Act 

(Public Law 108–199). 

Diesel-multiple Units.—The Committee is encouraged by Amtrak’s advancement of the procurement of FRA compliant DMU 

railcars for delivery early in fiscal year 2006 that will be used for 

commuter rail service operated by Amtrak in Vermont, Wisconsin, 

Illinois, Oklahoma, New York, Oregon, Connecticut, Washington, 

and California. The Committee understands the numerous efficiency, environmental, operational, and cost-saving benefits that 

will be achieved by this procurement. This is a positive example of 

a sound business decision that will well serve Amtrak, its riders, 
94 

and is the type of economically grounded decision that the Committee encourages. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—FEDERAL RAIL ADMINISTRATION

Section 150 requires the Secretary of Transportation to continue 

development and implementation of a fair competitive bid procedure to assist states in introducing carefully managed competition 

to demonstrate whether competition will provide higher quality rail 

services at reasonable prices. 

Section 151 clarifies that Federal funds provided to the Alaska 

Railroad may only be used for railroad and related purposes and 

that the right of way may be fully utilized. 

Section 152 clarifies fiscal year 2004 funding for KBS railroad 

improvements. 

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 2004, need to be reauthorized for fiscal year 2005, and the 

budget request for the Federal Transit Administration reflects the 

administration’s reauthorization proposal. The budget request retains a separate account for administration and restructures the 

Federal transit programs into two accounts: Formula Grants and 

Research and Major Capital Investment Grants. In addition, the 

budget request proposes to consolidate funding from the general 

fund for the administration account and from the Highway Trust 

Fund for the proposed Formula Grants and Research account. 

The Committee recommendation provides sufficient funding and 

stability for the Federal Transit Administration pending completion 

of the reauthorization of the surface transportation programs. Consistent with the general guidance provided in the report, 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 is concerned that the singleminded 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 
95 

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 $7,758,000,000 is provided for the administrative expenses and programs of the Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 2005. 

This funding is comprised of $993,024,000 in appropriations from 

the general fund and $6,764,976,000 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 2004 and the administration’s request: 

Program 2004 enacted 1 2005 estimate Committee 

recommendation 

Administrative expenses .......................................................... $75,055,000 $79,931,000 $78,000,000 

Formula grants 2 ...................................................................... 3,766,645,000 .............................. 4,007,175,000

Formula grants and research .................................................. .............................. 5,622,871,000 ..............................

University transportation research .......................................... 5,965,000 .............................. 6,000,000 

Transit planning and research ................................................ 125,257,000 .............................. 128,000,000 

Capital investment grants 3 4 .................................................. 3,188,576,000 .............................. 3,413,825,000 

Major capital investment grants ............................................. .............................. 1,563,198,000 ..............................

Job access and reverse commute grants 3 ............................. 104,380,500 .............................. 125,000,000 

Total ............................................................................ 7,265,878,000 7,266,000,000 7,758,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $43,123,000 in fiscal year 2003 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

2 Fiscal year 2004 reflects transfer of $49,705,000 from Formula grants to Capital investment grants. 

3 Fiscal year 2004 reflects transfer of $19,882,000 from Job Access and Reverse Commute grants to Capital investment grants. 

4 Excludes transfers of unobligated balances of $4,514,482 from Job Access and Reverse Commute grants to Capital investment grants. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

General fund Trust fund 

Appropriations, 2004 1 ............................................................................................................ $15,010,910 $60,043,640 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................................................... 79,931,000 ........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................................................... 9,984,000 68,016,000 

1 Reflects total reduction of $445,000 pursuant to Division, H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect reduction of $654,519 

pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. The accompanying bill provides a total of $78,000,000 in new 

budget resources for the agency’s salaries and administrative expenses, which is comprised of an appropriation of $9,984,000 from 

the general fund and a limitation on obligations of $68,016,000 

from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. The recommended level of funding is $2,945,000 more than the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level. 

The specific levels of funding recommended by the Committee are 

as follows: 

Committee recommendation 

Office of the Administrator ................................................................................................................................ $900,000 

Office of Chief Counsel ...................................................................................................................................... 4,050,000 

Office of Civil Rights ......................................................................................................................................... 2,750,000 

Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs ...................................................................................... 1,210,000 

Office of Budget and Planning .......................................................................................................................... 6,700,000 
96 

Committee recommendation 

Office of Planning .............................................................................................................................................. 4,000,000 

Office of Program Management ......................................................................................................................... 7,120,000 

Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation ......................................................................................... 4,830,000 

Office of Administration ..................................................................................................................................... 6,725,000 

Central Account .................................................................................................................................................. 18,015,000 

Regional Offices ................................................................................................................................................. 19,200,000 

National Transit Database ................................................................................................................................. 2,500,000 

Budget Justifications.—The FTA is directed to submit its fiscal 

year 2005 congressional justification for administrative expenses by 

office, with material detailing salaries and expenses, staffing increases, and programmatic initiatives of each office. 

National Transit Database.—The Committee recommendation 

continues funding for the operation of the National Transit Database in the administrative expenses account. The budget request 

assumed funding for the National Transit Database to be set aside 

under the proposed Formula Grants and Research account. The 

Committee believes that the activities of the database are administrative in nature and therefore provides $2,500,000 for continued 

operation and maintenance of the National Transit Database. 

FORMULA GRANTS

General fund Trust fund 

Appropriations, 2004 1 .................................................................................................... $713,565,000 $3,053,079,920

Budget estimate, 2005 2 ................................................................................................. ............................ ............................

Committee recommendation ........................................................................................... 512,918,000 3,494,257,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $22,650,000 pursuant to Division, H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect FHWA flex funding transferred to FTA. 2 For comparative purposes $5,622,871,000 in Trust Funds is included in the fiscal year 2005 estimate for the proposed Formula Grants 

and Research account. 

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. The Committee recommends $4,007,175,000 for transit formula 

grants. The recommended level of funding is comprised of an appropriation of $512,918,000 from the general fund and 

$3,494,257,000 from a limitation on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. The recommendation is 

$190,825,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and provides approximately 5 percent growth in funding for formula 

grants. 

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 statutory set asides, the total 

level of funding among the formula categories as follows: 

Urbanized areas (sec, 5307) ......................................................................................................................... $3,604,215,608 
97 

Clean fuels (sec. 5308) ................................................................................................................................. 50,000,000 

Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310) .................................................................................................................. 94,689,001 

Nonurbanized areas (sec. 5311) .................................................................................................................... 251,320,391 

Over-the-Road Bus Program .......................................................................................................................... 6,950,000 

Alaska railroad ............................................................................................................................................... 4,825,700 

Section 3007 of TEA21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized formula 

grants, by striking the authorization to utilize these funds for operating costs, but includes a specific provision allowing the Secretary 

to make operating grants to urbanized areas with a population of 

less than 200,000. Generally, urbanized formula grants may be 

used to fund capital projects and to finance planning and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance used in mass transportation. All urbanized areas greater 

than 200,000 in population are statutorily required to use 1 percent 

of their annual formula grants on enhancements, which include 

landscaping, public art, bicycle storage, and connections to parks. 

Clean Fuels Program.—The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as extended, requires that $50,000,000 be set-aside 

from funds made available under the formula grants program to 

fund the clean fuels program. The clean fuels program is supplemented by an additional set-aside from the major capital investment’s bus program and provides grants for the purchase or lease 

of clean fuel buses for eligible recipients in areas that are not in 

compliance with air quality attainment standards. The Committee 

assumes continuation of the program for fiscal year 2005. 

Over-the-Road Buses.—The Committee has included $6,950,000 

in fiscal year 2005 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 2005 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 ................................................ $15,898,702 $6,990,843 $1,653,143 $24,542,688 

Alaska ................................................... 1 8,670,039 974,358 245,856 9,890,253 

America Samoa ..................................... .............................. 159,828 60,574 220,402 

Arizona .................................................. 46,617,920 3,410,398 1,726,433 51,754,751 

Arkansas ............................................... 8,253,732 5,056,871 1,073,452 14,384,055 

California .............................................. 614,884,086 10,746,168 9,939,916 635,570,170 

Colorado ................................................ 49,350,475 3,036,059 1,209,859 53,596,393 

Connecticut ........................................... 47,131,364 1,554,087 1,176,983 49,862,434 

Delaware ............................................... 6,451,578 704,605 363,974 7,520,157 

District of Columbia ............................. 72,418,262 .............................. 317,906 72,736,168 

Florida ................................................... 173,636,437 7,008,648 6,350,964 186,996,049 

Georgia .................................................. 70,536,840 8,861,223 2,400,181 81,798,244 

Guam .................................................... .............................. 431,869 158,779 590,648 

Hawaii ................................................... 27,700,370 1,047,905 493,060 29,241,335 

Idaho ..................................................... 5,955,172 1,925,341 471,699 8,352,212 

Illinois ................................................... 229,844,756 7,481,641 3,690,071 241,016,468 

Indiana .................................................. 36,721,488 7,447,419 1,955,634 46,124,541 

Iowa ...................................................... 13,354,885 5,053,750 1,022,083 19,430,718 

Kansas .................................................. 10,358,179 4,130,483 919,144 15,407,806 

Kentucky ................................................ 19,459,263 6,904,687 1,526,225 27,890,175 
98 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2005 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 

Louisiana .............................................. 30,806,655 5,393,621 1,519,637 37,719,913 

Maine .................................................... 3,198,322 2,680,881 552,739 6,431,942 

Maryland ............................................... 72,508,637 2,787,045 1,613,893 76,909,575 

Massachusetts ...................................... 131,297,338 1,991,801 2,133,714 135,422,853 

Michigan ............................................... 70,204,631 9,373,231 3,074,372 82,652,234 

Minnesota ............................................. 44,718,372 6,159,040 1,425,777 52,303,189 

Mississippi ............................................ 5,296,756 6,039,083 1,076,439 12,412,278 

Missouri ................................................ 39,486,640 6,987,147 1,868,942 48,342,729 

Montana ................................................ 2,696,343 1,863,561 396,982 4,956,886 

N. Mariana Islands ............................... 706,082 20,996 61,527 788,605 

Nebraska ............................................... 8,684,724 2,527,949 619,219 11,831,892 

Nevada .................................................. 25,109,731 898,158 750,690 26,758,579 

New Hampshire ..................................... 4,849,649 1,908,080 473,884 7,231,613 

New Jersey ............................................ 225,370,638 1,842,800 2,706,387 229,919,825 

New Mexico ........................................... 9,480,259 2,668,971 680,743 12,829,973 

New York ............................................... 571,605,629 9,685,603 6,378,466 587,669,698 

North Carolina ...................................... 38,879,660 11,963,735 2,681,178 53,524,573 

North Dakota ......................................... 3,191,712 1,147,717 319,670 4,659,099 

Ohio ....................................................... 90,857,300 11,275,793 3,590,431 105,723,524 

Oklahoma .............................................. 15,082,367 5,487,507 1,260,578 21,830,452 

Oregon ................................................... 38,047,194 4,031,974 1,170,555 43,249,723 

Pennsylvania ......................................... 157,200,959 11,354,481 4,233,205 172,788,645 

Puerto Rico ........................................... 44,960,403 925,975 1,461,102 47,347,480 

Rhode Island ......................................... 9,566,380 335,329 479,283 10,380,992 

South Carolina ...................................... 14,685,410 5,965,045 1,443,863 22,094,318 

South Dakota ........................................ 2,452,427 1,562,992 349,627 4,365,046 

Tennessee ............................................. 29,619,787 7,600,878 2,001,033 39,221,698 

Texas ..................................................... 205,012,213 16,894,688 5,910,386 227,817,287 

Utah ...................................................... 30,020,839 1,353,283 614,828 31,988,950 

Vermont ................................................. 1,090,348 1,404,539 302,586 2,797,473 

Virgin Islands ....................................... .............................. 303,002 152,013 455,015 

Virginia ................................................. 55,946,239 6,598,382 2,108,857 64,653,478 

Washington ........................................... 98,819,934 4,436,609 1,797,795 105,054,338 

West Virginia ........................................ 5,170,282 3,607,969 816,085 9,594,336 

Wisconsin .............................................. 40,883,944 7,033,496 1,644,213 49,561,653 

Wyoming ................................................ 1,443,178 1,026,245 262,366 2,731,789 

Subtotal ................................... 3,586,194,530 250,063,789 94,689,001 3,930,947,320 

Oversight ............................................... 18,021,078 1,256,602 .............................. 19,277,680 

Total ........................................ 3,604,215,608 251,320,391 94,689,001 3,950,225,000 

Over-the-Road Bus Program ................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 6,950,000 

Clean Fuels ........................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. 50,000,000 

Grand Total ............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. 4,007,175,000 

1 Includes $4,825,700 to Alaska Railroad for improvements to passenger operations. 

UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

General fund Trust fund 

Appropriations, 2004 1 ................................................................................................................ $1,193,000 $4,771,680 

Budget estimate, 2005 2 ............................................................................................................. ...................... ......................

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................................... 768,000 5,232,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $35,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

2 For comparison purposes, $6,000,000 included in proposed ‘‘Formula Grants and Research’’ account. 

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 train-
99 

ing 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 following universities: University of Minnesota and 

Northwestern University. Funding is also statutorily available for 

awards based on competitive applications of approved universities. 

The Committee action provides $6,000,000 to continue the university transportation research program. The recommended funding level is comprised of an appropriation of $768,000 from the general fund and $5,232,000 from a limitation on obligations from the 

mass transit account of the highway trust fund. The Committee 

recommendation is the same as the fiscal year 2004 enacted level 

and is consistent with the level of funding during the authorization 

period covered by TEA21. 

TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH

General fund Trust fund 

Appropriations, 2004 1 2 ............................................................................................................ $25,051,000 $100,205,280 

Budget estimate, 2005 3 ........................................................................................................... ........................ ......................

Committee recommendation ..................................................................................................... 16,384,000 111,616,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $743,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

2 Does not reflect FHWA flex funding transferred to FTA. 

3 For comparative purposes, total program level of $190,437,000 is request as included in proposed ‘‘Formula Grants and Research’’ ac- count and appropriations in the ‘‘Major Capital Investment Grants.’’ 

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. 

The Committee action provides $128,000,000 for transit planning 

and research. The recommended level of funding is comprised of an 

appropriation of $16,384,000 from the general fund and a limitation on obligations from the mass transit of the highway trust fund 

of $111,616,000. 

The accompanying bill specifies that $5,250,000 is available for 

rural transportation assistance; $4,000,000 for the National Transit 

Institute at Rutgers University; $8,250,000 for transit cooperative 

research; $60,385,600 for metropolitan planning; $12,614,400 for 

State planning; and, $37,500,000 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 technology concepts, University of Kansas ............................................................................ $500,000 

Center for composite manufacturing, AL ............................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Chester County transit security training facility, PA .......................................................................................... 150,000 
100 

Project Amount 

Fischer-Tropsch clean diesel technology demonstration, OK .............................................................................. 900,000 

hOurCar, MN ......................................................................................................................................................... 100,000 

Lehigh Carbon Community College transit first responder training facility ...................................................... 100,000 

Low cost carbon fiber production technology, University of Tennessee ............................................................. 500,000 

Nanostructured catalysts for hydrogen fuel cells (CATV UA) .............................................................................. 1,000,000 

National Bio-Terrorism Civilian Medical Response Center, PA ........................................................................... 750,000 

NDSU Transit Center for Small Urban Areas, ND ................................................................................................ 400,000 

Pawtucket train depot rehabilitation initiative, RI .............................................................................................. 235,000 

Phillipsburg to Northeastern NJ/NYC commuter rail study, NJ ........................................................................... 400,000 

Project Action ....................................................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Sitting Bull College bus facility planning, SD .................................................................................................... 65,000 

Southern Fuel Cell Coalition ................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Statewide multimodal trip planner Initiative, WA ............................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Transit access CUMTD initiative, IL .................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Transit technology career ladder partnership training program ......................................................................... 500,000 

WVU exhaust emissions testing initiative, WV .................................................................................................... 1,400,000 

FORMULA GRANTS AND RESEARCH

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Obligation limitation, 2004 ................................................................... ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... $5,622,871,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

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. Formula grants to States and 

local agencies under the administration’s proposal would include 

the following categories: urbanized areas (49 U.S.C. sec. 5307), 

fixed guideway modernization, special needs of elderly individuals 

and individuals with disabilities (49 U.S.C. sec. 5310), non-urbanized areas (49 U.S.C. sec. 5311), and the New Freedom Initiative. 

The administration’s budget also proposes to distribute funding for 

Job Access and Reverse Commute by formula instead of as a competitive program. Finally, set-asides of formula funds are directed 

to: the bus testing program, authorized under 49 U.S.C. section 

5318; the National Transit Database; a grant program for intercity 

bus operations to finance Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] accessibility costs; and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its 

passenger operations. 

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. On February 12, the U.S. Senate passed the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act of 2003 to reauthorize the surface transportation programs. 

The Committee notes the reauthorization Act passed by the U.S. 

Senate does not consolidate current transit programs and does not 

change the distribution of current discretionary and competitive 

programs to formula apportionments. 
101 

TRUST FUND SHARE OF EXPENSES

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

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. The Committee recommends $6,764,976,000 in liquidating cash 

for the administrative expenses and programs of the Federal Transit Administration, which is $6,435,970,000 more than the budget 

estimate and $952,274,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted 

level. The recommended level is equal to limitations on obligations 

included for fiscal year 2005 and is necessary to meet the accounting principles of the highway trust fund. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

General funds Trust funds 

Appropriations, 2004 1 2 ...................................................................................................... $693,385,000 $2,495,191,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 3 ..................................................................................................... 1,234,192,000 329,006,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 436,970,000 2,976,855,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $18,511,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

2 Includes $49,705,000 transferred from Formula Grants and $19,882,000 transferred from Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants pursuant to Public Law 108–199. 3 For comparative purposes, $1,563,198,000 is listed for the proposed new Major Capital Investment Grant Account, of which 

$1,234,192,000 are General Funds, $329,006,000 are Trust Funds. 

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. 

The Committee action provides a level of $3,413,825,000. Within 

this total, $2,976,855,000 is derived from the mass transit account 

of the highway trust fund and $436,970,000 is appropriated from 

the general fund. 

The Committee provides that funding for capital investment 

grants shall be distributed as follows: 

Amount 

Bus and bus facilities ......................................................................................................................................... $725,000,000 

Fixed guideway modernization ............................................................................................................................. 1,214,400,000 

New starts ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,474,425,000 

BUS AND BUS FACILITIES

The Committee recommendation for bus and bus facilities funding is $725,000,000. 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 cap-
102 

ital 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 2002 or previous Acts for 

the following bus and bus facilities projects: 

Norwich bus terminal and pedestrian access, CT; 

East Haddam transportation vehicles and transit facilities, CT; 

Indianapolis Downtown transit facility, IN; 

Lake Charles bus and bus-related facilities, LA; 

Springfield Union Station intermodal facility, MA; 

Blue Water Area Transportation Commission bus facilities, MI; 

Las Cruces intermodal transit facility, NM; 

Oglala Sioux Tribe buses and bus facilities, SD; 

Montgomery Rosa Parks bus project, AL; 

State dock intermodal passenger and freight terminal bus and 

bus related facilities, AL; 

Statewide buses and bus facilities, KS; 

Cab Care paratransit facility, MO; 

Missouri Pacific Depot, MO; 

Brookhaven multi-modal facility, MS; 

Hattiesburg intermodal facility, MS; 

Granite CNG buses and facilities, NH; 

Wilkes-Barre Intermodal Transportation Center, PA; 

Butler County multi-modal transfer center, PA; 

Callowhill bus garage replacement, PA; 

County of Lackawanna bus facility, PA; 

Hershey intermodal transportation center, PA; 

Monroe County park and ride, PA; 

Cherry Street multi-modal facility, IN; 

Memphis intermodal facility, TN; and 

Southern Teton Area, WY—bus facility. 

Pooled Purchase Pilot Projects.—The Committee directs the Administrator to continue the pilot program that was authorized by 

section 166 of the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, for cooperative procurement of 

major capital equipment under sections 5307, 5309, and 5311. The 

Committee intends that the program be administered as required 

under subsections (b) through (g) of section 166. However, given 

the level of interest in this program, the Committee believes there 

should be a total of five pilot projects. 

The Committee expects the Administrator to evaluate the proposals based on the selection criteria set forth in the announcement 

of the program and request for proposals (Federal Register Notice—Vol. 69, No. 120 Page 35127, June 23, 2004). The Committee 

also expects the Administrator to review proposals expeditiously, so 

that the proposing party receives notification of acceptance or denial by no later than 15 days after the FTA receives the request 

for review. 

Finally, the Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the results of each of the five pilot projects. Each report should be submitted no later than 30 days after delivery of the base order for the 
103 

pilot project in question. Each report should evaluate any savings 

realized through the cooperative procurement and the benefits of 

incorporating cooperative procurement, as shown by that project, 

into the mass transit program as a whole. 

Bus Procurement Process.—Federal, State, and local governments 

spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to procure transit buses and bus equipment. The Committee is interested in ensuring that grants for bus and bus facilities are made in a judicious 

manner, particularly since these investments are funded with a 

Federal share of 80 percent. 

There has been a rapid increase in new technology in buses between 1980 and 1990, and an even greater increase between 1990 

and 2000. The enormous number of technological options available 

has led to extremely complex procurements. It has also resulted in 

dramatic increases in the initial capital cost of bus procurement. 

Besides raising the cost of the procurement, exceedingly customized bus specifications cause production problems for bus manufacturers. Bus manufacturing is a low-margin business, so financial difficulties due to customization are hard to absorb. In addition 

to the problems for manufacturers, maintenance on highly individualized buses can create operational issues for transit agencies, in 

terms of training required as well as the ability to find and retain 

maintenance staff. 

Standard bus procurement guidelines—painstakingly negotiated—do exist. However, there are numerous forces in play, other 

than the sheer volume of options, that lead to deviations from those 

guidelines. For example, transit agencies often suggest that they 

have unique operating situations that require deviations. 

Brand loyalty is also a factor in the procurement of buses, and 

can adversely affect the cost-effectiveness of procurements. Some 

transit agencies specify makes and models for components such as 

engines and braking systems. When a brand name is specified, 

there is little or no incentive for suppliers to negotiate on price. 

The resultant increased component costs are passed through to the 

transit agency and ultimately absorbed by the Federal Government. 

Many transit agencies seem to have significant portions of their 

fleet originating from one manufacturer. The Committee is especially concerned that some recipients of Federal transit assistance 

have steered procurements to specific manufacturers. The Committee questions how much weight fleet stability should receive in 

awarding bus contracts that are paid for predominately from Federal transit funding. 

Finally, transit agencies come under political pressure to procure 

buses from a local manufacturer, regardless of whether that manufacturer is the best choice or the lowest cost provider. 

With this in mind, the Committee directs the Office of Inspector 

General of the Department of Transportation to conduct a study of 

the processes used by recipients of assistance under chapter 53, 

title 49, United States Code, to procure buses. Because of the potential for irregularities compromising the integrity of the procurement process, the Committee believes it important to have the 

study carried out by an agency with criminal investigatory powers. 
104 

The study should include, but not be limited to, the six most recent bus procurements completed by recipients of assistance under 

chapter 53, title 49, as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

The Inspector General is also directed to consider the following 

cost-related issues: 

—To what extent terms and conditions, including but not limited 

to those regarding performance surety bonds and liquidated 

damages, are themselves cost factors in vehicle pricing; 

—To what extent specifying makes and models of components 

adds to vehicle costs; 

—To what extent departing from the standard bus procurement 

guidelines adds to vehicle costs; and 

—Any other factors that the Inspector General finds may adversely affect competition, thereby unduly driving down the 

cost-effectiveness of the Federal investment. 

The Committee is particularly concerned that many recipients require performance surety bonds and liquidated damages at levels 

out of proportion to likely risks to the buyer. Therefore, in examining terms and conditions, the Inspector General should take care 

to evaluate the appropriateness of the amounts commonly required 

for performance surety bonds and liquidated damages and determine whether they unduly raise the cost of buses to be procured. 

The Inspector General is also directed to examine the extent to 

which recipients of assistance under chapter 53, title 49, utilize the 

same manufacturer for 20 percent or more of their fleets or steer 

procurements to specific manufacturers; the reasons for doing so; 

and the effect this usage has on the competitive process. 

Finally, the Committee expects to receive a report of the results 

of this study within 1 year of enactment of this Act. The report 

should include, but not be limited to: (1) a description of the problems in the procurement process identified by the study and (2) recommendations to Congress concerning actions needed to address 

such problems. 

Hoover and Vestavia Hills, Alabama.—Funds provided in fiscal 

year 2003 to the cities of Hoover and Vestavia Hills for diesel hybrid buses shall instead be available to procure alternative fuel 

buses. 

Reno Bus Rapid Transit High-Capacity Articulated Buses.— 

Amounts made available in fiscal year 2002 for the Reno bus rapid 

transit high-capacity articulated buses shall be available for the 

Reno/Sparks intermodal transportation terminals and related joint 

development. 

Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District Electric Bus Investment.—Amounts made available in fiscal year 2004 for the Santa 

Barbara Metropolitan Transit District electric bus investment in 

California shall be made available to the Ventura County Transportation Commission to fulfill the intent of this project. 

South Bend Intermodal Facility.—Amounts previously obligated 

in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 shall be made available for 

the South Street Station project in South Bend, Indiana. 

Greater New Haven Transit District CNG Vehicle Project.— 

Amounts made available in fiscal year 2002 for CNG vehicles for 

the Greater New Haven Transit District shall be available for alternative fuel vehicles for the GNHTD. 
105 

Jackson, Wyoming.—Funds designated for the Southern Teton 

Area Rapid Transit bus facility in fiscal year 2002, shall instead be 

made available to the Town of Jackson, Wyoming, for the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and related equipment 

and the construction of bus-related facilities. 

FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

The Committee recommends a total of $1,214,400,000 for the 

modernization of existing rail transit systems. The Committee action continues the practice under TEA21, as extended, to distribute 

the funds by formula. The following table itemizes the fiscal year 

2005 rail modernization allocations by State: 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION 

APPORTIONMENTS 

State Amount 

Alaska ................................................................................................................................................................... $2,115,870 

Arizona .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,361,176 

California .............................................................................................................................................................. 147,724,101 

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA .................................................................................................... 34,583,358 

San Francisco-Oakland, CA ........................................................................................................................ 66,777,607 

San Diego, CA ............................................................................................................................................. 13,574,750 

San Jose, CA ............................................................................................................................................... 13,306,474 

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA ..................................................................................................................... 3,636,184 

Sacramento, CA ........................................................................................................................................... 3,196,161 

Concord, CA ................................................................................................................................................. 7,778,640 

Mission Viejo, CA ........................................................................................................................................ 1,291,472 

Oxnard, CA .................................................................................................................................................. 1,093,925 

Lancaster-Palmdale, CA .............................................................................................................................. 1,885,035 

Thousand Oaks, CA ..................................................................................................................................... 600,495 

Colorado ............................................................................................................................................................... 3,126,150 

Connecticut .......................................................................................................................................................... 40,942,085 

Southwestern Connecticut ........................................................................................................................... 39,334,715 

Hartford, CT ................................................................................................................................................. 1,607,370 

District of Columbia ............................................................................................................................................. 50,261,990 

Florida .................................................................................................................................................................. 18,197,629 

Miami, FL .................................................................................................................................................... 17,967,020 

Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL ........................................................................................................................... 121,469 

Jacksonville, FL ........................................................................................................................................... 109,140 

Georgia ................................................................................................................................................................. 27,429,753 

Hawaii .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,150,273 

Illinois ................................................................................................................................................................... 134,603,901 

Chicago, IL-IN ............................................................................................................................................. 132,435,068 

Round Lake Beach-McHenry-Grayslake, IL-WI ............................................................................................ 2,168,833 

Indiana ................................................................................................................................................................. 8,713,586 

Chicago, IL-IN ............................................................................................................................................. 7,983,380 

South Bend, IN-MI ....................................................................................................................................... 730,206 

Louisiana .............................................................................................................................................................. 2,855,997 

Maryland ............................................................................................................................................................... 28,254,850 

Baltimore Commuter Rail ........................................................................................................................... 18,840,867 

Baltimore, MD ............................................................................................................................................. 9,413,983 

Massachusetts ..................................................................................................................................................... 74,715,321 

Boston, MA-NH-RI ....................................................................................................................................... 71,063,849 

Providence, RI-MA ....................................................................................................................................... 2,696,848 

Worcester, MA-CT ........................................................................................................................................ 954,624 

Michigan ............................................................................................................................................................... 608,258 

Minnesota ............................................................................................................................................................. 6,144,908 

Missouri ................................................................................................................................................................ 4,328,750 

St. Louis, MO-IL .......................................................................................................................................... 4,297,789 

Kansas City, MO-KS .................................................................................................................................... 30,961 

New Jersey ............................................................................................................................................................ 103,893,255 

Northeastern New Jersey ............................................................................................................................. 86,354,458 
106 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION 

APPORTIONMENTS—Continued 

State Amount 

Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD ......................................................................................................................... 14,566,124 

Trenton, NJ .................................................................................................................................................. 1,406,716 

Atlantic City, NJ .......................................................................................................................................... 1,565,957 

New York .............................................................................................................................................................. 368,538,253 

New York ..................................................................................................................................................... 367,213,399 

Buffalo, NY .................................................................................................................................................. 1,324,857 

Ohio ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17,826,760 

Cleveland, OH .............................................................................................................................................. 12,822,271 

Dayton, OH .................................................................................................................................................. 5,004,489 

Oregon .................................................................................................................................................................. 4,293,510 

Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................................................................ 101,222,045 

Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD ......................................................................................................................... 79,975,985 

Pittsburgh, PA ............................................................................................................................................. 20,496,349 

Harrisburg, PA ............................................................................................................................................. 749,711 

Puerto Rico ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,310,745 

Rhode Island ........................................................................................................................................................ 82,724 

Tennessee ............................................................................................................................................................. 294,402 

Memphis, TN-MS-AR ................................................................................................................................... 208,532 

Chattanooga, TN-GA .................................................................................................................................... 85,870 

Texas .................................................................................................................................................................... 10,253,005 

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX .................................................................................................................. 3,240,837 

Houston, TX ................................................................................................................................................. 7,012,168 

Virginia ................................................................................................................................................................. 16,559,531 

Washington, DC-VA-MD ............................................................................................................................... 15,294,768 

Virginia Beach, VA ...................................................................................................................................... 1,264,763 

Washington ........................................................................................................................................................... 22,684,306 

Wisconsin ............................................................................................................................................................. 762,866 

Total Apportioned .................................................................................................................................... 1,202,256,000 

Oversight (1 percent) ............................................................................................................................. 12,144,000 

Grand Total ............................................................................................................................................. 1,214,400,000 

NEW STARTS

The bill provides $1,474,425,000 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. 

FTA Restrictions on Funding for Non-FFGA Projects.—The Committee is troubled by the actions taken last year by FTA to withhold the release of appropriated funds for new start projects that 

have received more than $25,000,000 in Federal funding prior to 

receiving a full funding grant agreement. This significant shift in 

policy is based on a reinterpretation of the requirements of Sections 

5309(e)(6), (7), and (8) of title 49 U.S.C. The Committee continues 

to question the timing of a significant policy change The Committee 

also questions the conclusions considering that subsection (8) was 

designed more as a relief from Federal regulatory scrutiny than as 

a cap on pre-project planning. 
107 

The accompanying bill continues a general 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 

$25,000,000 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 expeditiously release 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. 

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 2002 or previous Acts for 

the following new starts projects: 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-Schuylkill Valley Metro Project; 

Johnson County, Kansas-Kansas City, Missouri I–35 Commuter 

Rail Project; 

Kensoha-Racine-Milwaukee Rail Extension Project; 

Sioux City, Iowa Light Rail Project; 

Honolulu, Hawaii Bus Rapid Transit Project; 

Puget Sound, Washington RTA Sounder Commuter Rail Project; 

Greater Albuquerque Mass Rail Transit Project; 

Roaring Fork Valley Project; 

Birmingham, Al, Transit Corridor; 

Northeast Indianapolis, Indiana Downtown Corridor Project; and 

Dulles Corridor Project. 

MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

General fund Trust fund 

Appropriations, 2004 ......................................................................................................... .............................. ........................

Budget estimate, 2005 ..................................................................................................... $1,234,192,000 $329,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................. .............................. ........................

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. 

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. The Committee notes that the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, as passed by 
108 

the Senate, does not follow the programmatic or budgetary account 

changes envisioned by the fiscal year 2005 budget request. 

JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS

General fund Trust fund 

Appropriations, 2004 1 ............................................................................................................ $4,971,000 $99,410,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................................................... 21,112,000 103,888,000 

1 Reflects total reduction of $737,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199 and reflects transfer of $19,882,000 to 

Capital investment grants. 

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. 

The budget requests funding for job access grants within the formula grants and research account. The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for the Job Access and 

Reverse Commute Grants program. Of the total recommended 

amount of funding, $21,112,000 is appropriated from the general 

fund and $103,888,000 is a limitation on obligations from the mass 

transit account of the highway trust fund. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160 exempts limitations previously made available on obligations for programs of the FTA under 49 U.S.C. 5338. 

Section 161 allows funds under this Act, Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment grants not obligated by September 30, 

2007 to be made available for other projects under 40 U.S.C. 5309. 

Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1, 2004, 

that remain available for expenditure may be transferred. 

Section 163 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 164 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 165 expands authorization allowing cooperative procurement of major capital equipment to five pilot projects. 

Section 166 allows amounts previously made available the Port 

Authority of Allegheny County for the Airport Busway/Wabash 

HOV Facility project that remain unexpended to be used to purchase buses and bus-related equipment in accordance with 49 

U.S.C. 5309. 

Section 167 relates to the Greater New Haven Transit District 

and transfers bus project funding to the transit research account. 

Section 168 allows amounts previously made available to 

Matanuska Susitna Borough for a ferry boat and ferry facilities 

project to be used for the Port MacKenzie Intermodal Facility 

project. 

Section 169 allows Honolulu bus funds to be made available for 

transit and highway projects. 

Section 170 relates to funding for passenger ferry boats for the 

State of Hawaii. 
109 

Section 171 directs the FTA to comply with the coordinated development and governmental funding requirements of Section 3042 

of the Federal Transit Act of 1988. 

Section 172 extends the calculation of local contributions toward 

the San Francisco Muni 3rd Street project. 

Section 173 relates to Vermont Commuter Rail project and transfers funding to upgrade an existing rail project. 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC] 

is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. 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. The SLSDC’s major priorities include: safety, 

reliability, trade development, and management accountability. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $14,315,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 15,900,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,900,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $85,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

Does not reflect reduction of $42,006 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108– 

199. 

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. 

The Committee recommendation includes $15,900,000 to fund 

the operations and maintenance of the SLSDC. This amount is the 

same as the President’s request and is $1,585,000 above the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level. The Committee recommendation provides 

sufficient funding for the SLSDC’s highest capital priorities. This 

amount will allow the start of a 4-year, concrete replacement 

project that is critical to the future operation of the two U.S. locks. 

The Committee recommendation provides sufficient resources for 

the SLSDC to continue to implement additional security measures 

for the Saint Lawrence Seaway. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended. 

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 
110 

DOD access to commercial and strategic sealift and associated 

intermodal capacity. MARAD also continues to address the disposal 

of over 123 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 

help provide 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, and to help MARAD meet its 

management challenge to dispose of obsolete merchant-type vessels 

in the National Defense Reserve Fleet by the end of 2006. 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $98,118,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 98,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 98,700,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $582,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends $98,700,000 for the Maritime Security Program, consistent with the budget request. 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $106,366,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 109,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 110,910,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $631,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect reduction of $691,876 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108– 

199. 

The Operations and Training appropriation primarily funds the 

salaries and expenses for MARAD headquarters and regional staff 

in the administration and direction for all MARAD programs. The 

account includes funding for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, 

six State maritime schools, port and intermodal development, cargo 

preference, international trade relations, deep-water port licensing, 

and administrative support costs. 

The Committee recommends $110,910,000 for Operations and 

Training for fiscal year 2005. The recommendation is $1,610,000 

above the President’s budget request and $4,544,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee has included 

$13,138,000 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 is sufficient to 

maintain the operating costs incurred by headquarters and region 

staffs in administering and directing the Maritime Administration 

programs. The Committee recommendation provides sufficient re-
111 

sources to cover the total cost 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; to promote port and intermodal development activities; support MARAD 

responsibilities under the American Fisheries Act; and facilitate 

Federal technology assessment projects designed to achieve advancements in ship design, construction and operations. 

Funds provided for this account are to be distributed as follows: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Activity Fiscal Year 2005 

Request 

Committee 

Recommendation 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy: 

Salary and benefits ................................................................................................ 23,753 23,753 

Midshipmen program ............................................................................................. 6,303 6,303 

Instructional program ............................................................................................ 3,448 3,448 

Program direction and administration .................................................................. 2,945 2,945 

Maintenance, repair, and operating requirements ................................................ 6,327 6,327 

Capital improvements ............................................................................................ 13,138 13,138 

Subtotal, USMMA ............................................................................................... 55,914 55,914 

State Maritime Schools: 

Student incentive payments .................................................................................. 1,200 1,200 

Direct schoolship payments ................................................................................... 1,200 1,200 

Schoolship maintenance and repair ...................................................................... 8,090 8,090 

Subtotal, State Maritime Academies ................................................................ 10,490 10,490 

MARAD Operations: 

Salaries and benefits ............................................................................................ 26,112 26,112 

Non-salary base budget ........................................................................................ 10,448 10,448 

GSA Space increase ............................................................................................... 94 94 

Infrastructure Enhancements ................................................................................ 150 150 

DOT Working Capital Fund (IT Consolidation) ....................................................... 5,926 5,926 

Information Management System .......................................................................... ............................ 1,000 

Set-aside for DOT E-Gov costs .............................................................................. 166 166 

Security Training Center ........................................................................................ ............................ 610 

Subtotal, MARAD Operations ............................................................................. 42,896 44,506 

Total, Operations and Training ......................................................................... 109,300 110,910 

Maritime Information Management System.—The DOT estimated 

that the volume of domestic and international maritime trade will 

more than double over the next 20 years. This increase in traffic 

volume will contribute to unmanaged congestion on the inter-coastal waterways and poses a potential security risk. To better understand and prepare to address this very critical issue, the Committee directs the Maritime Administration to prepare a conditions 

and performance report and needs assessment on the inland waterway system. Furthermore, the Maritime Administration is directed 

to initiate the development of an integrated marine transportation 

system information management system. The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to immediately begin this effort. 

Maritime Security Professional Training Center.—In support of 

Section 109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Committee has included $610,000 as a one-time appropriation for the 

relocation and reconfiguration of the CAPE CHALMERS from the 
112 

National Defense Reserve Fleet to the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center in Charleston, South Carolina to establish a maritime security professional training center. The Committee is encouraged that MARAD is working with the Department of Homeland Security to expand their maritime security professional training curriculum to include any Federal, State, local, and private law 

enforcement or security personnel. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $16,115,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 21,616,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,616,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $96,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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 130 ships awaiting disposal. 

These vessels, many of which are 50 years in age, pose a significant 

environmental threat due to the presence of hazardous substances 

such as asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls 

[PCBs]. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,616,000 for 

ship disposal. This amount is the same as the budget request and 

$5,501,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $4,471,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 4,764,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,764,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $27,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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, 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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,764,000 for 

the Title XI, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program. This amount is 

the same as the administration’s 2005 budget request and $293,000 

above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 
113 

NATIONAL DEFENSE TANK VESSEL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2004 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $150,000,000 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $150,000,000 for 

the National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program. The 

budget estimate proposed no funding for this program. 

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. 

In addition, this program addresses a critical deficiency, as identified by the Department of Defense, for U.S.-flag tankers capable 

of carrying multiple petroleum cargoes. The Committee notes that 

the U.S. military was forced to rely on foreign-flag, foreign-crewed 

tankers during recent military operations in Afghanistan because 

of the shortage of U.S. flag tankers. In at least one instance, an 

Iraqi-crewed support ship provided support to the U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. 

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. 

SHIP CONSTRUCTION

(RESCISSION)

The Committee rescinds $1,900,000 of unobligated balances from 

the Ship Construction Account which is currently inactive. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 180 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 181 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. 

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

The Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA] was 

established by the Secretary of Transportation’s organizational 

changes dated July 20, 1977, and serves as a research, analytic, 

and technical development arm of the Department for multimodal 
114 

research and development, as well as special programs. Particular 

emphasis is given to pipeline transportation and the transportation 

of hazardous cargo by all modes. RSPA’s two reimbursable programs—Transportation Safety Institute and the Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center—support research safety and security programs for all modes of transportation. 

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $46,167,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 52,936,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 49,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $274,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect reduction of $438,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108– 

199. 

The Research and Special Programs Account provides funding for 

the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, the Office of Emergency 

Transportation, the Office of Research and Technology, and RSPA’s 

Program and Administrative Support function. 

The Committee provides a total of $49,000,000 for the Research 

and Special Programs account, of which, consistent with the budget 

request, $645,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund. 

This amount is $3,936,000 less than the budget request and 

$2,833,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. Within 

this amount the Committee provides the following level of funding 

and FTEs: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2004 enacted 2005 estimate 

Hazardous materials safety ................................................................. $23,535,000 $25,486,000 $24,496,000 

(FTE) ............................................................................................ 140.5 149.5 148 

Emergency transportation .................................................................... $2,705,000 $4,323,000 $3,800,000 

(FTE) ............................................................................................ 13.5 22.0 18 

Research and technology ..................................................................... $2,492,000 $2,597,000 $2,383,000 

(FTE) ............................................................................................ 8.5 9.5 9 

Program and administrative support .................................................. $17,435,000 $20,530,000 $18,321,000 

(FTE) ............................................................................................ 56.5 63.0 59.0 

Total, research and special programs 1 ................................ $46,167,000 $52,936,000 $49,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $274,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect reduction of $438,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108–199. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety [OHMS] administers a 

nationwide program of safety regulations to fulfill the Secretary’s 

duty to protect the Nation from the risks to life, health, and property that are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials 

by water, air, highway, and railroad. OHMS plans, implements, 

and manages the hazardous materials transportation program consisting of information systems, research and analysis, inspection 

and enforcement, rulemaking support, training and information 

dissemination, and emergency procedures. 

The Committee provides $24,496,000 for hazardous materials 

safety, of which $1,732,000 will remain available until September 

30, 2007. Within this amount the Committee provides the following 

funding levels: 
115 

Amount 

Personnel Compensation & Benefits [PC&B] ...................................................................................................... $15,500,000 

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 1,350,000 

Hazmat Information System [HMIS] ..................................................................................................................... 1,800,000 

Contract Research and Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 600,000 

Inspection and Enforcement ................................................................................................................................ 220,000 

Rulemaking Support ............................................................................................................................................. 450,000 

Training and Outreach ......................................................................................................................................... 1,300,000 

Emergency Preparedness ..................................................................................................................................... 375,000 

Hazmat Registration Program .............................................................................................................................. 1,200,000 

Information Systems ............................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Research and Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 651,000 

Regulation Compliance ........................................................................................................................................ 550,000 

The Committee has provided funding for eight new positions 

within OHMS: four hazardous materials regulation compliance personnel; and two engineers, one policy personnel and one enforcement personnel related to the transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

[SNF] and High Level Radioactive Waste [HLW]. The Committee 

has provided less than the requested amount for OHMS because it 

believes that the resources provided are sufficient for the tasks to 

be performed. 

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION

The Office of Emergency Transportation [OET] provides support 

to the Secretary of Transportation for his statutory and administrative responsibilities in the area of transportation civil emergency 

preparedness and response. OET develops and coordinates the Department’s policies, plans, and programs, in headquarters and the 

field to provide for emergency preparedness. 

OET is responsible for implementing the Department of Transportation’s National Security Program initiatives, including an assessment of the transportation implications of the changing global 

threat. OET also coordinates civil emergency preparedness and response for transportation services during national and regional 

emergencies, across the entire continuum of crises, including natural catastrophes such as earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados, 

and international and domestic terrorism. OET develops crisis 

management plans to mitigate disasters and implements these 

plans nationally and regionally in an emergency. 

The Committee provides $3,800,000 for OET. Within this amount 

the Committee provides the following funding levels: 

Function Amount FTEs 

Crisis Management Center ................................................................................................. $1,200,000 8 

U.S. Disaster Response ....................................................................................................... 1,500,000 5 .5 

Training and Exercises ........................................................................................................ 500,000 1 

Continuity of Operations ..................................................................................................... 500,000 2 .5 

International Disaster Response ......................................................................................... 100,000 1 

Total ....................................................................................................................... 3,800,000 18 

The Committee has provided funding for two new positions within OET: one Regional Emergency Transportation Coordinator 

[RETCO]; and one Continuation of Operations [COOP] personnel. 

Because the Committee believes that the current rotational staffing 

of the OET’s Crisis Management Center [CMC] is sufficient, the 
116 

Committee denies the funding requested for these eight new positions. 

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

The Office of Research and Technology [ORT] is responsible for 

managing department-wide strategic transportation research, technology, education and training programs; performing strategic 

planning; conducting system-level assessments and policy research; 

facilitating government, university and industry partnerships; fostering innovative inter/multi-modal research, education and safety 

training; and disseminating information on departmental, national 

and international transportation research, technology and education activities. 

The Committee provides $2,383,000 for ORT, of which $1,152,000 

will remain available until September 30, 2007. Within this 

amount the Committee provides the following funding levels: 

Amount 

Personnel Compensation & Benefits [PC&B] ...................................................................................................... $1,131,000 

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 100,000 

Hazardous Materials Research and Development ............................................................................................... 85,000 

Hydrogen Fuels R&D ............................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Research and Development Planning and Management .................................................................................... 567,000 

The Committee denies the funding requested for an additional 

hydrogen fuel engineer, as well as the requested increase in funding for hydrogen fuel research. In light of the extensive level of resources already devoted to hydrogen fuel research by the Department of Energy, the Committee believes that the as-yet-unfilled hydrogen fuel engineer position authorized in fiscal year 2004 and the 

$500,000 already budgeted for hydrogen fuel research provides a 

sufficient commitment of DOT resources for this initiative in fiscal 

year 2005. 

PROGRAM AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

RSPA’s program support function provides legal, financial, management and administrative support to the operating offices within 

RSPA. These support activities include executive direction, program and policy support, civil rights and special programs, legal 

services and support, and management and administration. 

The Committee provides $18,321,000 for program and administrative support. Within this amount the Committee provides the 

following funding levels: 

Amount 

Personnel Compensation and Benefits ................................................................................................................ $7,350,000 

GSA Rent .............................................................................................................................................................. 2,925,000 

Working Capital Fund .......................................................................................................................................... 2,490,000 

Admin costs for all new RSP employees ............................................................................................................. 200,000 

Communications, Utilities, Misc. ......................................................................................................................... 700,000 

Accounting ............................................................................................................................................................ 120,000 

Training ................................................................................................................................................................ 100,000 

Travel .................................................................................................................................................................... 50,000 

Equipment ............................................................................................................................................................ 50,000 

Printing ................................................................................................................................................................. 20,000 

Training ................................................................................................................................................................ 20,000 

Supplies ................................................................................................................................................................ 20,000 
117 

Amount 

Budget and Financial Management .................................................................................................................... 200,000 

Civil Rights: Drug Program .................................................................................................................................. 5,000 

Civil Rights: Intern Program ................................................................................................................................ 51,000 

Human Resources Support Systems .................................................................................................................... 20,000 

Information Resources Management ................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Information Technology Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

The Committee provides the funding requested for three additional information technology [IT] positions as well as the funding 

requested for additional IT contractual support. The Committee 

notes RSPA’s assurance that these additional resources will be sufficient to fulfill its IT needs for the foreseeable future and accordingly looks forward to receiving subsequent budget requests that 

reflect this assurance. 

The Committee believes that the funding provided, which reflects an $886,000 increase over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level, is sufficient to allow RSPA to carry out its administrative functions. Accordingly, the Committee denies the funding requested for eight 

new administrative personnel. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Pipeline safety 

fund Trust fund Total 

Appropriations, 2004 1 ............................................................................... $52,991,000 $12,923,000 $65,914,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 .............................................................................. 51,073,000 19,000,000 70,073,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 52,073,000 19,000,000 71,073,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $391,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect reduction of $314,000 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Research and Special Programs Administration is responsible for overseeing the Department of Transportation’s pipeline 

safety program. In doing so, RSPA supervises the safety, security, 

and environmental protection of gas and hazardous liquids pipeline 

systems, as well as liquefied natural gas facilities, through analysis 

of data, damage prevention, education and training, enforcement of 

regulations and standards, research and development, grants for 

State pipeline safety programs, and emergency planning and response to accidents. Also included is research and development to 

support the pipeline safety program and grants-in-aid to State 

agencies that conduct a qualified pipeline safety program and to 

others who operate one-call programs. 

Funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is made available 

from two primary sources: the Pipeline Safety Fund, comprised of 

user fees assessed on interstate pipeline operators; and the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund, a revolving fund comprised of an environmental tax on petroleum and oil spill damage recovery payments. The pipeline safety program promotes the safe, reliable, and 

environmentally sound transportation of natural gas and hazardous liquids by pipeline. The Committee provides $71,073,000 for the Office of Pipeline 

Safety. The bill specifies that, of the total appropriation, 
118 

$52,073,000 shall be from the Pipeline Safety Fund and 

$19,000,000 shall be from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. 

Amount 

Personnel Compensation and Benefits [PC&B] ................................................................................................... $17,677,000 

Travel ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,265,000 

WCF ............................................................................................................................................................. 847,000 

GSA Rent ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,460,000 

Communications .......................................................................................................................................... 973,000 

Equipment ................................................................................................................................................... 539,000 

Training ....................................................................................................................................................... 953,000 

Accounting ................................................................................................................................................... 88,000 

Printing ........................................................................................................................................................ 75,000 

Other Services ............................................................................................................................................. 5,000 

Supplies ....................................................................................................................................................... 52,000 

Information and Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 1,635,000 

Pipeline Integrity Management ................................................................................................................... 7,862,000 

Compliance .................................................................................................................................................. 300,000 

Training and Information Dissemination .................................................................................................... 1,400,000 

Emergency Notification ............................................................................................................................... 100,000 

Community Assistance and Technical Services ......................................................................................... 3,096,000 

Implementing the Oil Pollution Act ..................................................................................................................... 2,416,000 

Mapping and Information Systems ...................................................................................................................... 1,200,000 

Enhanced Operations, Control and Monitoring .................................................................................................... 1,874,000 

Damage Prevention, and Leak Detection ............................................................................................................. 3,913,000 

Improved Material Performance ........................................................................................................................... 2,071,000 

State Pipeline Safety Grants ................................................................................................................................ 18,272,000 

State One-Call Grants .......................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Public Safety and Education Programs ............................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

The Committee’s recommendation provides funding to support: 

two new system-focused inspectors based in Houston, Texas; two 

new natural gas transmission integrity management inspectors; 

and two new State program managers. 

Pipeline Safety Research.—Consistent with the budget request, 

the Committee provides $9,058,000 for pipeline safety research, 

which will remain available until September 30, 2007. 

State One-Call Grants.—The Committee continues to believe that 

State One-Call Grants have a proven track record in effective damage prevention and thus has again provided $1,000,000 for this 

purpose. 

Natural Gas Distribution Pipeline Safety.—The Committee notes 

that OIG recently reported to Congress that operators of natural 

gas distribution pipelines, which constitute over 85 percent of the 

2.1 million miles of natural gas pipelines, are not required to have 

Integrity Management Plans [IMP]. Over the last 10 years, natural 

gas distribution pipelines have experienced over 4 times the number of fatalities and more than 3 times the number of injuries than 

the combined totals for hazardous liquid and natural gas transmission pipelines, which are covered by IMP requirements. 

The Committee understands that ‘‘smart pig’’ technologies are 

not currently available for natural gas distribution pipelines, but 

concurs with OIG that certain IMP elements can be readily applied 

to this segment of the industry, such as developing timeframes on 

how often inspections should take place and when repairs should 

be made. The Committee encourages this approach and directs the 

Administrator to report to Congress no later than 180 days following the enactment of this Act, on its approach for requiring operators of natural gas distribution pipelines to have IMPs. The re-
119 

port should detail specific milestones and activities, including the 

completion of a notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Allocation.—The Committee notes 

the significant increase in funding derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund since fiscal year 2003. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

requires that these trust funds be used only for oil spill prevention 

and response activities. As in fiscal year 2004, the requested increase has been provided. However, the Committee again directs 

the Office of Pipeline Safety to factor the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund into the allocation formula that determines the hazardous 

liquid pipeline user fee assessment in order to accurately reflect 

the actual oversight activities conducted by the Office of Pipeline 

Safety. 

Public Safety and Education Programs.—The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 requires pipeline operators to undertake 

public safety and education program activities to educate and promote pipeline safety with the public. The law further requires a review of the quality of these public safety and education programs, 

which will number more than 2,200. The Committee includes 

$1,000,000 for initial efforts to create a clearinghouse so that Federal and State experts can review and evaluate these public education programs. 

Proposed Reorganization.—The Committee supports the DOT’s 

effort to better organize and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its Research activities. However, the Committee is very concerned the Department’s pending reorganization plan may have the 

unintended consequence of reducing the Department’s mission to 

ensure the safe and reliable operation of the Nation’s pipeline system. The Committee believes the pending reorganization plan that 

calls for regulation of the safety of pipelines to become the responsibility of the Federal Railroad Administration, will greatly diminish the Department’s effectiveness and ability to adequately carry 

out its pipeline safety function. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $199,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act [HMTA] (title 49 

U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement 

a reimbursable emergency preparedness grants program; (2) monitor public sector emergency response training and planning and 

provide technical assistance to States, territories, and Indian 

tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a national training 

curriculum for emergency responders. These activities are financed 

by receipts received from the hazardous materials shipper and carrier registration fees, which are placed in the emergency preparedness fund. The hazardous materials transportation law provides 

permanent authorization for the emergency preparedness fund for 

planning and training grants, monitoring and technical assistance, 

and for administrative expenses. An appropriation of $200,000, also 
120 

from the emergency preparedness fund, provides for the training 

curriculum for emergency responders. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

Bill language is included that limits the obligation of emergency 

preparedness training grants to $14,300,000 in fiscal year 2005. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $55,670,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 2 ......................................................................... 59,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 59,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $330,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect reduction of $426,582 pursuant to Division F, section 517 of of Public Law 108– 

199. Does not include reimbursements of $3,524,000 from FHWA, $2,250,000 from FAA, 

$2,000,000 from FTA, and $100,000 from NTSB. 2Does not include reimbursements of $3,524,000 from FHWA, $1,200,000 from FAA, 

$2,000,000 from FTA, and $250,000 from NTSB. 

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and recommend policies designed to 

promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; (3) prevent and detect fraud, 

waste, and abuse; and (4) keep the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding problems and deficiencies. 

OIG is divided into two major functional units: the Office of Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and Evaluations 

[PAIGAE] and the Office of Assistant Inspector General for Investigations [AIGI]. The PAIGAE and AIGI are supported by headquarters and regional staff. 

The Committee recommendation provides $59,000,000 for activities of the Office of Inspector General, which is $3,330,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget 

request. In 2003, DOT awarded about 1,100 fixed-price or cost-reimbursable contracts valued at approximately $3,000,000,000. Also, 

in fiscal year 2003, DOT planned to spend $2,700,000,000 on information technology with over half of this amount funding contractor 

services. With this increase, the OIG is expected to provide greater 

oversight of the DCAA audits requested by the Department (in fiscal year 2003 DOT requested 221 audit reports), increase its ability 

to apply forensic auditing techniques to better detect contract 

fraud, and carry out more timely audits and investigations of contracting and procurement issues. 

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. 
121 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Crediting offsetting collections 

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................................................ $19,406,000 $1,050,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ....................................................................................................... 20,521,000 1,050,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 21,250,000 1,050,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $115,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. Does not reflect reduction of $16,422 pursu- ant to Division F, section 517 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on January 

1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act 

of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104–88). The Board is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT and is responsible for the regulation 

of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-licensing regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. 

STB’s rail oversight activities encompass rate reasonableness, car 

service and interchange, mergers, line acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB’s jurisdiction also includes certain 

oversight of the intercity bus industry and pipeline carriers, rate 

regulation involving noncontiguous domestic water transportation, 

household goods carriers, and collectively determined motor carrier 

rates. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,250,000 for activities of the Board, which is $729,000 more than the requested 

amount and $1,844,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted 

level. Included in the recommended amount is an estimated 

$1,050,000 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. 

Within this amount the Committee provides the following funding levels: 

Amount FTEs 

Rail Oversight Activities ..................................................................................................................... $20,000,000 140.8 

Motor Oversight Activities ................................................................................................................... 880,000 6.4 

Water Oversight Activities .................................................................................................................. 360,000 2.7 

Pipeline Oversight Activities ............................................................................................................... 10,000 0.1 

The Committee’s recommendation provides a one-time increase to 

STB’s base budget solely in order to allow it to fill the following 

five new positions: one administrative law judge, one economist 

and three transportation industry analysts, one of which specializes in passenger rail issues. The Committee expects that these additional positions will allow STB to fully execute its mission into 

the foreseeable future and that subsequent funding requests will 

reflect this understanding. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 185 allows funds for maintenance and operation of aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, 

as authorized by law. 
122 

Section 186 limits appropriations for services authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level IV. 

Section 187 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 188 prohibits funds for the implementation of section 404 

of title 23, U.S.C. 

Section 189 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 190 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 191 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to allow 

issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred 

stock sold to the Department of Transportation. 

Section 192 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 193 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 194 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 195 authorizes the transfer of unexpended sums from 

‘‘Minority Business Outreach’’ to ‘‘Office of the Secretary, Salaries 

and expenses’’. 

Section 196 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 197 limits funds for the fiscal year 2005 working capital 

fund of the Department of Transportation. 
123 

Section 198 continues the provision designating the city of Norman, Oklahoma, to be considered part of the Oklahoma City Transportation urbanized area for fiscal year 2005. 

Section 199 extends a prohibition on the implementation of a 

mandatory cost-sharing pilot program for essential air service communities. 
(124) 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $175,070,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 185,041,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 161,313,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,039,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Departmental Offices in the Department of the Treasury 

provide basic support to the Secretary of the Treasury, who is the 

chief operating executive of the Department. 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; maintaining foreign assets control; managing the public 

debt; managing development financial 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. In support of the Secretary, the Salaries and Expenses appropriation provides resources for policy formulation and 

implementation in the areas of domestic and international finance, 

tax, economic, trade, financial operations and general fiscal policy. 

This appropriation also provides resources for administrative support to the Secretary and policy components, and coordination of 

Departmental administrative policies in financial and personnel 

management, procurement operations, and automated information 

systems and telecommunications. The Committee recommends $161,313,000 for the Salaries and 

Expenses appropriation of the Departmental Offices of the Department of the Treasury, $23,728,000 below the administration’s request and $13,757,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

The Committee recommendation includes the requested funding 

level for the Office of Foreign Assets Control, but provides funds 

in a new appropriations account. Within the funds provided the accompanying bill specifies $3,000,000 for information technology 

modernization; $150,000 for official reception and representation 

expenses; $258,000 for unforeseen emergencies; $2,900,000 for 

grants to States to fight money laundering; and $3,393,000 for the 

Treasury-wide financial statement audits. 

The Committee commends the Department of the Treasury for 

its participation through the Internal Revenue Service in the 
125 

Washington Semester American Indian Program [WINS]. The Committee believes that the Washington Semester American Indian 

Program is an excellent way to advance the goals of Executive 

Order 13270, which directs all Federal agencies to take steps to enhance access to Federal opportunities and resources for American 

Indian and Alaska Native students. The Committee urges the Department to expand the number of internship slots it makes available for the program and to accommodate participants in a secondyear internship program. 

Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.—Although no 

funds were requested for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, the Committee recommends $12,726,710 for the office for 

fiscal year 2005. The Secretary has identified establishment of this 

office and reorganization of financial intelligence activities as one 

of his highest priorities, and adjustments made to the budget request to accommodate funding for this office have been made with 

the concurrence of the Department. 

The Committee has established the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence within the Department of the Treasury. This 

office will be responsible for providing the policy and the strategic 

and operational direction to the Department of the Treasury on 

issues relating to terrorist financing and financial crimes; including 

money laundering, counterfeiting and other offenses threatening 

the integrity of the financial system. In addition, the office will be 

responsible for carrying out the United States economic sanctions 

programs; implementation of Titles I and II of Public Law 91–508, 

as amended (the Bank Secrecy Act); asset forfeiture; and the receipt, analysis, collation, and dissemination of intelligence, including foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence (within the 

meaning of section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947) (50 

U.S.C. 401a) related to the operation and responsibilities of the Department of the Treasury. 

Emergency Preparedness.—The recommended level includes 

$1,900,000, and not more than 5 FTE, for the permanent creation 

of the Office of Emergency Preparedness. This office will allow 

Treasury to establish and maintain viable and executable plans 

which ensure continuity of the Department’s critical functions during an emergency. 

Treasury Protection.—The Committee recommendation denies the 

budget request to reimburse the United States Secret Service 

[USSS] $2,400,000 for protection of the Secretary of the Treasury. 

The Committee is concerned about the lack of sufficient documentation to support this new budget request. The Committee believes that protective services are a core responsibility of the USSS 

which should be funded in the Department of Homeland Security’s 

budget. 

Contributions to Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

[FASAB] and the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program [JFMIP].—The Committee recommendation provides $12,000 

for Treasury activities that support FASAB and JFMIP. The Committee recommendation denies new funding of $639,000 to support 

the cost of the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] payments 

to FASAB and JFMIP. The Committee believes that it is more appropriate to provide this funding under the OMB heading. 
126 

Financial Literacy.—Title V of the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act (Public Law 108–159) established the Financial Literacy and Education Commission [FLEC]. The Committee provides 

$1,000,000 to be used for the development and implementation of 

the national strategy to promote basic financial literacy and education among all American consumers that is required by 20 U.S.C. 

9703. With these funds, the Commission shall develop methods to 

increase the general financial education level and understanding of 

current and future consumers of financial services and products. It 

is important that the Commission consult with State and local governments and private, nonprofit, and public institutions during the 

formulation and implementation of the national strategy and continue with the development of a plan to improve coordination and 

reduce duplication of financial literacy activities. The Committee 

directs the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a plan for the use 

of funds to the Appropriations Committee prior to the expenditure 

of any funds for FLEC within the Act. The Committee further directs that these funds not be used for travel expenses. 

Critical Infrastructure Protection.—The Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Compliance Policy coordinates the Department’s development and implementation of policies regarding the 

protection of the critical infrastructure of the financial services sector. The office also staffs the Financial and Banking Infrastructure 

Committee. The Committee understands that the Department has 

developed a research and development plan that identifies the key 

infrastructure that must be protected in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disruption. Both the President’s national strategy 

to secure cyberspace and the Department’s own research and development agenda identify the need for advanced data replication 

technology and practices to protect the central functions of the Nation’s financial systems. The Committee provides $1,000,000 to the 

Department for critical infrastructure protection research and development through the ‘‘e-Cavern partnership’’. These funds are to 

be utilized to begin the process of using a hardened storage facility 

that has research capabilities and provides a geographic location 

that has added physical security and protection. 

General Counsel.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$7,415,212 for the general counsel. This amount reflects a downward adjustment requested by the Department of $415,389, as well 

as an additional reduction of $100,000. The Committee is disappointed by the general counsel’s continual and aggressive efforts 

to circumvent appropriations law and undermine the long standing 

accommodation between the Department and the Committee. 

Audit of Mint-BEP Merger.—The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to conduct an in-depth analysis 

of the conclusions drawn by the United States Mint-Bureau of Engraving and Printing merger study. The GAO analysis should identify: (1) how the study was paid for, what accounts were used to 

fund the study, and whether or not the funds expended from these 

accounts were consistent with accepted guidelines; (2) what criteria 

were used to hire the contractor, and what contract specifications 

were used to ensure an objective result. The GAO shall also look 

at the conclusions in the study and all supporting materials including, ‘‘Improving Service Delivery in BEP and Mint Operations’’ 
127 

dated June 30, 2004, to determine if: (1) the conclusions of the 

study were consistent with the documentation and findings; (2) all 

cost savings projected in the study have accurate supporting documentation; and (3) whether alternatives were considered in the 

study process. 

Congressional Budget Justification Materials.—The Committee 

directs the Department to submit all of its fiscal year 2006 budget 

justifications on the first Monday in February, concurrent with official submission of the President’s budget to Congress. These justifications should have the customary level of detailed data and explanatory statements to support the appropriations requests, including tables that detail each agency’s programs, projects, and activities for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. The Committee directs the 

CFO to ensure that adequate justification is given to each increase, 

decrease, and staffing change proposed across the Department for 

the fiscal year 2006 budget. With respect to requests for Departmental Offices, particular attention should be paid to information 

within the Departmental operations and management accounts. 

The Committee expects that the Department will coordinate with 

the Appropriations Committee in advance on its planned presentation products for the budget justifications to the Congress in support of the fiscal year 2006 budget request. In addition, the Committee directs the Department to submit, as part of the fiscal year 

2006 budget justification, a table identifying the last year that authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for each program, 

project, or activity; the specific authorization legislation supporting 

the bureau, organization, and program; the amount of the authorization; and the appropriation in the last year of the authorization 

in those instances where the authorization has lapsed. 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund.—The Committee remains concerned 

about the management of the Forfeiture Fund. As a result, the 

Committee directs the Department to include in its fiscal year 2006 

budget submission a detailed operating budget, including but not 

limited to, the following: salaries and expenses, FTE’s, detailees, 

travel, rent, furniture, utilities, supplies, communications, storage 

costs, and postage for fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006. The budget 

materials shall also include the total amount in the fund, the number of funding applications received and the number of funding requests awarded. The material shall also include all evaluation criteria used for granting requested expenditures from the fund. 

Currency Manipulation Report.—The Committee has included a 

new general provision, (Sec. 221) providing for the Secretary of the 

Treasury to submit a report by December 1, 2004, to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations. The report shall describe 

how existing statutory provisions addressing currency manipulation by America’s trading partners can be better clarified administratively, to provide for improved and more predictable evaluation 

of the subject and to enable the problem of currency manipulation 

to be better understood by both the American people and the U.S. 

Congress. The Secretary shall include in the report definitions of 

terms relevant to Title 22 U.S.C. 5304 and 5305, such as ‘‘material 

global current account surpluses’’, ‘‘significant bilateral trade surpluses’’, and how it is or can be determined ‘‘whether [other] countries manipulate the rate of exchange between their currency and 
128 

the United States dollar’’. Such definitions shall address currencies 

that are pegged to the dollar (with and without bands) and identify 

what constitutes currency manipulation, including what is meant 

by sustained intervention in the currency markets, the effect of 

currency controls, etc. The report shall also examine what the 

United States is doing to ensure that both the Department and the 

IMF’s review of individual country trade data permit the examination of competing data where significant differences in global current account surpluses are identified (e.g., by comparing such current account surpluses to actual trade figures provided by U.S. 

trading partners). Further, the report shall identify steps the Department is taking to obtain definitions from and within the IMF 

of such terms as ‘‘manipulating exchange rates’’, ‘‘protracted largescale intervention in one direction in the exchange market’’, and 

other terms relevant to acceptable exchange rate practices provided 

in the IMF’s Decision No. 5392 (77/63), as amended, on ‘‘Exchange 

Arrangements and Surveillance, Principles of Fund Surveillance 

over Exchange Rate Policies.’’ Finally, the Secretary shall provide 

an update regarding additional steps that the United States can 

take, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 286y, to strengthen article IV consultation procedures of the Fund to address undervalued rates of exchange that flow from currency controls or significant market interventions. During the period these issues are being clarified and 

pending resolution of whether certain major trading nations are engaged in currency manipulation, the Secretary of the Treasury is 

urged to vote against multilateral lending or investment guarantees to any nation with which the United States had a trade deficit 

(in goods) in 2003 in excess of $100,000,000,000. 

Program and Office Funding.—For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends funding for the salaries and expenses appropriation according to the program activities that comprise the Departmental Offices. These program activities include: Executive Direction; General Counsel; Economic Policies and Programs; Financial Policies and Programs; Financial Crimes; Treasury-Wide Management; and Administration. 

The Committee has established specific limitations for each individual program and policy within the Departmental Offices. The 

accompanying bill includes a provision authorizing a cumulative 

total of transfers of up to 5 percent between each activity (Executive Direction; General Counsel; Economic Policies and Programs; 

Financial Policies and Programs; Financial Crimes; Treasury-Wide 

Management; and Administration) and after 5 percent, the Department must seek prior approval from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

The Committee recommends this budgetary change due to its 

concern regarding the Department’s application of its internal reprogramming guidelines counter to congressional intent established 

in the Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation Act. 

The following table compares the fiscal year 2004 enacted level 

to the fiscal year 2005 budget estimate and the Committee’s recommendation for each office: 
129 

Fiscal year 2004 enacted 12005 budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Secretary/Deputy Secretary ........................................................................ $765,005 $808,526 $808,200 

Secretarial Protection ................................................................................. ........................ 2,400,000 ........................

Secretarial Delegation ................................................................................ 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 

Chief of Staff ............................................................................................. 1,393,279 1,480,321 1,479,700 

Executive Secretary .................................................................................... 600,562 665,843 665,000 

Public Affairs ............................................................................................. 1,725,620 1,841,676 1,800,716 

Legislative Affairs & Public Liaison .......................................................... 1,459,292 1,553,587 1,436,090 

Treasurer .................................................................................................... 263,103 277,610 115,537 

Subtotal, Executive Direction ....................................................... 7,256,861 10,077,563 7,355,243 

General Counsel ......................................................................................... 7,530,660 7,929,601 7,415,212 

Economic Policy ......................................................................................... 4,272,449 4,469,560 4,180,117 

International Affairs ................................................................................... 26,549,390 28,716,550 27,727,336 

Subtotal, Economic Policies and Programs ................................. 30,821,839 33,186,110 31,907,453 

Under Secretary for Domestic Finance ...................................................... 833,275 869,542 868,800 

Financial Markets ...................................................................................... 3,044,957 3,240,801 3,144,341 

Critical Infrastructure ................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 1,000,000 

Financial Literacy ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000,000 

Fiscal Policy ............................................................................................... 2,992,537 3,079,606 3,002,783 

Financial Institutions ................................................................................. 2,728,221 2,895,051 2,731,283 

Tax Policy (New Activity) ............................................................................ 14,214,071 14,828,913 14,324,487 

Subtotal, Financial Policies and Programs .................................. 23,813,061 24,913,913 26,071,694 

U/S for Enforcement .................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,632,382 

Exec Office of Terrorist Finance and Fin Crimes ...................................... 5,186,000 5,911,816 ........................

Intelligence Support ................................................................................... 2,204,711 2,342,527 ........................

Terrorist Financing and Intelligence Support ............................................ ........................ ........................ 10,594,328 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 2 ............................................................. 21,855,000 22,291,000 ........................

Subtotal, Terrorism & Financial Intel .......................................... 29,245,711 30,545,343 12,226,710 

Assistant Secretary for Management & CFO ............................................. 507,120 543,387 424,446 

Office of Emergency Preparedness ............................................................ ........................ 1,935,267 1,900,000 

DAS Human Resources .............................................................................. 1,934,797 2,397,670 2,298,013 

DAS Information Systems/Security Operations .......................................... 2,455,068 2,917,941 2,385,752 

Deputy Chief Financial Officer .................................................................. 3,339,654 3,405,713 3,222,125 

Treasury-wide Financial Statement Audits ....................................... 3,393,000 3,393,000 3,393,000 

DAS Management and Budget .................................................................. 2,433,361 2,976,022 2,896,344 

Subtotal, Treasury Wide Management ......................................... 14,063,000 17,569,000 16,519,680 

DAS DO Headquarters Operations ............................................................. 1,873,013 1,981,815 1,981,815 

Office of Information Technology ...................................................... 20,859,167 20,982,476 20,826,400 

Office of Financial Management ...................................................... 3,366,280 3,569,377 3,432,383 

Office of Human Resources .............................................................. 1,649,517 1,772,826 1,702,434 

Office of Facilities and Support Services ......................................... 11,248,554 11,915,874 11,915,874 

Executive Office JFMIP/FASAB Contribution ............................................... ........................ 651,000 12,000 

Centralized Services, Space, and Utilities ................................................ 23,342,337 19,946,102 19,946,102 

Subtotal, Administration .............................................................. 62,338,868 60,819,470 59,817,008 

Grand Total Salaries and Expenses ............................................. 175,070,000 185,041,000 161,313,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,059,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

2 Committee recommendation provides funding for the Office of Foreign Assets Control in a separate location. 
130 

OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL

Appropriations, 2004 1 2 ......................................................................... ........................... Budget estimate, 2005 3 ......................................................................... ........................... Committee recommendation ................................................................. $22,291,000 

1 Enacted level of $21,855,000 appropriated under Departmental Offices. 

2 Reflects reduction of $130,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

3 Budget request assumes funding within departmental offices. 

The Office of Foreign Assets Control [OFAC] administers and enforces economic sanctions against targeted foreign countries, terrorists, terrorist organizations and narcotic traffickers in furtherance 

of U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives. OFAC currently administers and enforces 27 economic sanctions programs— 

initiatives usually undertaken in conjunction with diplomatic and 

occasionally military action. OFAC acts under general Presidential 

wartime and national emergency powers, as well as specific legislation, to prohibit transactions and freeze assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction. 

OFAC’s primary statutory authority is the Trading with the 

Enemy Act of 1917 and its successor statute, the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act, enacted in 1977. The 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act of 1999 provide OFAC with 

the responsibility to administer sanctions against terrorists and 

narcotics traffickers. OFAC also administers restrictions on the import and export of rough diamonds under the Clean Diamonds 

Trade Act of 2003. 

Since September 11, 2001 the United States has designated 368 

individuals and entities as Specially Designated Global Terrorists 

[SDGTs] pursuant to Executive Order (‘‘EO’’) 13224 administered 

by the OFAC. OFAC has developed a close collaborative working 

relationship with elements of the Department of Defense [DoD] to 

develop a more systemic and systematic approach to identifying, 

isolating, and attacking terrorists, terrorist groups and their support structures. This is aided by tapping unique information available throughout the Combatant Commands regions of responsibility to understand how terrorist networks operate. The DoD has 

backed this approach by funding 6 positions for OFAC officers, one 

OFAC officer at each of the Combatant Commands. OFAC also has 

offices in the embassies in Mexico and Colombia and will soon open 

an office in Bahrain to support this effort. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,291,000 for 

the salaries and expenses of the Office of Foreign Assets Control. 

The Committee’s recommendation supports a full funding level of 

no less than 138 FTE for fiscal year 2005. In addition, OFAC is reimbursed by the Department of Defense for an additional 6 positions detailed to the U.S. Combatant Commands [USCC] to total 

144 FTE. Detailees are to serve in each of the USCC’s Joint Interagency Coordination Groups [JIACG] to fight the continuing Global 

War on Terror. 

The Committee believes that the Office of Foreign Assets Control 

serves a vital mission on the front line of the war on terrorism, and 

therefore the Committee is providing a direct appropriation to the 

Office due to this increasingly vital mission. The Committee recommendation denies the administration’s request allowing the 
131 

funds of OFAC to be intermingled in the Departmental Offices Account. The Committee is concerned that vital resources will be diverted from counter-terrorism efforts to fund less critical missions 

within the Department if the funding floor is removed. The Committee has repeatedly included a statutory floor for this office and 

without a clear justification for its removal the Committee believes 

the floor is more justified now than ever. The transfer authorities 

provided for the Department do not apply to this account. 

The Committee supports OFAC’s technology modernization efforts and encourages OFAC to continue developing its electronic 

data mining abilities. The Committee directs OFAC to submit a letter, 90 days after enactment, outlining the status of its modernization efforts. 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITAL INVESTMENTS PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $36,185,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 36,072,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,260,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $215,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. The Committee has provided a total of $30,260,000 to remain available until September 30, 2007, which is $5,812,000 less than 

the budget request and $5,925,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 

enacted level. 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITAL INVESTMENTS PROGRAM 

Fiscal year 2004 

enacted 1

Fiscal year 2005 

budget estimate 

Committee recommendation 

HR Connect ................................................................................................ $25,310,000 $17,491,000 $15,491,000 

Treasury Enterprise Architecture ................................................................ 199,000 1,000,000 400,000 

Critical Infrastructure ................................................................................ 8,940,000 5,800,000 5,800,000 

Integrated [Wireless) Treasury Network ..................................................... ........................ 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Treasury Asset Management System ......................................................... ........................ 175,000 ........................

Treasury back-up/Disaster recovery ........................................................... 1,736,000 1,746,000 1,746,000 

Information Assurance ............................................................................... ........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

E-Authentication ........................................................................................ ........................ 561,000 561,000 

IT Governance ............................................................................................ ........................ 275,000 ........................

Operational Security ................................................................................... ........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

E-Government ............................................................................................. ........................ 5,524,000 2,762,000 

Total .............................................................................................. 36,185,000 36,072,000 30,260,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $215,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

HR Connect.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$15,491,000 in continued funding for this project, this is $2,000,000 

below the amount requested in the budget. The Committee is concerned that after committing $165,000,000, few of the savings 

promised by the system have been realized. The Committee directs 

the Secretary to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
132 

Appropriations, within 90 days of enactment, the report shall include the initial savings estimate of the system, a list of the types 

and amounts of savings realized to date, and how those savings 

were used to support other department programs. The report 

should also provide complete cost acquisition and maintenance 

schedules, and the estimated cost of maintenance by bureau 

through fiscal year 2008. 

E-Gov Initiatives.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$2,762,000 in new funding in support of the Department’s e-Gov 

initiatives. The Committee is supportive of these initiatives and the 

role they can play in better operations and effectiveness across the 

Department’s information systems program. The amount provided 

is a result of financial limitations on the Committee. 

IT Governance.—The Committee recommendation does not provide $275,000 requested for this program effort, viewing this primarily as on-going management efforts previously supported by the 

Department’s base funding. 

Treasury Enterprise Architecture.—The Committee recommendation provides $400,000. This amount is $200,000 above the current 

funding level for this project. The Committee is supportive of efforts in this area and has doubled the current level of effort dedicated by the Department. Although new funding was provided, the 

justification materials do not elaborate on the full purposes of the 

request. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $12,923,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 14,158,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,158,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $77,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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, 
133 

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. 

The Committee believes that it is important to have an independent Inspector General office to maintain oversight over departmental programs. The duties and responsibilities of the Treasury 

Inspector General and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration are vastly different in substance. The Committee believes that a merger would dilute the vigorous oversight that Congress and the taxpayers expect and the two are not conducive to 

being integrated. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,158,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General. The Committee has provided $2,000,000 over the budget request to the 

Treasury Inspector General and $3,235,000 above the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level. The Committee directs that the funds be divided evenly between the Office of Audit and the Office of Investigations. The Committee believes that increasing the number of 

audit positions is necessary to provide more aggressive analysis of 

the regulatory and compliance operations performed by the Department. This includes coordination between enforcement and regulatory functions and the reliability and usefulness of Bank Secrecy 

Act data. The Committee believes that increasing the number of investigative positions is necessary to detect and prevent fraud, related financial crimes, as well as criminal employee misconduct. 

The Committee notes that although the number of investigators 

has declined more than 80 percent since fiscal year 2003, the 

Treasury Office of Inspector General’s investigative caseload has 

more than doubled. The office is currently engaged in a number of 

high-profile cases of bank fraud and examiner obstructions by regulated institutions, inappropriate release of national security and 

other sensitive information, and misuse of the Treasury seal. The 

Committee is also aware that some bureaus and offices within the 

Department have not had a financial audit performed in the last 

5 years. The Committee expects that these funds will ensure that 

the Inspector General has sufficient funds to complete the audit of 

the Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration account. 

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $127,277,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 129,126,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 129,126,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $755,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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 
134 

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, contract audit and financial statement audit services. Program audits review and audit 

all facets of IRS and Related Entities. Contract audits provide professional advice to IRS contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. The evaluations function reviews program performance and issues critical to the mission of the 

IRS. 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. 

The Committee believes that a merger of TIGTA and the Treasury Inspector General would diminish the oversight that Congress 

and the taxpayers expect and the two entities are not good candidates for integration. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $129,126,000 for 

the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. This 

amount is the same as the President’s request and $1,849,000 over 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. Of this amount, the accompanying bill provides $1,500 for official reception and representation account. 

AIR TRANSPORTATION STABILIZATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $2,523,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 2,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $15,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,000,000 for 

the Air Transportation Stabilization Program. This amount is 

$800,000 less than the budget request. 

TREASURY BUILDING AND ANNEX REPAIR AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $24,853,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 20,316,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,316,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $148,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration appropriation funds the repairs, selected improvements and construction 
135 

necessary to renovate and maintain the main Treasury Building 

and the Treasury annex. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,316,000 for 

the repair and restoration of the Treasury Building and Annex, 

$8,000,000 less than the budget request and $12,537,000 less than 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

The Department’s budget justification has identified this as the 

final year of funding for the Treasury Building and Annex Repair 

and Restoration. The Department’s responses to questions related 

to the budget justification indicated that ‘‘some critical repairs to 

the Treasury Building have been deferred or cancelled in order to 

meet the 2005 deadline’’ for completion. In light of this response 

and preliminary information received from the Inspector General, 

the Committee is highly skeptical of the actual status of this program. The Committee is disappointed that after appropriating 

$234,000,000, not only is the renovation of the historic Treasury 

building not complete, but the Annex has received virtually no repair. The Committee is concerned about the long term continuing 

character of this renovation and even though no funds will be requested in this account in future years, it is clear that this project 

is not complete. 

The Committee recommends a decrease of $8,000,000 from the 

budget request due to the budget constraints of the Committee and 

ongoing concerns about the cost escalation and delayed completion. 

The Committee expects the Department to manage the completion 

within the funds available. The Committee directs the Department 

to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than March 1, 2005. The report shall contain the 

following: (1) the original plan and scope for the Treasury Department and Annex; (2) the final plan and scope of the project scheduled for completion in 2005; (3) a full assessment and explanation 

of cost variances by project compared to the original plan; (4) an 

assessment of all future requirements for new and deferred maintenance and repairs for the main Treasury building and the Annex; 

and (5) all restoration work done to the Annex. 

EXPANDED ACCESS TO FINANCIAL SERVICES

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, 2004 ..................................................................................... ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... ¥$4,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥4,000,000 

The Expanded Access to Financial Services account is intended 

to help low and moderate income Americans benefit from access to 

basic financial services. 

The Committee recommends a rescission of $4,000,000 in unobligated balances from fiscal years 2002 and 2003 appropriations. 

This is the same as the President’s request. 
136 

VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PROGRAM

(VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, 2004 ..................................................................................... ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... ¥$1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥1,200,000 

Amounts for the Department of the Treasury’s portion of Crime 

Control Programs are derived from transfers from the Violent 

Crime Reduction Trust Fund, as authorized by the Crime Control 

and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. 

The Committee recommends a rescission of $1,200,000. The 

budget recommendation is $200,000 more than the budget request. 

TERRORISM INSURANCE PROGRAM

On November 26, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–297). The Act 

establishes and provides mandatory funding for a temporary Terrorism Insurance Program to be administered by the Department 

of the Treasury. Under the program, the Federal Government is responsible for paying 90 percent of the insured losses arising from 

acts of terrorism above the applicable insurer deductible and below 

the $100,000,000,000 annual cap. 

The budget includes estimates of the general administrative costs 

of the program. Given the uncertainty surrounding the risk of future terrorist attacks, the budget does not include estimates of the 

timing or magnitude of potential insurance claims under the program, which is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2005. Any 

such claims would be paid from permanent, indefinite authority 

and would not require subsequent appropriations. 

FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $57,231,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 64,502,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 72,502,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $340,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN] was established in 1990 as a government-wide, service-oriented, financial 

information-sharing agency. FinCEN’s mission is to help safeguard 

the U.S. financial system from the abuses of money laundering and 

illicit finance, including the financing of terrorism. FinCEN 

achieves this mission through the administration of the Bank Secrecy Act [BSA], as amended; through tactical and strategic analysis of financial information; through education and outreach with 

the goal of achieving greater financial transparency; and, through 

the timely sharing of financial intelligence to aid law enforcement 

and, where appropriate, the intelligence community in the detection and investigation of money laundering and illicit financial activity, including the financing of terrorism. FinCEN is responsible 

for collecting, maintaining, analyzing and disseminating financial 

information reported by financial institutions as required by the 

Bank Secrecy Act, as amended. The Bank Secrecy Act, as amended, 
137 

is the Nation’s regulatory regime to address the problems of money 

laundering and other illicit finance, including the financing of terrorism. FinCEN adds value to the Bank Secrecy Act data it collects 

to support law enforcement by providing investigatory leads, trends 

and pattern information, and other tactical and strategic analytical 

products and, by networking its information to agencies with similar investigatory interests. FinCEN works closely with the financial 

services community to ensure that the regulations it crafts strike 

the appropriate balance between meeting the needs of the government, the regulatory burden placed upon the financial industry, 

and the privacy interests of U.S. citizens. FinCEN’s approach to assuring industry compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act is predicated on education and outreach. However, its regulatory enforcement authorities provide for application of significant civil monetary penalties against financial institutions that fail to address serious compliance deficiencies. 

Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act (The International Money 

Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act of 2001) 

recognized FinCEN’s unique position as a focal point for information relating to money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and 

other financial crimes. To carry out these responsibilities, the USA 

PATRIOT Act elevated FinCEN to a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Act directed FinCEN to carry out, 

in whole or in part, 23 of the 44 provisions in the Title, including 

accelerating the timetable for expanding certain Bank Secrecy Act 

requirements to a broad range of financial entities beyond depository institutions, such as mutual fund operators, futures commission merchants, the insurance industry, dealers in precious stones 

and metals and others. Moreover, FinCEN serves as our Nation’s 

financial intelligence unit or FIU. FinCEN’s network includes an 

international community of other FIUs that, in 2004, grew to over 

90 countries. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $72,502,000 for 

the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. This amount is 

$8,000,000 above the administration’s request and $15,271,000 over 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

FinCEN’s BSA Direct Initiative.—The Committee understands 

that the ‘‘BSA Direct’’ initiative will be the cornerstone of FinCEN’s 

technology architecture. BSA Direct will provide FinCEN and its 

customers the ability to access and analyze information collected 

under the Bank Secrecy Act in a user-friendly, secure web-based 

platform. FinCEN receives over 13 million reports annually from financial institutions. This data is currently housed in 12 separate 

databases at the IRS’s Detroit Computing Center and is accessed 

through an antiquated dial-up system. The budget request provides 

$2,500,000 to support this new Presidential initiative. The Department of the Treasury has supplemented the budget request by an 

additional $2,000,000 with monies from the Treasury Asset Forfeiture Fund. The Committee understands the importance of this 

system to FinCEN’s mission and, therefore, has provided the additional $5,000,000 needed to complete this mission-critical project 

that is expected to be operational by October 2005. 

The Committee, while providing this necessary funding, is concerned about duplication that may exist with systems being devel-
138 

oped at the IRS’s Detroit Computing Center, which currently 

houses the data collected under the Bank Secrecy Act in an outdated legacy system. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary to certify within 30 days of enactment to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that the system and data warehouse being developed by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network relating to data collected under the Bank Secrecy Act is the 

sole system being developed by Treasury or any of its bureaus to 

house and provide general access to such data. The Committee directs that none of the funds provided for this system be expended 

prior to receipt of such certification. 

The Director of FinCEN shall report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations any significant delay, deviation or 

change in costs associated with the contract to develop this project. 

Further, the Committee is disappointed to learn that the IRS has 

expended approximately $4,000,000 to build a platform similar to 

BSA Direct with no prior consultation with OMB, Treasury or the 

Congress. Given the IRS’s troubled history with developing computer systems, the Committee at a minimum, expects the IRS to 

focus resources and attention on getting its own BSM project to 

meet performance and delivery goals prior to addressing the rest 

of the Government’s information technology needs. 

FinCEN’s Enhanced Administration of the Bank Secrecy Act.— The Committee recommendation provides an additional $3,000,000 

to hire no less than 18 FTEs to assist FinCEN in ensuring compliance by all financial industries subject to the BSA. This increase 

will provide FinCEN with the resources to acquire the expertise 

necessary to ensure the protection of our Nation’s financial system 

from abuse by criminals and those seeking to carry out acts of terror. The Bank Secrecy Act, as amended by Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act, imposes a series of reporting and recordkeeping requirements on a wide array of financial institutions in order to detect and prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism. 

The Department of Treasury, through FinCEN, administers the 

Bank Secrecy Act. FinCEN has delegated the responsibility to examine financial institutions for Bank Secrecy Act compliance to 

various Federal regulatory agencies. The agencies examining for 

BSA compliance include the Federal functional banking regulators, 

the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service. As 

the administrator FinCEN has retained the sole authority to seek 

civil enforcement remedies for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. 

Recent events have exposed fundamental weaknesses in the system for Bank Secrecy Act compliance examination. The revelations 

of obvious, egregious, and possibly criminal violations of the BSA 

within the Riggs National Bank were nearly eclipsed by the fact 

that Riggs’ regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 

[OCC], knew of such problems for years before taking any serious 

action to require Riggs to address them. Most significantly, the 

OCC failed to advise FinCEN, the administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act, of any of the problems within Riggs until shortly before 

OCC made the BSA deficiencies public. FinCEN, because it did not 

have access to examination information from the OCC, had no way 

of knowing about Riggs’ compliance deficiencies. In response, 
139 

FinCEN has created a new ‘‘Office of Compliance’’ in its Division 

of Regulatory Policy, Compliance and Enforcement, which will be 

dedicated to fulfilling FinCEN’s role in more aggressively administering and implementing the Bank Secrecy Act and overseeing 

the examination activities of the agencies examining for Bank Secrecy Act compliance. The Office of Compliance will identify compliance problems within financial institutions at an early stage and 

ensure that appropriate corrective action is taken. The Committee 

understands that FinCEN has developed a plan where agencies are 

now required to notify FinCEN’s Office of Compliance when they 

discover significant Bank Secrecy Act violations within financial institutions and to provide to FinCEN a copy of the relevant portion 

of the reports of examination and other supporting material. The 

agencies will also have to produce aggregate information on their 

Bank Secrecy Act examinations and the deficiencies found. 

Moreover, for the first time, FinCEN will devote significant analytical resources to its regulatory programs. FinCEN has created 

an Office of Regulatory Support in its Division of Analytics to support FinCEN’s regulatory programs, including the Office of Compliance. FinCEN will analyze examination information from all agencies, and combine that data with the information from Bank Secrecy Act reports that FinCEN already collects and maintains. 

Through this analysis, FinCEN will be able to support the examination functions of the regulators by helping to identify both strategic and tactical examination targets, emerging compliance deficiencies, and identify and target problem financial institutions for 

examination. Identification of deficiencies and compliance issues 

also allows FinCEN to provide guidance to the industry on a more 

timely basis and aid the industry in focusing its compliance resources. 

The Committee directs that the new resources provided above 

may only be used to supplement the Office of Compliance or to add 

analysts in the Office of Regulatory Support, if those analysts provide direct support to the Office of Compliance. The Committee directs that these new resources shall not be used for any purpose 

or expense without the express written approval of the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $227,210,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 230,930,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 230,930,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,348,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

In 1940, the United States Department of the Treasury established the Fiscal Service, which consisted of the Bureau of Accounts, the Bureau of the Public Debt, and the Office of the Treasurer. A 1974 reorganization of the Fiscal Service created the Bureau of Government Financial Operations, which was formed from 

a merger of the Bureau of Accounts and most functions of the Office of the Treasurer. In 1984, the Bureau of Government Financial 

Operations was renamed the Financial Management Service 

[FMS]; the new name reflected Treasury’s renewed emphasis on 
140 

achieving greater efficiency and economy in government financial 

management. 

Payments.—FMS implements payment policy and procedures for 

the Federal Government, 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]. The control and financial integrity of the 

Federal payments and collections process includes reconciliation, 

accounting, and claims activities. The claims activity settles claims 

against the United States resulting from Government checks which 

have been forged, lost, stolen, or destroyed, and collects monies 

from those parties liable for fraudulent or otherwise improper negotiation of Government checks. 

Collections.—FMS implements collections policy, regulations, 

standards, and procedures for the Federal Government, facilitates 

collections, promotes the use of electronics in the collections process, and assists agencies in converting collections from paper to 

electronic media. 

Debt Collection.—FMS provides debt collection operational services to client agencies which includes collection of delinquent accounts, offset of Federal payments against debts owed the Government, post-judgment enforcement, consolidation of information reported to credit bureaus, reporting for discharged debts or vendor 

payments, and disposition of foreclosed property. 

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. 

The Committee recommends $230,930,000 for salaries and expenses for FMS. This amount is the same as the budget request 

and $3,720,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $79,528,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 81,942,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 83,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $472,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends $83,000,000 for TTB. This amount 

is an increase of $3,472,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted 

level and $1,058,000 above the President’s budget request. The 

Committee has included additional funds to initiate TTB’s transi-
141 

tion to Treasury supported systems and standards from the Bureau 

of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. The Committee directs the Department of the Treasury and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau to submit by March 1, 2005, to the Committees on 

Appropriations a detailed spending plan for the money provided 

over the budget request. The report shall identify all costs paid by 

TTB to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms for shared 

services, including but not limited to space, rent, telephones, furniture, computer services and maintenance. The report shall include the estimated cost of those same services if provided by the 

Department of the Treasury, and a plan, cost and time schedule for 

migration to the Department’s shared services. 

Homeopathic Medicine.—The Committee is aware that until 

2000, imported homeopathic medicines were consistently classified 

by the Customs Service as medicaments and that several letter rulings reflect this longstanding and uniform practice. The Committee 

is also aware that starting in 2000, the Customs Service reversed 

itself and began to classify these medicaments as alcoholic beverages or as food. Although the Customs Service has been transferred from the Treasury Department to the Department of Homeland Security, the Treasury Department retains the authority to 

overturn Customs’ classification decisions. The Committee urges 

the Treasury Department to use its authority to review this matter 

and to take appropriate action. 

BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

ADMINISTERING THE PUBLIC DEBT

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $172,627,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 175,166,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 175,166,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,025,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Public Debt Service was formed in 1919 with the appointment of the first Commissioner of the Public Debt. The Public Debt 

Service took general charge debt operations including debt accounting and securities issue and retirement, which had been conducted 

by several independent divisions within the Treasury. Acting under 

the authorization of the Reorganization Act of 1939, the President 

created the Bureau of the Public Debt, which was established as 

part of the Fiscal Service in the Department of the Treasury effective June 30, 1940, (31 U.S.C. 306). In 1993, the Savings Bonds Division, a separate organization, was made part of the Bureau. 

This appropriation provides funds for the conduct of all public 

debt operations and the promotion of the sale of U.S. savings-type 

securities. 

Wholesale Securities Services.—This program ensures that all 

primary and secondary markets for Treasury securities and critical 

financing needs are maintained and met. It includes all activities 

related to the regulation, auction, issue, servicing and redemption 

of Treasury marketable securities that are owned by institutional 

investors and their customers. 

Government Agency Investment Services.—Within this program, 

there are over 200 Federal trust and investment funds. This program supports State, local and Federal Government agencies’ in-
142 

vestments in non-marketable Treasury securities as well as borrowings from the Treasury. 

Retail Securities Services.—Marketable and non-marketable securities held with Treasury are managed through this program. In 

addition to issuance and redemption of securities, processing customer service requests are also rendered through this program. 

Summary Debt Accounting.—This program involves the timely 

and accurate accounting and reporting of the outstanding public 

debt and related interest expense incurred to finance the Federal 

Government. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $175,166,000 for 

the Bureau of the Public Debt in fiscal year 2005. This amount is 

the same as the President’s budget request and $2,539,000 over the 

fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

UNITED STATES MINT

UNITED STATES MINT PUBLIC ENTERPRISE FUND

The United States Mint manufactures coins, sells numismatic 

and investment products, and provides for security and asset protection. Public Law 104–52 established the U.S. Mint Public Enterprise Fund (the Fund). The Fund encompasses the previous Salaries and Expenses, Coinage Profit Fund, Coinage Metal Fund, and 

the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund. The Mint submits annual 

audited business-type financial statements to the Secretary of the 

Treasury and to Congress in support of the operations of the revolving fund. 

The operations of the Mint are divided into three major activities: Circulating Coinage; Numismatic and Investment Products; 

and Protection. The Mint is credited with receipts from its circulating coinage operations, equal to the full cost of producing and 

distributing coins that are put into circulation, including depreciation of the Mint’s plant and equipment on the basis of current replacement value. Those receipts pay for the cost of the Mint’s operations, which includes the costs of production and distribution. The 

difference between the face value of the coins and these costs are 

profit, which is deposited as seigniorage to the general fund. In fiscal year 2003, the Mint transferred $600,000,000 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. 

Budget Justification.—In fiscal year 1996, the Committees on Appropriations created the Public Enterprise Fund to assist the Mint 

in responding to the variability of coinage demands and to meet its 

ongoing capital equipment requirements. The Committee reminds 

the Mint that the fund was created for its benefit. The Committee 

is disappointed with the lack of budget justification materials provided annually by the Mint. To remedy this situation, the Committee directs that the Mint’s fiscal year 2006 budget justification 

materials, using fiscal year 2005 as the baseline, include: (1) a current organizational chart for the Mint headquarters; (2) a complete 

FTE count by headquarters organizational business units; (3) a 

complete cost accounting for all headquarters expenses, including 

but not limited to, domestic travel, international travel, rent, re-
143 

pairs, supplies, equipment, all advertising costs, and the projected 

FTE’s for the headquarters building requested for fiscal year 2006; 

(4) a detailed cost breakout of the construction costs, including 

sunk costs and new security costs for the museum; (5) the annual 

operating costs to maintain the museum after its construction; (6) 

an organizational chart and FTE breakout, by job function, for the 

Philadelphia Mint, the Denver Mint, the San Francisco Mint, the 

West Point Mint and any other Mint facility; and (7) a detailed 

breakout of all capital acquisitions and accompanying obligation 

timetable. The Committee defines organizational business units as 

the office of the director, deputy director, executive secretary, legislative affairs, public affairs, management, office of the general 

counsel, administration, chief financial officer, chief information officer, sales and marketing, production, and Mint police. Finally, the 

Committee directs that the cost accounting include all functions 

and FTEs (those on temporary duty, detailed, and those permanently assigned) regardless of the funding source. 

Mint-BEP Merger.—The Committee recognizes that efforts are already underway in the Department for the study of a potential 

merger of some or all activities of the United States Mint and the 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Given the multiple jurisdictional issues of the two bureaus and the uniqueness of many of 

their respective activities, the Committee has included a general 

provision governing the implementation of any recommendations 

resulting from the ongoing review by the Department. Particularly 

unique are the financing arrangements of the two bureaus, as well 

as the relationship of Public Enterprise Fund balances to the financing of the Federal Government public debt. For these and 

other reasons, the Committee believes it is important that a full 

congressional review take place on any recommendations by the 

committees with oversight responsibility, and therefore, has included a general provision to this effect. 

BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING

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 
144 

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. 

Mint-BEP Merger.—As noted previously, the Committee recognizes that efforts are already underway in the Department for the 

study of a potential merger of some or all activities of the United 

States Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Given the 

multiple jurisdictional issues of the two bureaus and the uniqueness of many of their respective activities, the Committee has included a general provision governing the implementation of any 

recommendations resulting from the ongoing review by the Department. Particularly unique are the financing arrangements of the 

two bureaus, as well as the relationship of Public Enterprise Fund 

balances to the financing of the Federal Government’s public debt. 

For these and other reasons, the Committee believes it is important 

that a full Congressional review take place on any recommendations by the Committees with oversight responsibility, and therefore, has included a general provision to this effect. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

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 2003, the IRS 

collected nearly $2,000,000,000,000 in revenue and processed more 

than 222 million tax returns at a cost of 48 cents for each $100 collected by the IRS. Also, in 2003, the agency provided assistance 

more than 97 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. A companion objective 

in fiscal year 2005 is to strengthen overall compliance and enforcement designed to address noncompliance with the tax code, thus 

making the total tax administration fairer for all. The Committee 

has attempted to balance those objectives with budget constraints. 

The Committee recommends appropriations that provide a total of $10,392,462,000 for the IRS in fiscal year 2005. This amount is 

$281,078,000 less than the administration’s request and 

$208,720,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

The resources for this bill in fiscal year 2005 are very constrained, requiring the Committee to make difficult decisions on 

the appropriate allocations between accounts. However, even with 
145 

these limitations, the Committee’s recommendations maintain 

strong support for the operations of the Internal Revenue Service, 

providing almost 98 percent of the IRS’s fiscal year 2005 budget request. For all areas other than Business Systems Modernization, 

the increases provided are more than 99 percent of the original request. The reductions for Business System Modernization are discussed in more depth under that account heading and support the 

important re-focusing that the Committee views is necessary at 

this stage of the development and implementation processes. In the 

Tax Law Enforcement account, where an 8.3 percent increase is 

supported for fiscal year 2005, the Committee supports the renewed focus on compliance and enforcement activities, given the 

declines in investments and performance in recent years. The Committee views this area, along with the business modernization program, as the highest priority investments for the Internal Revenue 

Service for the coming year. The Processing, Administration and 

Management appropriation is funded at 2.5 percent above the fiscal 

year 2004 level and selected reductions have been applied to the 

Information Systems appropriation to ensure that new program increases are targeted to the high priority compliance and enforcement activities. 

IRS Reorganization Plans.—The Committee is disappointed with 

the agency’s performance with regard to the reorganization. These 

plans have been announced piece-meal, without an apparent overall structure or goal. The resulting reductions in force [RIF], affecting nearly 5,000 employees and subsequent new hires, are occurring despite the lack of communication of a clear understanding of 

all the costs and benefits. For this reason, the Committee directs 

the IRS to submit a detailed report to the Committee, 30 days after 

enactment of this Act, which shall include: (1) a detailed cost analysis of the savings expected from the RIFs, the anticipated increase 

in productivity resulting from the consolidations, the administrative costs necessary to conduct the RIFs, and the costs to modify 

the work and accommodate the new hires; (2) the cost of hiring and 

training the new employees to do the same work that is currently 

being performed by the current employees, and a detailed qualitative description of the type of training that will be given to the 

new hires; (3) an analysis that demonstrates and explains how the 

IRS intends to do the same amount of work with fewer employees 

and how this will affect the taxpayers served by these employees 

both directly and indirectly; (4) a description of any gap in work 

productivity due to transition, hiring and training and the effect 

this will have on delays to case processing and insolvency cases; (5) 

an analysis that shows how greater efficiency is achieved by moving employees out of the field, away from the staff they support; 

this analysis should pay particular attention to and include a description of how the work of the revenue agents and officers will 

be affected by not having support staff in the same proximity. 

With regard to any RIF, the Committee directs the IRS to use 

all available resources to minimize involuntary separations, including: providing preference to those employees targeted by the RIF 

to fill other vacancies for which they are qualified within the IRS, 

Treasury Department or other Federal agencies in the RIF location; implementing a hiring freeze for IRS vacancies in locations 
146 

undergoing a RIF for 90 days after the RIF announcement to allow 

targeted employees to apply for an appropriate vacancy; providing 

bump and retreat rights as set out in 5 CFR 351, with competitive 

areas being defined broadly; providing training or retraining for 

employees so they can move into other positions within the IRS; actively seeking authorization for voluntary early retirement authority and voluntary separation incentive payments, which should be 

offered as widely as possible in the geographic locations affected so 

that employees who cannot afford to leave voluntarily can move 

into positions vacated by those who can; and making available the 

maximum 6 months of career transition assistance program benefits to all IRS employees described in the above paragraph affected 

by a RIF. 

PROCESSING, ASSISTANCE, AND MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $4,009,205,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 4,148,403,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,107,325,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $23,795,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

This appropriation provides for: processing tax returns and related documents; assisting taxpayers in the filing of their returns, 

paying taxes that are due, and complying with tax laws; issuing 

technical rulings; revenue accounting; conducting background investigations; and managing financial resources, rent and utilities. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,107,325,000 

for Processing, Assistance, and Management. This is a reduction of 

$41,078,000 below the budget request and $98,120,000 above the 

fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee recommendation provides the full level of funding necessary to support current services 

as identified in the IRS budget request. Although not all program 

increases requested were funded (reduction of $41,000,000) the 

amount provided in this appropriation represents a 2.5 percent increase over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

The recommendation does include sufficient resources to ensure 

that the IRS is able to fully reinvest into this appropriation the 

projected savings identified through base mining. The Committee is 

skeptical of the IRS’s ability to fully realize all the savings identified in this account and wants to ensure that tax processing has 

the resources necessary to meet tax responsibilities. The Committee looks forward to a full report from the Service on the proposed resource realignments, as well as results from the Plan Optimization Study, for which an additional $19,000,000 in savings is 

estimated. 

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 2005 

funding levels, to make no staffing reductions at the Martinsburg 

National Computing Center and the programmed level at the Administrative Services 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. 
147 

Tax Counseling for the Elderly.—The Committee once again believes that the Tax Counseling Program for the Elderly has proven 

to be most successful. To meet the goals of this program, 

$4,100,000 is included within the aggregate amount recommended 

by the Committee for processing tax returns and assistance in fiscal year 2005. To ensure that the full effect of the program is accomplished, the IRS is directed to cover administrative expenses 

within existing funds. 

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. Staffing shall be increased if, as the result 

of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, subsequent legislation, or other factors, the number of cases or their complexity increases. 

Chicago, IL Tax Assistance Program.—The Committee is aware 

of an innovative financial literacy and tax assistance project in Chicago, Illinois—Tax Assistance Program—designed to assist low income workers and their families with tax education and filing, in 

cooperation with the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago’s 

Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC] outreach efforts. The Committee 

encourages the IRS to continue to provide appropriate technical 

and financial assistance for this worthwhile initiative. 

Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic.—The Committee once again commends the IRS for the Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic [LITC] program. With the growing complexity of tax laws, this program has 

provided invaluable help for taxpayers who are seeking to resolve 

disputes with the IRS. To ensure that the goals of the LITC program are maintained, the Committee has provided a total of 

$7,000,000 to be distributed and to assist low-income taxpayer clinics across the Nation. 

Need-based tax preparation assistance through LITC and other 

programs such as VITA are imperative for many of our Nation’s 

taxpayers who cannot afford commercial preparers. Without this 

assistance, many individuals may either not file a return or will 

make errors and prepare their returns improperly, ultimately leading to a dispute with the IRS. The Committee believes that successfully helping taxpayers with problems with the IRS begins with 

the accurate preparation and filing of the return. Without this assistance, the limited resources available to the LITC program will 

be insufficient to meet the demand of taxpayers with controversies 

with the IRS. 

Volunteer Income Tax Assistance.—The Committee notes that the 

existing Volunteer Income Tax Assistance [VITA] program provides 

an invaluable service by helping low income taxpayers prepare and 

file their Federal income tax returns. However, the Committee is 

troubled by a recent Tax Inspector General for Tax Administration 
148 

[TIGTA] audit report for the 2004 tax filing season, stating that 

taxpayers were provided with inaccurate answers to basic tax law 

questions and the accuracy of tax returns prepared at the VITA 

sites. In light of TIGTA’s recent findings, the Committee directs the 

IRS to take immediate steps to implement an improved taxpayer 

assistance training program for its employees to ensure that taxpayers are given accurate and complete answers to their tax questions and that tax returns prepared on the taxpayer’s behalf are 

done correctly. The Committee also directs IRS to submit to both 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations its proposed 

method of education and training to properly train the employees 

for this task no later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. 

The Committee urges the IRS to continue to provide such additional sums as may become available to the VITA program outside 

of its in-kind contribution program. These additional funds are intended to assist the IRS in expanding the VITA program to hardto-serve areas, such as Indian reservations. Additionally, these 

funds are intended to increase the capacity of VITA sites to file returns electronically and to cover some operational expenses. The 

Committee expects that IRS will continue its current level of inkind contributions to the VITA programs. 

TAX LAW ENFORCEMENT

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $4,171,244,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 4,564,350,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,519,350,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $24,756,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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 and conducts research to identify compliance issues. 

EITC.—The Committee is extremely troubled that the IRS has 

not rendered a solution to the beleaguered earned income tax compliance [EITC] program. It is apparent that the EITC initiative 

continues to be plagued with deficiencies. A pilot program for the 

EITC initiative was administered in 2004, randomly selecting 

25,000 taxpayers to certify their eligibility. Only 65 percent of the 

taxpayers selected filed with a qualifying child. The Committee directs the IRS to continue to review this program and evaluate the 

information received from the pilot project and determine the best 

method to prevent fraud within this program and submit a report 

to the Committees by March 1, 2005. 

Compliance Services.—This activity 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 and other financial 

crimes; (8) processing of reports for currency transactions over 
149 

$10,000,000; (9) case settlement through the appeals process; (10) 

litigation; and (11) taxpayer advocate case processing. 

Research and Statistics of Income.—This 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 Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,519,350,000 

for Tax Law Enforcement activities in fiscal year 2005. This is a 

reduction of $45,000,000 from the administration’s request and a 

$348,106,000 increase from the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

New Compliance Funding for Fiscal Year 2005.—The Committee 

supports plans by the Internal Revenue Service to expand its focus 

in the Tax Law Enforcement area. This is an area where results 

have declined in recent years along with the IRS’s ability to apply 

appropriate staff toward improvement. The administration’s fiscal 

year 2005 budget request for the IRS recognized these deficiencies 

and has proposed significant new resources to shore up the IRS’s 

compliance and enforcement programs. The budget for Treasury 

highlights key themes for the Department, one of which is to deter 

tax evasion and fraud by increasing criminal investigations and audits, ensure that the Tax System is fair for all, and maintain world 

class service. The Committee endorses the priority of improving 

compliance and has provided $153,010,000 in new initiative funding in the Tax Law Enforcement Appropriation to be dedicated exclusively to the efforts set out in the IRS justification proposals. 

With this initiative, the Committee has funded 99 percent of the 

total amount requested by the IRS for Tax Law Enforcement. In 

recent years, the IRS has consistently used the majority of its new 

compliance funding for purposes other than those that Congress intended. Specifically, funds have been used to cover budget shortfalls in base operations. Maintaining funding for targeted compliance efforts is critically important to addressing the concerns and 

priorities identified by the IRS in its fiscal year 2005 justifications 

to the Congress. The Committee is concerned and disappointed 

about the IRS’s continued diversion of funds from enforcement activities to other accounts. The Committee is hopeful that the IRS 

is as committed as the Congress to ensuring proper resources are 

dedicated to enforcement. 

Therefore, to ensure that the IRS uses fiscal year 2005 funding 

for compliance programs, the Committee has restricted the IRS’s 

ability to use those funds and has limited the IRS transfer authority for the Tax Law Enforcement appropriation account to 3 percent. Beyond this amount, the IRS must receive prior approval 

from both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Further, the Committee directs the Commissioner to submit 

quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that identify the IRS’s progress, status, and results in implementing its proposed compliance initiatives. The report shall include: (1) baseline staffing levels and resources for each of the programs proposed for new staffing in fiscal year 2005, with the per-
150 

formance measures used by the IRS as indicators for evaluating 

success of the program; (2) initiative level staffing and resources for 

each program along with related performance results compared to 

targets set out in the IRS justification materials. The Committee 

expects that the performance indicators reported and the performance results and targets will be from the list provided in pages 

‘‘IRS, TLE–8 & 9’’ of the IRS fiscal year 2005 budget justifications 

submitted to the Congress in February 2004. 

National Research Program.—The National Research Program 

[NRP] is a comprehensive effort by the IRS to measure reporting, 

filing and payment compliance for different types of taxes and various sets of taxpayers. Data and compliance measures resulting 

from NRP will help the IRS detect noncompliance, reduce taxpayer 

burden, and support the IRS strategic planning and budget process. The NRP is unlike other earlier research programs. The current reporting compliance study of individual income tax consists 

of approximately 46,000 randomly selected filed 1040 forms. These 

random returns will represent most 1040 filers, and the sample 

will focus on several high-income strata, including those with annual incomes over $1,000,000. The NRP office, which is a small organizational unit within the Research, Analysis and Statistics Division, consists of about 13 full time equivalent [FTE] positions with 

a base fiscal year 2005 operating budget around $1,500,000. NRP 

operations include a wide range of IRS activities which encompass 

the tax examiner and revenue agent staff needed for the audits. In 

fiscal year 2004, the IRS expects to devote about $89,500,000 

(which includes 982 FTEs) to the NRP effort. Most of this 

$89,500,000 reflects the salaries and benefits of the examiners completing the bulk of the face-to-face audits for the NRP (and related) 

tax returns for the individual Form 1040 reporting compliance 

study. 

The IRS estimated costs for NRP will drop noticeably for fiscal year 2005, to $5,500,000 (including 39 FTEs). Fiscal year 2005 is 

a transition year for NRP, with only a few remaining individual returns left to examine for the individual reporting compliance study 

1040 study, and with a new reporting compliance study just getting 

underway and involving examinations for a very limited number of 

flow-through entity returns. However, a comprehensive study of 

flow through entity returns beginning in fiscal year 2006 would 

ramp up total NRP costs significantly. The Committee understands 

the NRP office expects to have an initial review of the ‘‘final’’ raw 

data set by December 31, 2004. The Committee understands it will 

take a fair amount of analysis to draw real conclusions from the 

data and the best approaches to address them. The Committee is 

interested in the IRS’s ability to electronically verify and audit capital gains information on schedule D filings. Therefore, the Committee encourages the IRS, if the NRP data shows the need for increased audit coverage, to explore all existing software possibilities 

for electronically verifying this data and developing the ability to 

incorporate the correct cost basis of Schedule D transactions into 

the examination process. 

Bank Secrecy Act.—The Committee continues to be discouraged 

by the IRS’s repeated failure to incorporate the recommendations 

of the Tax Inspector General for Tax Administration as they relate 
151 

to the IRS failures to improve the Bank Secrecy Act [BSA] Compliance Program. This is the second report in 3 years that documents 

the serious failure of the IRS to administer and enforce its responsibilities under the BSA. As a result, the Committee directs the 

Government Accountability Office [GAO] to conduct a thorough review and analysis of the IRS’ management of the BSA compliance 

effort. 

The Committee is concerned about the ambiguous missions and 

responsibilities of the IRS and the Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network [FinCEN] with respect to the provisions of the BSA. The 

dual administration of the Act by the IRS and FinCEN undermines 

accountability and ultimate responsibility over effective enforcement of the provisions of the BSA. As part of the GAO review of 

IRS’s specific management of the compliance provisions of the BSA, 

the GAO should also review and report on the effectiveness of the 

dual role played by IRS and FinCEN in meeting the responsibilities of the BSA legislation. 

Motor Fuel Tax Evasion.—The Committee is concerned about 

substantial revenue losses due to motor fuel tax evasion [MFTE]. 

It is estimated that approximately $1,000,000,000 annually may be 

lost in receipts to the Highway Trust Fund as a result of MFTE. 

These illegal activities are reducing the Highway Trust Fund at a 

time when Federal, State, and local transportation officials are increasingly concerned about the number of highway and transit infrastructure projects that the Trust Fund can sustain. It is clear 

that current Federal efforts to prevent and reduce MFTE abuses 

must be strengthened given the extent and complexity of the problem. 

The surface transportation reauthorization legislation proposes to 

substantially increase funding for IRS’s MFTE database programs 

and enforcement activities from $31,000,000 to $163,000,000. However, it is imperative to ensure that taxpayers will be getting an 

appropriate return on their investments given: (1) some of the 

problems IRS has experienced upgrading and maintaining its computer and automated systems; and (2) the continued existence of 

MFTE problems despite prior Highway Trust Fund investments in 

IRS enforcement activities. The Department of Transportation 

[DOT] has the responsibility for the administration of the Highway 

Trust Fund, and for improving the stewardship of trust fund resources as required by both this and the transportation oversight 

committees. The Committee believes the most effective governmental strategy for reducing MFTE losses will require a sustained, 

expanded, and robust effort supported by the resources and operational capabilities of both DOT and Treasury, working in conjunction with appropriate State and local authorities. 

The Committee requests that the Secretary of Treasury develop 

a strengthened MFTE compliance and enforcement strategy in cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation to include coordinating and conducting joint operational initiatives with DOT to 

prevent, detect, and shut down MFTE schemes across the country. 

The Committee is interested in knowing whether the Secretaries of 

Treasury and Transportation have any joint recommendations on 

legislative changes Congress may consider in order to enhance the 

enforcement program. The Committee requests the Secretary of 
152 

Treasury to submit this strategy no later than 6 months following 

enactment, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation. As part of such joint initiatives, and to the extent permitted 

by law, the Secretary of Treasury shall also, within 6 months after 

enactment, enter into a memorandum of understanding with the 

Secretary of Transportation, to provide DOT criminal investigators 

access to petroleum products tax compliance information received 

by Treasury. This information shall be limited to only business, 

non-personal tax records, unless otherwise appropriate. 

Given the concerns outlined above, the Committee requests that 

Inspector General for Tax Administration conduct an audit to 

evaluate prior and planned use of monies provided by DOT to the 

IRS, in consultation with the DOT Inspector General. Specifically, 

the Committee requests an audit of the IRS management of Motor 

Fuel Tax Evasion Project funds provided during fiscal years 1998 

through 2004, and anticipated during fiscal year 2005 through 

2009 to determine whether: (1) Excise Fuel Information Reporting 

System [ExFIRS] system requirements were properly defined to 

meet stakeholder needs, the system development was effectively 

managed to control costs, and the system schedule development 

was implemented appropriately; (2) Sufficient support is available 

for IRS’ life-cycle cost estimates for ExFIRS, and (3) IRS used the 

HTF funding in accordance with TEA21 and other governing criteria. 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $1,581,575,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 1,641,768,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,606,768,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $9,387,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

This appropriation provides for Servicewide information systems 

operations and maintenance, and investments to enhance or develop business applications for the IRS Business Units. The appropriation includes staffing, telecommunications, hardware and software (including commercial-off-the-shelf), and contractual services. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,606,768,000 

for information systems activities in fiscal year 2005. This is a reduction of $35,000,000 from the administration’s request and a 

$25,193,000 increase over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The 

accompanying bill specifies that $200,000,000 of the recommended 

funding level is available until September 30, 2006. 

The Committee’s recommendation also assesses selected reductions to this account due to budget constraints. The Committee recommendation does not approve the program enhancement requested in order to devote resources toward what we view as one 

of the highest priorities for fiscal year 2005, improvement of compliance and enforcement activities. The IRS has estimated over 

$33,000,000 in expected internal savings from base mining, which 

will be available for realignment to other areas within the appropriation during fiscal year 2005. The Committee is skeptical of the 

IRS’s ability to fully realize all the savings identified in this appropriation account and looks forward to a full report from the Service 

on the proposed resource realignments, as well as results from efficiency savings estimated at $2,000,000. 
153 

The Committee believes that funds provided under the Information Systems account, particularly for development-related activities, should be managed with the same diligence and financial controls as those activities funded through the Business Systems Modernization account. In addition, the Committee expects that as the 

Business Systems Modernization moves an increasing number of 

major projects into deployment, the Service will realign development activities funded under the Information Systems account so 

that they are managed and integrated formally into Business Systems Modernization activity. 

BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $387,699,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 285,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 125,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $2,301,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

This account provides for revamping business practices and acquiring new technology. The agency is using a formal methodology 

to prioritize, approve, fund, and evaluate its portfolio of business 

systems modernization investments. This methodology is designed 

to enforce a documented, repeatable, and measurable process for 

managing investments throughout their life cycle. The process is 

reviewed by the Government Accountability Office on a regular 

basis as part of the submission requirements for expenditure plans 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The expenditure plan approval process prior to the use of appropriated 

funds continues for fiscal year 2005. 

The Committee continues to believe that there is no more imperative requirement for the IRS than to modernize its antiquated information system and agrees with the IRS that the program is one 

of the largest, most visible, and most sensitive modernization programs ever undertaken. However, the program has experienced 

major problems with bringing to fruition the program envisioned by 

the Congress to better manage comprehensive tax filing, account 

management, and enforcement information to better support the 

full range of tax responsibilities for the American taxpayer. From 

the almost $1,700,000,000 appropriated to date, the deliverables 

have not been in the core tax system modernizations and database 

requirements considered the highest priority and the most critical 

to the ultimate success of the program. Significant cost overruns 

and repeated schedule delays have plagued critical projects, such 

as the Customer Account Data Engine [CADE], the Integrated Financial System [IFS], and the Custodial Accounting Project [CAP]. 

In testimony before the Committee in support of the fiscal year 

2005 budget, the Committee learned the true status of deliverables 

for the Business Systems Modernization effort. The IRS reported 

that, ‘‘The IRS and PRIME have not delivered any BSM projects 

on time and within the original budget estimates.’’ 

The IRS has delayed the CADE program four times. It originally 

planned to deliver the first release of CADE in December 2001. The 

IRS then rescheduled it for August 2003, and later rescheduled it 

for April 2004. The IRS recently finalized the re-planning effort for 

CADE and set the latest delivery date for September 2004. While 

CADE is farther along than the earlier tax system modernization 
154 

program in replacing a component of the master file, there are still 

major hurdles to overcome. These continued delays of critical systems central to the success of BSM are of major concern to the 

Committee. The Committee believes stronger focus needs to be directed to completing these core systems and meeting original expectations for the Business Systems Modernization effort. 

In reviewing the current progress on key projects driving the 

Business Systems Modernization, the Committee has noted the cost 

and time milestone results for the major projects in the BSM account. That information identifies key schedule slippages and underscores the importance of re-focusing and dedicating targeted efforts toward the most critical projects, with the CADE project being 

first and foremost in that targeting. The following chart sets out 

the results of the Committee’s review for major projects of the BSM 

program. 
155 

IRS/BSM COST INCREASES AND SCHEDULE OVERRUNS 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Project Initial Est. Cost Actual/Revised Est. Cost Cost Increase Initial Est. Completion Date Actual/Revised Est. Completion Date Schedule Delay 

Customer Communications [CC] 2001 ........................................................................................................ $41,110 $46,420 ∂$5,310 5/31/01 2/26/02 (Full Deployment) .... ∂9 mo Customer Relationship Management Exam [CRM Exam] ............................................................................ 9,313 7,375 .................... 6/30/02 9/30/02 (Full Deployment) .... ∂3 mo Security and Technology Infrastructure Release [STIR] Release ................................................................. 33,734 41,287 ∂7,553 8/31/01 1/31/02 (Initial Operation) .... ∂5 mo Internet Refund/Fact of Filing [IR/FoF] ........................................................................................................ 13,509 26,432 ∂12,923 7/31/02 9/26/03 (Full Deployment) .... ∂14 mo Human Resources [HR] Connect Release .................................................................................................... 10,000 10,200 ∂200 12/31/02 12/31/02 (Initial Operation) .. N/A E-Services ..................................................................................................................................................... 44,045 130,281 ∂86,236 10/31/03 4/30/05 (Full Deployment) .... ∂18 mo Modernized e-File [MeF] Release ................................................................................................................. 29,246 46,303 ∂17,057 11/15/03 3/31/04 (Initial Operation) .... ∂4.5 mo Customer Account Data Engine [CADE]—Individual Master File [IMF] Release ........................................ 61,145 97,905 ∂36,760 12/31/02 6/30/05 (Full Deployment) .... ∂30 mo Custodial Accounting Project [CAP] Release ............................................................................................... 47,161 119,219 ∂72,058 1/31/03 TBD (Full Deployment) ........... TBD Integrated Financial System [IFS] Release .................................................................................................. 99,870 153,786 ∂53,916 3/31/04 TBD (Full Deployment) ........... TBD Custom Account Mgmt [CAM] Release ........................................................................................................ 57,578 TBD TBD 10/31/04 TBD (Initial Operation) .......... TBD 
156 

A modernized IRS is the only way to substantially improve service to the taxpayers and facilitate the collection of taxes in an efficient manner. To this end, the Committee is pleased with the tighter focus being brought to this program effort as presented in the 

fiscal year 2005 budget request. However, the continued delays for 

the high priority core projects suggests that such focus needs to go 

even further to ensure delivery of the most essential components 

that lead to success of the IRS modernization program. The most 

critical of the delayed projects is the CADE project. In testimony 

before the Committee on the fiscal year 2005 budget request, the 

IRS stated: 

‘‘The delivery of the CADE project is particularly important because—like the new online technical infrastructure that the IRS 

deployed—CADE is a core fundamental component of the modernized systems. As such, CADE is the IRS’s highest priority technology project.’’ 

It is unfortunate that the IRS is not significantly further along 

with the strategy to modernize its information systems, particularly with the centralized database CADE project which has been 

delayed several times beyond its original scheduled delivery date. 

The Committee believes that the continued delay in the implementation of the main CADE system has the potential to further delay 

the eventual completion and expected benefits in operations and 

service of the IRS total modernization program. It is imperative 

that resources be focused on full development of the CADE effort 

as a first priority and, therefore, the Committee is recommending 

a resource level consistent with that view. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $125,000,000 for 

business systems modernization. This is a reduction of 

$160,000,000 from the administration’s request and a $262,669,000 

decrease from the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

With the goal of focusing on the IRS BSM efforts even more directly, the Committee recommendation provides fewer funds overall 

than the initial request, and directs that the funding provided be 

allocated to highest priorities. The Committee has included the full 

$65,000,000 requested by the IRS for the continued development of 

the CADE project in fiscal year 2005. This is the IRS’s highest priority technology project and needs to be the first focus of new funding in 2005. To provide continued support for other related BSM 

projects underway, the Committee recommends an additional 

$60,000,000 above the CADE requirements to fund on-going activities of other BSM developmental projects. The top priority for the 

IRS in the coming year should be for the continued development 

and implementation of the CADE design, allocating further funding 

to the CADE effort from other BSM available funds, if necessary, 

in order to keep the centerpiece of BSM on schedule. 

BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

(RESCISSION)

Rescissions, 2004 1 ................................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥$140,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $2,301,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 
157 

The Committee recommends a rescission of unobligated balances 

from Business Systems Modernization of $140,000,000 out of funds 

appropriated in fiscal year 2004. The Committee notes that these 

funds are available and a spending plan for the release of these 

funds has not been provided to the Congress. 

HEALTH INSURANCE TAX CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $34,794,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 34,841,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 34,841,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $207,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,841,000 for 

the Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration. This amount is 

the same as the administration’s request and a $47,000 increase 

from the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

Section 201 authorizes the IRS to transfer up to 5 percent of any 

appropriation made available to the agency in fiscal year 2005 to 

any other IRS account, with the exception of the Tax Enforcement 

account, which is limited to 3 percent. The IRS is directed to follow 

the Committee’s reprogramming procedures outlined earlier in this 

report. 

Section 202 maintains a training program in taxpayers’ rights 

and cross-cultural relations. 

Section 203 requires the IRS to institute and enforce policies and 

procedures which will safeguard the confidentiality of taxpayer information. 

Section 204 directs that funds shall be available for improved facilities and increased manpower to provide sufficient and effective 

1–800 help line service for taxpayers. The Commissioner shall continue to make this a priority. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 210 authorizes certain basic services within the Treasury 

Department in fiscal year 2005, 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, Treasury Inspector 

General for Tax Administration, Financial Management Service, 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Financial Crimes En-
158 

forcement 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 is 

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 Federal 

Reserve Note. 

Section 215 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer 

funds from Salaries and Expenses, Financial Management Service, 

to the Debt Services Account 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 Services Account. 

Section 216 amends Section 122 of Public Law 105–119 (5 U.S.C. 

3104 note), by striking ‘‘6 years’’ and inserting ‘‘7 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 amends and makes permanent the Treasury Franchise Fund. 

Section 220 amends the Check Forgery Insurance Fund (31 

U.S.C. 3343) to designate the fund as a funding source which may 

be charged for losses Treasury incurs, including (1) payments on 

counterfeit or altered Treasury checks and (2) administrative errors 

in the check or electronic payment processes. The provision also 

permits the Check Forgery Insurance Fund to fund pre-existing 

uncollectible losses that result from payments which Treasury 

made in the past in due course and without negligence. 

Section 221 requires a report from the Secretary of the Treasury 

related to currency manipulation. 

Section 222 provides for a prohibition on the use of funds related 

to enforcement of the travel ban to Cuba. 

Section 223 allows the Secretary to reprogram up to $2,000,000 

in unobligated balances under the heading ‘‘Departmental Offices, 

Salaries and Expenses’’ for the Office of Terrorism and Financial 

Intelligence and establishes the office. 
(159) 

TITLE III—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND 

FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT 

COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT

Appropriations, 2004 ............................................................................. $450,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 450,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 450,000 

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

102. 

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 2004 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, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $68,760,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 63,698,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 63,698,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $408,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,698,000 for 

White House Office Salaries and Expenses. The recommendation is 

the same as the budget request and is $5,062,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $12,427,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 12,760,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,760,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $74,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

These funds provide for the care, maintenance, refurnishing, improvement, heating, and lighting, including electrical power and 

fixtures, of the Executive Residence. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,760,000 for 

the Executive Residence at the White House. The Committee rec-
160 

ommendation is $330,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted 

level and the equal to the budget estimate. The accompanying bill 

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, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $4,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 1,900,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,900,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $25,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

To provide for 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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,900,000 for 

White House Repair and Restoration, the same amount as the 

budget request and a reduction of $2,300,000 from the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level. The recommendation assumes funding of 

$1,700,000 for replacement of the existing cooling towers and associated electrical, mechanical, and control equipment; $100,000 for 

moving and related expenses associated with the possible change 

of administration; and $100,000 for the First Family to redecorate 

the living quarters in the White House. 

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $4,475,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 4,040,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,040,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $27,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

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 budget request and is $435,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $4,085,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 3,592,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,392,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $24,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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 for-
161 

mulation, 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. The Committee recommends $2,392,000 for the Office of Policy Development, which is $1,693,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $1,200,000 less than budget request. The Committee recommendation makes this adjustment based on the 

amount of funding that has lapsed in this account in recent years. 

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $10,489,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 8,932,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,932,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $62,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The National Security Council advises the President in integrating domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,932,000 for 

the salaries and expenses of the National Security Council [NSC]. 

This amount is the same as the budget request and $1,557,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $82,337,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 85,676,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 92,869,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $489,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee has provided $92,869,000 to the Office of Administration for fiscal year 2005. In addition to the recommended level 

of funding, the Office of Administration receives reimbursements 

for information management support and general office services. 

Core Enterprise Services Program.—The Committee has provided 

$18,530,000 for the core enterprise services program, an increase 

of $7,193,000 above the budget request. The budget request proposes to transfer non-discretionary GSA rent and rent-related costs 

from White House Offices, Office of Policy Development, Council of 

Economic Advisors, and National Security Council to the Office of 

Administration to provide for central management. To achieve 

greater administrative and cost efficiencies, the Committee has included the Office of Management and Budget in the core enterprise 

services program and funding above the budget estimate represents 

OMB’s costs for rent, after-hours utilities, and prorated costs of 

heath unit operations. 
162 

THE WHITE HOUSE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... $181,048,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The budget request proposes a consolidation and financial realignment of the Executive Office of the President [EOP] accounts 

that directly support the President. The initiative would consolidate annual appropriations for the Compensation of the President 

and White House Office, Executive Residence, White House Repair 

and Restoration, the Office of Policy Development, the Council of 

Economic Advisers, the National Security Council, and the Office 

of Administration, into a single appropriation called ‘‘The White 

House.’’ 

The budget request also includes a related general provision in 

the government-wide general provisions that would provide for a 10 

percent transfer authority among all appropriations that comprise 

the EOP, except for certain counterdrug accounts. 

The Committee recommends funding for the offices that directly 

support the President according to the existing structure of accounts. This arrangement has served the Committee’s and the 

public’s need for transparancy in the funding and operation of 

these important functions while also providing the executive 

branch with the flexibility it needs to reprogram funds within accounts to address unforeseen budget needs. As noted in discussions 

with administration officials in past years, at no time has the Committee rejected an administration’s request to reprogram existing 

funds within these accounts. 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $66,763,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 76,565,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 68,411,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $396,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Office of Management and Budget [OMB] assists the President in the discharge of his budgetary, management, and other executive responsibilities. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $68,411,000 for the Office of Management and Budget which is $1,648,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

FASAB and JFMIP Contributions.—The Committee denies the 

request to transfer funding to the Department of the Treasury that 

supports the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

[FASAB] and the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program [JFMIP]. The justification for consolidating OMB’s annual 

payments to FASAB and JFMIP in the Treasury Department is exceptionally weak and rests on the desire to include the expense in 

the organization where the services are contracted rather than in 

the organization that initiates the expense. This proposal is inconsistent with the manner in which similar payments are treated in 

other agencies’ budgets and leaves the impression that the transfer 
163 

of these payments is being requested to mask the actual amount 

of resources for fiscal year 2005. The recommendation assumes an 

adjustment of $639,000. 

Core Enterprise Services.—The Committee recommendation 

transfers $7,193,000 back to the Office of Administration to consolidate OMB’s rent, after-hour utilities, and health unit costs in the 

core enterprise services program. The Committee believes it is important to include these funds in the core enterprise services program to maximize the gains in cost savings, administrative efficiencies, and improved fiscal management. Keeping as many entities in the Core Enterprise Services program reduces the number 

of individual bills that have to be processed and reconciled, reduces 

the administrative burden on preparing additional interagency 

agreements, and also reduces the duplicate administrative structures inherent in a decentralized environment. The Committee continues to believe that this activity is best suited for the Office of 

Administration, not the Office of Management and Budget. Therefore, funds have been transferred out of the Office of Administration, as proposed in the budget request. 

Personnel Funding Increases.—The Committee defers $1,600,000 

of the requested increase to hire additional personnel to reach the 

currently authorized level of full-time equivalent positions. The recommendation is due to budget constraints. 

OMB Review of Water Resource Projects.—The Secretary of the 

Army and the Chief of Engineers are responsible for evaluating 

and determining if a water resources project or study is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and requirements relevant 

to water resource planning. The Committee believes, however, that 

it is appropriate for the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] 

to examine each water resource report, proposal, or plan for consistency with the budgetary policy of the President. 

Unfortunately, the Committee is aware that numerous water resource projects that have been fully vetted through the lengthy 

water resource planning process established by the executive 

branch are being held up by the Office of Management and Budget 

for technical reviews or other policy questions that are unrelated 

to budgetary matters. The Committee has found that OMB does 

not have the proper staffing or expertise to make these types of decisions. In addition, the Committee is deeply concerned that water 

resource matters are being unnecessarily delayed for extended periods of time, sometimes without further action ever being taken because of such obstinacy. 

The Committee has included a provision to prohibit the use of 

any funds by OMB for any review of a water resource project other 

than for conformance with budgetary policies of the executive 

branch. The Committee has also included language that specifies 

that OMB shall have no more than 60 days to review water resource reports for compliance with budgetary policies. The bill directs OMB to notify Congress when the reports are received for review, and the Committee will assume OMB concurrence if the reports have not been transmitted to the relevant committees 15 

days after the end of the OMB review period. 

Harry S. Truman Memorial Scholarships.—The Committee 

strongly supports the Truman Scholarship program and its original 
164 

intentions. The Committee is concerned, however, that the regulations regarding awarding a scholarship to at least one qualified applicant from each State has been violated numerous times in recent 

years. The Committee directs the Board of the Truman Scholarship 

program to strictly adhere to its statutory mandate to ‘‘assure that 

at least one Truman scholar shall be selected each year from each 

State in which there is at least one resident applicant who meets 

the minimum criteria established by the Foundation.’’ 

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

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. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $27,831,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 27,609,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $165,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

This account provides funding for personnel compensation, travel, and other basic operations of the Office, and for general policy 

research to support the formulation of the National Drug Control 

Strategy. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,000,000 for 

ONDCP’s salaries and expenses. Within this amount the Committee provides the following funding levels: 

Amount FTEs 

Office of the Director .......................................................................................................................... $3,315,500 12 

Office of the Deputy Director .............................................................................................................. 1,125,500 6 

Office of Management and Administration ........................................................................................ 5,840,000 16 

Office of General Counsel ................................................................................................................... 1,065,000 6 

Office of Public Affairs ....................................................................................................................... 2,130,000 7 

Office of Legislative Affairs ................................................................................................................ 700,000 6 

Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center ...................................................................................... 760,000 4 

Office of Planning and Budget .......................................................................................................... 2,700,000 16 

Office of Demand Reduction .............................................................................................................. 1,550,000 9 

Office of National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign ....................................................................... 935,000 6 

Office of State and Local Affairs ....................................................................................................... 2,554,000 15 

Office of Supply Reduction ................................................................................................................. 2,310,000 13 

Office of Intelligence .......................................................................................................................... 665,000 4 

Policy Research ................................................................................................................................... 1,350,000 ............

Rising Inhalant Abuse Among Young Adolescents.—The Committee is concerned by the reported rise in inhalant abuse by middle school-age youth, even as overall teenage drug use has steadily 

declined. The partnership attitude tracking study [PATS] recently 

conducted by the Partnership for a Drug Free America [PDFA] indicates that low risk perception levels among young adolescents 

has led to an 18 percent increase in the abuse of inhalants by 

eighth graders and a 44 percent increase among sixth graders. 
165 

PATS attributes this decreased risk perception to the shifting of 

educational efforts from inhalants to emerging drug threats such as 

Ecstasy and methamphetamine. The Committee directs ONDCP to 

utilize a portion of its policy research funding to explore ways in 

which to increase inhalant outreach activities without compromising other ongoing educational efforts and to report its findings 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 

days of the enactment of this Act. 

COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $41,752,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 40,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 42,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $248,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center [CTAC] serves 

as the central counterdrug research and development organization 

for the Federal Government pursuant to the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Title VII of Division C of Public Law 105–277). 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. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $42,000,000 for CTAC, which is $2,000,000 more than the requested amount and 

$247,800 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. This funding includes $18,000,000 for R&D and $24,000,000 for the TTP. 

Prior to the obligation of any of these funds, the Committee directs CTAC’s chief scientist to submit to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations a detailed itemization of anticipated 

expenditures. The Committee also directs the chief scientist to continue to provide biannual reports on the priority counterdrug enforcement research and development requirements identified by 

CTAC and on the status of resulting projects funded thereby. These 

reports should continue to provide the same level of detail that was 

provided in the March 1, 2004, CTAC report to Congress. 

Research and Development.—The Committee remains concerned 

that a large proportion of CTAC’s R&D budget is devoted to technology acquisition rather than actual research. This concern is 

compounded by the fact that CTAC has already committed more 

than $13,000,000 of future years’ funding to such purchases. The 

Committee therefore directs CTAC to complete all ongoing technology acquisition R&D projects with the funding provided in fiscal 

year 2005. Thereafter, CTAC is directed to adhere its R&D spending to those research efforts outlined in its demand reduction vision 

statement as well as its supply reduction priorities listing included 

in appendices E and F, respectively, of its March 1, 2004, CTAC 

report. 

The Committee notes that CTAC’s R&D efforts may be too heavily weighted in favor of demand reduction research activities and 

against supply reduction research activities. The Committee directs 
166 

CTAC to consider more equally funding all R&D activities in the 

future and to report on its progress in this regard in its next CTAC 

report. The Committee notes that nearly $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 

CTAC R&D funding remains unobligated in spite of CTAC’s 

overcommittment of these resources and the unmet demand for 

CTAC funding in this and other areas. The Committee therefore directs CTAC to expeditiously obligate all of its R&D funding exclusively in pursuit of the functions for which it has been appropriated. The Committee further directs CTAC to report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of 

enactment of this Act on the reasons for the delay in obligating 

these funds. 

Technology Transfer Program.—The Committee fully supports the continuation of the TTP and provides $24,000,000 for its operation in fiscal year 2005. The Committee believes that this program 

is vital to State and local law enforcement in their efforts to combat drug-related crimes and is encouraged by the positive reception 

this program has received by State and local law enforcement agencies. Current requests for technology transfers continue to outpace 

resources by nearly three to one. The Committee expects that 

CTAC will conduct further outreach to State and local agencies to 

educate them about the TTP. Finally, the Committee encourages 

CTAC to work with private industry to make their developed technology available to State and local law enforcement agencies and 

to report on the progress of these efforts in its next CTAC report 

to Congress. 

In order to maintain a clear understanding of CTAC’s ability to 

meet demand for the TTP, the Committee directs that the fiscal 

year 2006 budget justification include a specific accounting of the 

total number of grant applications received and the number awarded in the previous year. 

FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

HIGH-INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $225,015,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 208,350,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 228,350,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,335,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $228,350,000 for 

the HIDTA program. The Committee directs that funding shall be 

provided for the existing HIDTAs at no less than the fiscal year 

2004 initial allocation level, unless the Director submits to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and the Commit-
167 

tees 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. These 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. 

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. 

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. 

APPALACHIA HIDTA

The Committee remains concerned that the three Appalachia 

HIDTA States, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, comprising approximately 4 percent of the total U.S. population, 

produce some of the most potent marijuana available and over 34.5 

percent of the marijuana eradicated in the United States in 2003. 

For 2003, the West Virginia National Guard, which has mounted 

a vigorous counterdrug program in cooperation with the Appalachia 

HIDTA, estimates that the value of the eradicated marijuana crop 

in the 12 West Virginia HIDTA counties is over $155,000,000. 

Therefore, the Committee directs ONDCP to maintain funding at 

no less than fiscal year 2004 initial allocation to continue to combat 

this threat. 
168 

NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY HIDTA

The Committee is concerned about the increased level of drug 

trafficking and distribution in upstate New York. The geography of 

the New York region has bred a drug trafficking problem that is 

international, national and regional in scope. Drug investigations 

have revealed a number of links between CPOT/RPOTs and the upstate New York region. The success of the downstate New York/ 

New Jersey HIDTA has led to a significant increase in trafficking 

of cocaine and heroin from the New York City area north and west 

to Albany, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, fueling a growth in 

gang related crime. There is a significant rise in shipments of potent Canadian produced hydroponic marijuana into the United 

States through Buffalo and other northern ports of entry. There is 

also an increase in domestic marijuana production and trafficking 

in upstate New York, as well as the growth of local methamphetamine laboratories. Additional funding would allow New York to 

combat these threats and would enable ONDCP to designate additional counties, including counties in upstate New York, as part of 

the New York/New Jersey HIDTA where appropriate. The Committee directs ONDCP to work with the affected counties to determine whether they meet the statutory criteria required for designation as a HIDTA. The Committee directs ONDCP to ensure that 

funding for the New York/New Jersey HIDTA is provided at a level 

no less than the fiscal year 2004 initial allocation and to work with 

the Executive Board of the New York/New Jersey HIDTA to assess 

the needs of the HIDTA and to provide additional resources if necessary. 

NORTHWEST HIDTA

Methampetamine is the primary illicit drug threat to the State 

of Washington. Its widespread use and resulting addiction, combined with the overwhelming availability of high purity, low cost 

methamphetamine, is cause for serious concern. Moreover, the 

spread of ICE methamphetamine with increased purity levels has 

increased throughout Washington State and the seizures of Ephedrine—a meth precursor—continue to increase at the Canadian border. 

Marijuana is the most readily available and widely abused illicit 

drug in Washington State. Canada-produced marijuana, commonly 

known as ‘‘BC Bud’’ is more readily available than Mexico-produced 

marijuana. Cocaine and heroin also represent significant threats. 

Northwest HIDTA is having an impact in these areas. The Committee directs ONDCP to provide adequate resources to combat 

these threats. In addition, the Committee notes the value of State 

and local task forces in addressing these issues and encourages the 

continued incorporation of such entities in this and other HIDTAs. 

OTHER FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $227,649,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 235,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 195,500,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,351,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 
169 

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. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $185,500,000 for Other Federal Drug Control Programs, which is $39,500,000 less 

than the requested amount and $32,149,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level. Within this amount, the Committee provides the following funding levels: 

Amount 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign ........................................................................................................ $100,000,000 

Drug-Free Communities Support Program ........................................................................................................... 80,000,000 

Counterdrug Executive Secretariat ....................................................................................................................... 3,050,000 

National Drug Court Institute .............................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws ..................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

United States Anti-Doping Agency Grant ............................................................................................................ 7,500,000 

World Anti-Doping Agency Dues .......................................................................................................................... 1,450,000 

Performance Measures Development ................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

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. While overall youth illicit drug use has 

trended downward since 1997, the Committee is concerned with the 

most recent results of the media campaign evaluation study commissioned by the National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA]. The 

evaluation study indicates, not only that marijuana use has 

trended steadily upward among 14- to 16-year olds—the Media 

Campaign’s target audience—since 2000, but also that the Media 

Campaign has had no measurable positive effect on youth attitudes 

toward marijuana nor their use thereof. The Evaluation Study’s 

conclusions are particularly troubling in light of the fact that, since 

the fall of 2002, the Media Campaign has chosen to focus its efforts 

on a ‘‘marijuana initiative’’ aimed at curbing youth marijuana use 

on the basis that marijuana serves as a ‘‘gateway’’ drug to other 

more potent controlled substances. Because of its concern about the 

direction and efficacy of the Media Campaign as it is currently 

structured, the Committee provides $100,000,000 for its continuation. 

The Committee is troubled that the evaluation study indicates 

the Media Campaign has been so ineffective in reaching and influencing its targeted youth audience. In order to ensure that Media 

Campaign resources are most effectively allocated to prevent youth 

from using illicit narcotics, ONDCP must evaluate the effectiveness 

of its efforts on the basis of quantifiable scientific research. The 

Committee therefore directs ONDCP to utilize the individual ad 

and overall Campaign assessments provided by the evaluation 

study to measure the effectiveness of its advertisements and to 

focus and shape the Media Campaign for the future. 

Media Campaign Non-Advertising Services.—While print and 

broadcast advertising is the primary focus of the Media Campaign, 
170 

it also provides non-advertising services such as the production and 

dissemination of printed educational materials, maintaining an 

internet presence targeted to both parents and youth, multicultural 

outreach, entertainment and media outreach and strategic partnerships that assist in distributing the Media Campaign’s anti-drug 

materials and message. Among the most successful of these non-advertising services has been the Media Campaign’s now-discontinued corporate outreach program, through which the Media Campaign developed partnerships with corporations who provided inkind contributions of access to their employees and customers 

through which the Media Campaign could disseminate its message 

and materials. This program provided the Media Campaign with 

tremendous opportunity to access youth and is estimated to have 

leveraged twelve in-kind private sector dollars for every dollar committed from the Media Campaign. 

The Committee is disappointed that ONDCP has chosen to decrease its non-advertising services, and particularly its Corporate 

Outreach Program, in response to the provision of Public Law 108– 

199 requiring that no less than 78 percent of Media Campaign 

funding be spent on advertising time and space. This requirement 

was included for the purpose of reducing the administrative costs 

associated with the Media Campaign, which now consume approximately 15 percent of the total amount, rather than eliminating effective outreach efforts. The Committee therefore directs ONDCP 

to maintain funding for its non-advertising services at no less than 

the fiscal year 2003 level and to re-institute the corporate outreach 

program as it operated prior to its cancellation. 

The Committee remains concerned with the large proportion of 

Media Campaign resources devoted to administrative costs. The accompanying bill therefore directs that no more than 10 percent of 

the funding provided for the Media Campaign be used for administrative costs. 

Drug-Free Communities Support Program.—ONDCP has directed 

the Drug-Free Communities Support Program [DFCSP] in partnership with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention since it was created by the Drug-Free Communities Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105–20). DFCSP provides matching grants of up 

to $100,000 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. 

Counterdrug Intelligence Executive Secretariat.—The 

Counterdrug Intelligence Executive Secretariat [CDX] provides 
171 

staff support to the Counterdrug Intelligence Coordinating Group, 

an interagency body established to oversee and improve coordination of Federal counterdrug intelligence programs. The Committee 

provides $3,050,000 for CDX. 

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 $7,500,000 for USADA, which is $6,000,000 more than the requested amount. The Committee urges 

USADA to maintain appropriate standards of fairness and due 

process in pursuing its mission of promoting and enforcing the integrity of American athletic competition. 

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 $1,450,000 for membership dues to the 

World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA], consistent with the commitment into which the United States has entered for support of 

WADA. In providing these funds, the Committee directs ONDCP to 

use its voice and vote as the United States’ representative in this 

world body to ensure that all countries’ athletes are subject to fair 

and equal standards and treatment so as to establish and maintain 

the objectivity and integrity of this fledgling international athletic 

regulatory organization. 

National Drug Court Institute.—The National Drug Court Institute facilitates the growth of the drug court movement by promoting and disseminating education, research, and scholarship concerning drug court programs and providing a comprehensive drug 

court training series for practitioners. The Committee is aware of 

the extraordinary growth in drug courts across the country and the 

important training of new drug courts that the Institute provides. 

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 
172 

provides $1,500,000 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 $1,000,000, which 

is $1,000,000 less than 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. The Committee believes that funding research projects 

under PMD crowds out legitimate performance measures initiatives 

and thereby reduces ONDCP’s ability to properly evaluate Federal 

counterdrug efforts. Accordingly, the Committee directs ONDCP to 

submit its planned PMD activities to CTAC’s chief scientist for review and then to report to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of this Act providing 

the chief scientist’s findings and explaining why these anticipated 

PMD functions are most properly funded within PMD. 

UNANTICIPATED NEEDS

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $994,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $6,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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

The Committee recommends $1,000,000, which is $6,000 more 

than appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and the same as the budget 

estimate. 

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $4,435,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 4,571,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,571,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $26,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,571,000 for 

special assistance to the President. This amount is the same as the 

budget request and $136,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 
173 

OFFICIAL RESIDENCE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $329,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 333,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 333,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $2,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $333,000 for the 

official residence of the Vice President. This amount is the same as 

the budget request and $4,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 
(174) 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE

BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $5,369,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 5,686,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,686,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $32,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting accessibility for all handicapped persons. 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, 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. 

The Committee recommends $5,686,000 for the operations of the 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the 

funding level requested by the administration. 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR

SEVERELY DISABLED

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $4,697,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 4,672,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,672,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $28,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The CPPBSD administers the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act [JWOD] 

of 1971, as amended. Its primary objective is to use the purchasing 

power of the Federal Government to provide people who are blind 

or have other severe disabilities with employment and training 

that will develop and improve job skills as well as prepare them 

for employment options outside the JWOD program. In fiscal year 

2004, the Committee’s goal is to employ approximately 50,000 people who are blind or have other severe disabilities in 600 producing 

nonprofit agencies. The Committee’s duties include promoting the 
175 

program; determining which products and services are suitable for 

Government procurement from qualified nonprofit agencies serving 

people who are blind or have other severe disabilities; maintaining 

a procurement list of such products and services; determining the 

fair market price for products and services on the procurement list; 

and making rules and regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. In fiscal year 2005, the Committee’s goal is to 

have sales of $2,000,000,000. 

The Committee recommends $4,672,000 for the Committee for 

Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $1,193,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $7,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. The Committee provides $10,000,000 for EAC’s administrative expenses, which is $8,807,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 level. 

Included in this amount is $200,000 to award grants to the national student parent mock election as authorized under HAVA section 295. The accompanying bill provides $2,800,000 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. 

ELECTION REFORM PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $1,491,150,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 30,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

1 Reflects reduction of $8,850,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

This appropriation finances grants for requirements payments to 

State and local governments to meet minimum voting standards established under title III of HAVA and other grant programs authorized by the Act. 

The Committee does not provide funding for election reform programs. The Committee notes that approximately $1,200,000,000 of 

the $2,321,150,000 previously appropriated for election reform programs, more than half of these funds, remain unobligated to date. 

The Committee believes that the unobligated balance will be sufficient for requirements payments obligations in fiscal year 2005 and 

encourages the EAC to continue working with the States in order 

to disburse these funds as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. 

The Committee further encourages the EAC to continue to work 
176 

diligently to promulgate voluntary State voting system guidelines 

so that this grant program will be implemented as Congress intended. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $50,938,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 52,159,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 52,159,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $302,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. The Committee recommends $52,159,000 for the Federal Election 

Commission, which is the same as the budget request and 

$1,221,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $29,436,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 29,673,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,673,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $175,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Federal Labor Relations Authority [FLRA] pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 of 1978, and the Civil Service Reform 

Act of 1978, serves as a neutral party in the settlement of disputes 

that arise between unions, employees, and agencies on matters outlined in the Federal Service Labor Management Relations statute, 

decides major policy issues, prescribes regulations, and disseminates information appropriate to the needs of agencies, labor organizations, and the public. Establishment of the FLRA gives full recognition to the role of the Federal Government as an employer. 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,673,000 for 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority. This amount is $4,000,000 

below the President’s budget request and is $3,763,000 less than 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee recommendation 

reflects the decline in caseload and the reduction of the FTE level 

from 215 to 210. 
177 

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, 2004 ..................................................................................... ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥$3,000,000 

The Committee recommends a rescission of $3,000,000 of prior 

appropriations for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Labor 

Relations Authority. The Committee notes that significant amounts 

of annual appropriations have lapsed at the end of fiscal year 2002 

and 2003 which reflect salary and benefit surpluses related to the 

decline in caseload and actual FTE usage over the same period. 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations 2004 1 ............................................................................ $18,362,000 

Budget estimate 2005 ............................................................................ 19,496,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 19,496,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $109,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984 as 

amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998; section 19 of 

the Merchant Marine Act, 1920; the Foreign Shipping Practices Act 

of 1988; and Public Law 89–777. 

FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of the 

United States. In addition, the FMC has responsibility for licensing 

and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and assuring that 

vessel owners or operators establish financial responsibility to pay 

judgments for death or injury to passengers, or nonperformance of 

a cruise, on voyages from U.S. ports. Major program areas for 2005 

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. 

The Committee includes $19,496,000 for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal year 2005. 

This amount is the same as the President’s request and $1,134,000 

above the fiscal year 2004 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. 
178 

FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND—LIMITATIONS ON AVAILABILITY OF

REVENUE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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 support systems, and operating equipment. This activity also provides 

for conversion of existing facilities and non-prospectus extensions. 

Installment Acquisition Payments.—Payments are made for liabilities incurred under purchase contract authority and lease purchase arrangements. The periodic payments cover principal, interest, and other requirements. 

Rental of Space.—Space is acquired through the leasing of buildings including space occupied by Federal agencies in U.S. Postal 

Service facilities, 153 million rentable square feet in fiscal year 

2003, and 157 million rentable square feet in fiscal year 2004. 

Building Operations.—Services are provided for 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, 2004 1 ......................................................... $721,648,000 

Limitation on availability, 2005 ........................................................... 650,223,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 710,823,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $289,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

Funds provided for construction and acquisition in fiscal year 

2005 shall be available for the following projects in the corresponding amounts: 
179 

Amount 

Alexandria Bay, New York Border Station ............................................................................................................ $8,884,000 

Calais, Maine Border Station ............................................................................................................................... 5,550,000 

Chicago, Illinois 10 West Jackson Place (Purchase) ........................................................................................... 53,170,000 

Derby Line, Vermont Border Station .................................................................................................................... 3,190,000 

District of Columbia Southwest Federal Center side remediation ...................................................................... 2,650,000 

Dunseith, North Dakota Border Station ............................................................................................................... 2,301,000 

El Paso, Texas Paso Del Norte Border Station .................................................................................................... 26,191,000 

El Paso, Texas United States Courthouse ........................................................................................................... 63,462,000 

El Paso, Ysleta Border Station ............................................................................................................................ 2,491,000 

Las Cruces Courthouse ........................................................................................................................................ 60,600,000 

Los Angeles, California Federal Bureau of Investigation Facility ....................................................................... 14,054,000 

Los Angeles, California United States Courthouse .............................................................................................. 314,385,000 

Madawaska, Maine Border Station ...................................................................................................................... 1,760,000 

Massena, New York, Border Station .................................................................................................................... 15,000,000 

Montgomery County, Maryland FDA Consolidation .............................................................................................. 88,710,000 

Norton, Vermont Border Station ........................................................................................................................... 580,000 

Portal, North Dakota Border Station .................................................................................................................... 22,351,000 

Richford, Vermont Border Station ........................................................................................................................ 589,000 

San Diego, California United States Courthouse ................................................................................................ 3,068,000 

Warroad, Minnesota Border Station ..................................................................................................................... 1,837,000 

Nonprospectus Construction ................................................................................................................................ 10,000,000 

Judgment Fund repayment ................................................................................................................................... 10,000,000 

The Committee recommends $710,823,000 for the construction 

and acquisition account. The Committee recommendation is 

$60,600,000 above the President’s request. 

Risk Assessments.—The Committee is aware of the Interagency 

Security Committee criteria requiring the General Services Administration [GSA], prior to new construction or major renovations, to 

perform a project specific risk assessment that takes into account 

threat, vulnerability, consequences, and probability of an attack on 

the facility. However, the Committee is concerned that existing 

physical security risk methodology is not specifically designed to 

support structural upgrades and hazard mitigation that should be 

addressed in new construction or major renovations. Therefore, the 

Committee expects the GSA Office of the Chief Architect to work 

with the Applied Research Associates’ Security Engineering and 

Applied Sciences Sector to enhance the Federal Security Risk Manager 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. 

Courthouse Construction.—The Committee encourages the General Services Administration [GSA], the administration, and the judiciary to continue to work cooperatively to develop a single comprehensive plan upon which courthouse construction will be based. 

The Committee continues to believe that a model should incorporate utilization rates, courtroom sharing, and safety considerations. The use of cost savings measures and careful planning will 

result in a program that can be consistently supported. The Committee notes that it has been extremely supportive of addressing 

the courthouse construction backlog. Further, the Committee would 

again remind the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts [AOC] 

and other organizations that the Committee has adhered to the 

jointly agreed to priority list and that the Congress is constrained 

by overall budget resolutions and spending caps from accommodating every request. 
180 

The Committee is concerned that in spite of the strict budgetary 

pressures facing the Federal Government, AOC fails to pursue a 

policy of fiscal restraint and approaches the Congress for increases 

in courthouse construction funding above the Administration’s request. The Congress and the Administration have worked diligently 

to reign in court construction costs and the Committee will continue to pursue all avenues with respect to cost containment with 

or without the support of the Courts. 

REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS

Limitation on availability, 2004 1 ......................................................... $990,903,000 

Limitation on availability, 2005 ........................................................... 980,222,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 980,222,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $397,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends new obligational authority of $980,222,000 for repairs and alterations in fiscal year 2005. This 

amount is the same as the President’s request. 

Funds provided for repairs and alterations in fiscal year 2005 

shall be available for the following projects in the corresponding 

amounts: 

Amount 

Atlanta, Georgia Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building .................................................................................. $14,800,000 

Atlanta, Georgia United States Court of Appeals ............................................................................................... 32,004,000 

Baltimore, Maryland George H. Fallon Federal Building ..................................................................................... 46,163,000 

Cincinnati, Ohio Potter Stewart Courthouse ........................................................................................................ 37,975,000 

Cleveland, Ohio Celebreeze Federal Building ...................................................................................................... 37,375,000 

District of Columbia Eisenhower Executive Office Building ................................................................................ 5,000,000 

District of Columbia Federal Office Building ...................................................................................................... 8,267,000 

District of Columbia Hoover FBI Building ........................................................................................................... 10,242,000 

District of Columbia Mary E. Switzer Building .................................................................................................... 80,335,000 

District of Columbia New Executive Office Building ........................................................................................... 6,262,000 

District of Columbia Theodore Roosevelt Building .............................................................................................. 9,730,000 

Hilo, Hawaii Federal Building .............................................................................................................................. 5,133,000 

Kansas City, Missouri Richard Bolling Federal Building .................................................................................... 40,048,000 

New Orleans, Louisiana Boggs Federal Building ................................................................................................ 22,581,000 

New Orleans, Louisiana Wisdom Courthouse of Appeals .................................................................................... 8,005,000 

New York, New York Foley Square Courthouse .................................................................................................... 2,505,000 

Queens, New York Joseph P. Addabbo Federal Building ..................................................................................... 5,455,000 

Seattle, Washington William Nakamura Courthouse ........................................................................................... 50,210,000 

St. Paul, Minnesota Warren E. Burger Federal Building ..................................................................................... 36,644,000 
181 

Amount 

Suitland, Maryland National Record Center ........................................................................................................ 7,989,000 

Woodlawn, Maryland SSA Altmeyer Building ....................................................................................................... 6,300,000 

Special Emphasis Programs: 

Chlorofluorocarbons Program ...................................................................................................................... 13,000,000 

Energy Program ........................................................................................................................................... 30,000,000 

Glass Fragment Retention .......................................................................................................................... 20,000,000 

Design Program ........................................................................................................................................... 49,699,000 

Basic Repairs and Alterations .................................................................................................................... 394,500,000 

INSTALLMENT ACQUISITION PAYMENTS

Limitation on availability, 2004 1 ......................................................... $169,677,000 

Limitation on availability, 2005 ........................................................... 161,442,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 161,442,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $68,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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). 

The Committee recommends a limitation of $161,442,000 for installment acquisition payments. The Committee recommendation 

equals the budget estimate. 

RENTAL OF SPACE

Limitation on availability, 2004 1 ......................................................... $3,278,873,000 

Limitation on availability, 2005 ........................................................... 3,672,315,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,597,315,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,314,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends a limitation of $3,597,315,000 for 

rental of space. The Committee recommendation is $75,000,000 

below the President’s budget request and $318,442,000 above the 

fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

BUILDING OPERATIONS

Limitation on availability, 2004 1 ......................................................... $1,608,064,000 

Limitation on availability, 2005 ........................................................... 1,709,522,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,709,522,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $644,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 
182 

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. 

The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,709,522,000 for 

building operations. This amount is the same as the President’s 

budget request and $101,458,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $56,050,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 62,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 62,100,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $333,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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 Governmentwide 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $62,100,000 for 

Government-wide Policy. This amount is the same as the President’s budget request and also includes funds transferred from the 

Federal Technology Service’s portion of the Operating Expenses ac-
183 

count to cover the Federal identity management and e–authentication management functions. 

Child Care Centers.—The Committee recommends that funds 

provided to the Office of Policy and Operations continue to be used 

to issue and enforce regulations requiring any entity operating a 

child care center in a facility owned or leased by an executive agency to: (1) comply with applicable State and local licensing requirements related to the provision of child care and (2) comply with 

center-based accreditation standards specified by the Administrator, if such a regulatory program is authorized. 

Computers to Schools Program.—The Committee continues to be 

aware that Indian tribal colleges and Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian serving institutions are being asked to undertake an increasing number of activities in Native communities related to education, employment and other training as part of the ongoing ‘‘welfare to work’’ transition mandated by the 1996 welfare reform law. 

To complement recent private sector donations of computers and 

related equipment to Indian tribes and Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian serving institutions, as part of its existing ‘‘Computers to 

Schools’’ program, the General Services Administration [GSA] is 

encouraged to continue to work with the 31 Indian tribal colleges 

and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian serving institutions to 

provide assistance to them in developing and upgrading the colleges’ electronic capabilities. As part of this effort, GSA should utilize the 31 tribal colleges and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian 

serving institutions as a discrete evaluation point as it works to 

meet these equipment needs. GSA’s technical assistance will further enable the tribal colleges and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian serving institutions to provide a higher quality of education 

to their students. 

Telecommuting Centers.—The Committee encourages GSA to continue to promote telecommuting centers within the Federal Government in the Washington, DC metropolitan area as an effective 

means to provide an alternative workplace. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $87,590,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 82,175,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 85,175,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $520,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $85,175,000 for 

the Operating Expenses. This amount is an increase of $3,000,000 

above the administration’s request and $2,415,000 below the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level. The Committee includes the following in-
184 

creases: $500,000 for the Ruffner Mountain Educational Facility in 

Alabama; $500,000 for the Center for the Living Arts in Alabama; 

$250,000 for the State of Alaska to assist in preparation for its 

Statehood celebration; $200,000 for the Way of a Champion Foundation in Chesapeake, Virginia; $450,000 for the City of Maryville, 

Missouri for airport improvements; $1,000,000 for Washington 

State Border Communities Prosecution Initiative; $300,000 for the 

UND Government Services Rural Outreach Initiative and $250,000 

for the Walla Walla economic development study of potentially surplus property at the Wainwright VA Medical Center. 

Washington State Border Communities Prosecution Initiative, 

Washington.—Enforcement activities on the border between Washington State and Canada has increased dramatically. Funding is 

provided to compensate those local communities along the border 

that have had to bear increasing costs associated with jailing, prosecuting, and defending suspected criminals for crimes at the border. Such expenses may include costs associated with an investigation or arrest initiated by Federal law enforcement or any case that 

involves a violation of Federal law that has been referred for prosecution by Federal authorities. Costs that would be eligible for reimbursement include the costs of prosecution, investigation, detention of suspects, court costs, and construction of holding spaces. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $38,938,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 42,351,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 42,351,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $231,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and investigative 

functions to identify and correct management and administrative 

deficiencies within the General Services Administration [GSA], creating conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste 

and mismanagement. This audit function provides internal audit 

and contract audit services. Contract audits provide professional 

advice to GSA contracting officials on accounting and financial 

matters relative to the negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of GSA operations and programs, test internal control 

systems, and develop information to improve operating efficiencies 

and enhance customer services. The investigative function provides 

for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 

involving GSA programs, personnel, and operations. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $42,351,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General. This amount is the same as the 

President’s budget request and $3,413,000 above the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level. 

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT [E-GOV] FUND

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $2,982,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $18,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 
185 

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. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000 for the Electronic Government Fund. This amount is $2,000,000 below 

the President’s request. 

ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $3,373,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 3,449,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,106,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $20,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends $3,106,000 for allowances and office 

staff for former Presidents. The Committee recommendation provides for the office staff and related expenses associated with the 

closing of the Office of Former President Ronald Reagan through 

December 31, 2004. 

Below is listed a detailed analysis of the Committee’s recommendation for fiscal year 2005 funding: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Former Presidents 

Widows Total 

Ford Carter Reagan Bush Clinton 

Personnel Compensation ............................. 96 96 96 96 96 .............. 480 

Personnel Benefits ....................................... 22 2 33 51 78 .............. 186 

Benefits for Former Presidents ................... 182 182 .............. 182 189 20 755 

Travel ........................................................... 44 2 10 54 44 .............. 154 

Rental Payments to GSA ............................. 105 102 37 175 460 .............. 879 

Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous charges: 

Telephone ............................................ 15 10 4 14 54 .............. 97 

Postage ............................................... 9 15 2 13 10 4 53 

Printing ........................................................ 5 5 4 14 8 .............. 36 

Other Services ............................................. 38 79 11 66 146 .............. 340 

Supplies & Materials ................................... 17 5 2 14 15 .............. 53 

Equipment ................................................... 6 7 1 34 5 .............. 53 

Subtotal Obligations ...................... 539 505 200 713 1,105 24 3,086 
186 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Former Presidents 

Widows Total 

Ford Carter Reagan Bush Clinton 

Infrastructure Contingency .......................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 20 

Total Obligations ............................ 539 505 200 713 1,105 22 3,106 

EXPENSES, PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION

Appropriations, 2004 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... $7,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,700,000 

The appropriation provides funds to provide for an orderly transfer of executive leadership, in accordance with the Presidential 

Transition Act of 1963. Funds are also authorized to finance the 

costs of briefings and training for personnel associated with the incoming administration. Funds are only requested during a presidential election year and are not available for obligation by the incumbent administration. 

The Committee recommends $7,700,000 for presidential transition expenses, an amount equal to the budget estimate. The Committee denies the request to amend the Presidential Transition Act 

to allow $1,000,000 for training and briefings for incoming appointees associated with the second term of an incumbent President. The Committee has no objection to funding training and 

briefings for incoming appointees associated with the second term 

of an incumbent President, but believe that it should be properly 

budgeted for and requested by the appropriate agencies. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Section 401 authorizes GSA to credit accounts with certain funds 

received from Government corporations. 

Section 402 authorizes GSA to use funds for the hire of passenger motor vehicles. 

Section 403 authorizes GSA to transfer funds within the Federal 

buildings fund for meeting program requirements. 

Section 404 limits funding for courthouse construction which 

does not meet certain standards of a capital improvement plan. 

Section 405 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 406 authorizes GSA to pay claims up to $250,000 from 

construction projects and acquisition of buildings. 

Section 407 authorizes GSA to sell the Middle River Depot at 

Middle River, Maryland and the proceeds to be credited to the Federal Building Fund to be appropriated as the GSA Administrator 

may deem appropriate. 

Section 408 amends 40 U.S.C. 572 in subsection (a)(2)(ii) by inserting the following before the period: ‘‘, highest and best use of 

property studies, utilization of property studies, deed compliance 

inspection, and the expenses incurred in a relocation’’. 
187 

Section 409 makes adjustments from the Federal Building Fund 

for new construction and repairs and alterations projects based on 

cost and schedule changes. 

Section 410 allows GSA to use previously appropriated funds to 

redesign the proposed courthouse expansion at the corner of 400 

South Street and West Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Section 411 amends Section 3712 of title 22, United States Code 

by adding a new subsection to provide for the termination of the 

Panama Canal Commission and authorizes GSA to administer the 

Revolving Fund. 

Section 412 requires the Postal Service to convey property in 

Baton Rouge to GSA, for which GSA shall compensate the Postal 

Service. GSA shall then convey the property to the Recreation and 

Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Section 413 prohibits the use of funds after July 1, 2005 for any 

telecommunications service for Federal Government owned buildings unless the building is in compliance with a regulation or Executive Order related to redundant telecommunications services. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $32,683,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 37,303,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 34,677,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $194,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. These actions are designed 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,677,000 for 

the Merit Systems Protection Board, this is an increase of 

$1,994,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and a decrease 

of $2,626,000 below the President’s budget request. The decrease 

from the President’s request reflects the Committee’s decision to 

continue the practice of appropriating funds to MSPB from the 

Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund rather than discontinuing this practice as requested by the President; this request 

has not been adequately justified. The Committee instead makes 

available no more than $2,626,000 for adjudicated appeals through 

an appropriation from the trust fund consistent with past practice. 
188 

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, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $1,984,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,996,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $12,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

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 Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,996,000 for 

these activities of 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. This 

report should include an itemization of planned Native Nations Institute expenditures for fiscal year 2004. 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 for the current 

and future budget years. 

MORRIS K. UDALL ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $1,301,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,309,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $8,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution is a 

Federal program established by Public Law 105–156 to assist parties in resolving environmental, natural resource, and public lands 

conflicts. The Institute is part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation, 

and serves as an impartial, non-partisan institution providing professional expertise, services, and resources to all parties involved in 

such disputes. The Institute helps parties determine whether collaborative problem solving is appropriate for specific environmental 

conflicts, how and when to bring all the parties together for discussion, and whether a third-party facilitator or mediator might be 

helpful in assisting the parties in their efforts to each consensus or 

to resolve the conflict. In addition, the Institute maintains a roster 
189 

of qualified facilitators and mediators with substantial experience 

in environmental conflict resolution, and can help parties in selecting an appropriate neutral. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,309,000 for 

the Morris K. Udall Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund. This 

amount is $8,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and 

$609,000 above the administration’s request. 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $255,185,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 266,945,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 266,945,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,515,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $266,945,000 for 

Operating Expenses of the National Archives and archived Federal 

records and related activities. 

ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARCHIVES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $35,702,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 35,914,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,914,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $212,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

National Archives and Records Administration [NARA] is developing an Electronic Records Archives [ERA] that will ensure the 

preservation of and access to Government electronic records. With 

the rapid changes in technology today, the formats in which 

records are stored become obsolete within a few years, making 

records inaccessible even if they are preserved intact with the most 

modern technology. ERA will preserve electronic records generated 

in a manner that enables requesters to access them on computer 

systems now and in the future. 

Given both the importance and obvious magnitude of ERA, the 

Committee intends to continue to monitor NARA’s acquisition 

plans, staffing levels and ability to meet established deadlines. In 

that regard, the Committee directs GAO to continue to provide 

progress reports on NARA’s development of ERA and to report its 

findings to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 

May 25, 2005. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,914,000 for 

the Electronic Records Archives. The funding request for fiscal year 
190 

2005 will continue to support the initial work on development of 

the first increment of the electronic records system. 

ARCHIVES FACILITIES REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $13,627,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 6,182,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,182,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $81,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,182,000. 

The Committee has included $3,000,000 for site preparation and 

construction management for the construction of a new Pacific 

Alaska Regional Archives Facility in Anchorage, Alaska. The recommendation also provides $2,000,000 for the repair and restoration of the plaza that surrounds the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library at the University of Texas. The Committee is concerned by the lack of progress on this project and directs NARA 

and the University of Texas to keep the Committee fully apprised 

of steps to commence the repair of the plaza this fiscal year. Further, the Committee encourages the parties to realign their memorandum of understanding in a timely fashion to reflect their agreement as to ongoing responsibilities for repair and maintenance of 

this shared facility. The Committee has also included $1,000,000 to 

design an addition and renovation for the John F. Kennedy Library. This appropriation is $6,000,000 above the President’s budget request and $1,445,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION

GRANTS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $9,941,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 3,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $59,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The National Historical Publications and Records Commission 

[NHPRC] provides grants nationwide to preserve and publish 

records that document American history. Administered within the 

National Archives, which preserves Federal records, NHPRC helps 

State, local, and private institutions preserve non-Federal records, 

helps publish the papers of major figures in American history, and 

helps archivists and records managers improve their techniques, 

training, and ability to serve a range of information users. 
191 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000. This 

amount is $2,000,000 above the President’s budget request and 

$4,941,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $73,065,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 74,425,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 76,425,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $434,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends $76,425,000 for the National Transportation Safety Board, which is $2,000,000 more than the budget 

request and is $3,360,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted 

level. The Committee has provided this additional funding above 

the budget request in order to allow NTSB to maintain its critical 

staffing infrastructure and to add those new staff necessary to further its safety mission. Accordingly, and consistent with the staffing plan that NTSB has developed, the Committee directs NTSB to 

fund its Academy at no more than the requested level and to utilize 

these additional funds to hire accident investigation personnel. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, 2004 ..................................................................................... ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... ¥$8,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥8,000,000 

The fiscal year 2004 Supplemental Appropriations bill (Public 

Law 106–246) provided $19,739,000 to NTSB for emergency expenses associated with its investigation of the Egypt Air Flight 990 
192 

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 $8,000,000 remains. The Committee 

recommends the requested rescission of this amount. 

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $10,675,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 11,238,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,238,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $63,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Office of Government Ethics [OGE], a small agency within 

the executive branch, was established by the Ethics in Government 

Act of 1978. Originally part of the Office of Personnel Management, 

OGE became a separate agency on October 1, 1989 as part of the 

Office of Government Ethics Reauthorization Act of 1988. 

OGE is charged by law to provide overall direction of Executive 

Branch policies designed to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure 

high ethical standards. OGE carries out these responsibilities by 

developing rules and regulations pertaining to conflicts of interest, 

post employment restrictions, standards of conduct, and public and 

confidential financial disclosure in the Executive Branch; by monitoring compliance with the public and confidential disclosure requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1978 and the Ethics Reform 

Act of 1989 to determine possible violations of applicable laws or 

regulations and recommending appropriate corrective action; by 

consulting with and assisting various officials in evaluating the effectiveness of applicable laws and the resolution of individual problems; and by preparing formal advisory opinions, informal letter 

opinions, policy memoranda, and Federal Register entries on how 

to interpret and comply with the requirements on conflicts of interest, post employment, standards of conduct, and financial disclosure. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,238,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Office of Government Ethics in fiscal 

year 2005. This amount is the same as the President’s budget request. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $118,793,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 131,291,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 130,600,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $705,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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 
193 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $130,600,000 for 

the salaries and expenses of the Office of Personnel Management. 

Of the amount provided no more than $10,724,000 is to be used for 

e-Government projects. This amount is $691,000 less than the 

President’s request and $11,807,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

Child Care.—In fiscal year 2003, the Senate report directed OPM 

to conduct a study of child care needs for Federal employees. The 

resulting report provided some valuable information but further examination is necessary for a more accurate assessment of Federal 

employee child care needs. The Committee directs the Government 

Accountability Office [GAO], in consultation with OPM and the 

General Service Administration [GSA], to further study the child 

care needs of Federal employees of all Federal agencies, including 

the Legislative and Judicial branches. In addition to using the 

OPM data, the Committee expects GAO to provide guidance and 

recommendations of possible options to develop and evaluate additional child care facility needs and how best to serve the needs of 

all 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 

recommends that OPM continue to reach out to GAO for guidance 

and support because OPM could definitely benefit from the experiences that GAO has documented with other Federal agency modernization projects. The Committee is not confident that this multiyear effort is free of problems. The Committee therefore directs 
194 

GAO to do a comprehensive audit on the problems and any mismanagement of the modernization project. 

LIMITATION

(TRANSFER OF TRUST FUNDS)

Limitation, 2004 ..................................................................................... $135,112,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 128,462,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 128,462,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $801,900 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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. 

The Committee recommends a limitation of $128,462,000. This 

amount is the same as the President’s request. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $1,489,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 1,627,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,627,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $8,800 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Office of Inspector General is charged with establishing policies for conducting and coordinating efforts which promote economy, efficiency, and integrity in the Office of Personnel Management’s activities which prevent and detect fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the agency’s programs. Contract audits provide 

professional advice to agency contracting officials on accounting 

and financial matters regarding the negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal agency audits review and evaluate all facets of agency operations, including 

financial statements. Evaluation and inspection services provide 

detailed technical evaluations of agency operations. Insurance audits review the operations of health and life insurance carriers, 

health care providers, and insurance subscribers. The investigative 

function provides for the detection and investigation of improper 

and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

Administrative sanctions debar from participation in the health insurance program those health care providers whose conduct may 

pose a threat to the financial integrity of the program itself or to 

the well-being of insurance program enrollees. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,627,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General in fiscal 

year 2005. This amount is the same as the President’s request and 

$138,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

(LIMITATION ON TRANSFER FROM TRUST FUNDS)

Limitation, 2004 ..................................................................................... $14,342,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 16,461,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,461,000 

The Committee recommends a limitation on transfers from the 

trust funds in support of the Office of Inspector General activities 
195 

totaling $16,461,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $2,119,000 above the 

fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR ANNUITANTS, EMPLOYEES HEALTH

BENEFITS

Appropriations, 2004 ............................................................................. $7,219,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 8,135,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,135,000,000 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,135,000,000 

for Government payments for annuitants, employees health benefits. 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR ANNUITANTS, EMPLOYEE LIFE

INSURANCE

Appropriations, 2004 ............................................................................. $35,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 35,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,000,000 

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. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,000,000 for 

the Government payment for annuitants, employee life insurance. 

This amount equals the budget request. 

PAYMENT TO CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND

Appropriations, 2004 ............................................................................. $9,987,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 9,772,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,772,000,000 

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 
196 

annuities to eligible former spouses of some annuitants who did not 

elect survivor coverage. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,772,000,000 

for payment to the civil service retirement and disability fund. The 

Committee recommendation equals the budget estimate. 

HUMAN CAPITAL PERFORMANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $994,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 300,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

1 Reflects reduction of $5,900 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Human Capital Performance Fund is designed to create performance-driven pay systems for employees and reinforce the value 

of employee performance management systems. The administration 

proposes providing additional pay over and above any annual, 

across-the-board pay raise to certain civilian employees based on 

individual or organizational performance and/or other critical agency human capital needs. Under the proposal the current GS system 

would remain unchanged. Individual employees would remain at 

their existing GS levels and on schedule for all routine pay raises 

such as a within-grade increase. Any pay increase received from 

the Fund would be treated as increases to base pay for retirement 

and other purposes and would stay with an employee throughout 

his/her career. 

The Committee supports the concept of a performance-based pay 

system, but continues to be concerned about the creation of the 

Human Capital Performance Fund. The Committee believes that 

an initiative of this type should be budgeted and administered 

within the salaries and expenses of each individual agency and denies funding for fiscal year 2005. 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $13,424,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 15,449,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,449,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $80,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

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, 
197 

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. 

The Committee is aware that OSC has a critical need for additional personnel to address its more than 3 years of case backlog. 

Rather than hiring only attorneys, the Committee expects OSC to 

acquire an appropriate mix of new staff that will maximize its ability to reduce this backlog. The Committee therefore directs OSC to 

report to the Committees on Appropriations, no later than March 

31, 2005, regarding the status of its staffing efforts, particularly describing those new positions hired and how the reduction of OSC’s 

case backlog has benefited as a result of the new personnel. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,449,000 for 

the Office of Special Counsel. This amount is the same as the 

President’s budget request and $2,025,000 above the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

PAYMENT TO THE POSTAL SERVICE FUND

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $59,660,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 61,709,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 90,709,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $354,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Post Office dates back to 1775. It became the Postal Service 

in 1971 as an independent establishment of the executive branch 

of the United States Government. The Postal Service basic function 

and obligation is to provide postal services to bind the nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business 

correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable and 

efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal 

services to all communities. 

The Committee recommends a total of $90,709,000 in fiscal year 

2005 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 in the amount of $29,000,000 for 

overseas voting for prior years’ liability under the Revenue Forgone 

Reform Act of 1993. 

This amount includes: $55,631,000 requested for free mail for the 

blind and overseas voting; $6,078,000 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, 

$36,521,000 (an advance appropriation from 2004 for the 2004 

costs and the 2001 reconciliation adjustment for free mail for the 

blind and overseas voting) will become available to the U.S. Postal 

Service in fiscal year 2005. 

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. 
198 

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 at the 1983 level; and that none of the funds provided be 

used to consolidate or close small rural and other small post offices 

in fiscal year 2005. These are services that must be maintained in 

fiscal year 2005 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. 

Post Office Hours of Operation.—The Committee continues to be 

informed of the U.S. Postal Service efforts to promote efficiency by 

reducing the hours of operation at certain Post Offices across the 

Nation. The Committee is concerned that the Postal Service has reduced customer service hours without adequate consideration of 

peak hour public use. The Committee directs the Postal Service to 

continue to work with the various communities to review the hours 

of operation that will best serve the community. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Appropriations, 2004 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $507,000,000 

The Emergency Preparedness Account was implemented November 2001, to protect postal employees and postal customers from exposure to biohazardous materials. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $507,000,000 for 

Postal Service fiscal year 2005 Emergency Preparedness activities. 

This funding level will afford the Postal Service the expenditure of: 

$116,000,000 to complete the biohazardous detection system [BDS] 

system nationwide; $7,000,000 to construct a mail irradiation facility in Washington, DC to irradiate Government mail; and to reimburse the Postal Service $384,000,000 in prior years spending on 

BDS system, ventilation and filtration equipment, the irradiation 

facility, and other related expenses. The entire amount appropriated has been designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 649 (108th Congress) and applicable to the Senate by section 14007 of Public Law 

108–287. 

The Committee is concerned that the deployed Biohazardous Detection System and Ventilation Filtration System equipment’s inability to detect the full array of chemical and biological agents will 

pose a threat to the Nation’s current and future mail streams. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Postal Service to provide a report to the congressional committees of jurisdiction no later than 

March 1, 2005, regarding the use of these funds. The report should 

include: (1) a description specifying the equipment that has been 

or is planned to be purchased; (2) the status and timetable of this 

equipment’s deployment; (3) itemization of actual and planned expenses by fiscal year; (4) results on the effectiveness of the biodetection equipment in detecting anthrax and other hazardous 
199 

chemical and biological substances, including the sensitivity and 

specificity of the biodetection system; and (5) an assessment of the 

progress being made in the development of technological and nontechnological approaches to enhancing mail security and safety. 

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $39,950,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 41,180,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,180,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $237,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The U.S. Tax Court is an independent judicial body in the legislative branch 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. 

Tax Court Independent Counsel Fund.—This fund is established 

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7475. The fund is used by the Tax Court to 

employ independent counsel to pursue disciplinary matters involving practitioners admitted to practice before the Court. 

Tax Court Judges Survivors Annuity Fund.—This fund established pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7448, is used to pay survivorship benefits to eligible surviving spouses and dependent children of deceased judges of the U.S. Tax Court. Participating judges pay 3.5 

percent of their salaries or retired pay into the fund to cover creditable service for which payment is required. Additional funds, as 

are needed, are provided through the annual appropriation to the 

U.S. Tax Court. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,180,000 for 

the U.S. Tax Court. 

WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL MOMENT OF

REMEMBRANCE

Appropriations, 2004 1 ........................................................................... $249,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 250,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 250,000 

1 Reflects reduction of $1,000 pursuant to Division H, section 168 of Public Law 108–199. 

The Commission was established and authorized by Public Law 

106–579. The Commission will also accept gifts and generate product royalty revenue in order to revitalize the national understanding and commemoration of Memorial Day. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000 for the 

White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance. This is the same as the President’s request. 
200 

STATEMENT CONCERNING GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The Transportation, Treasury and General Government 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 VI 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 general provisions that address activities or directives affecting all of 

the agencies covered in this bill are contained in title V. 
(201) 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS THIS ACT 

Section 501 requires pay raises to be absorbed within appropriated levels in this Act or previous appropriations Acts. 

Section 502 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-Federal 

parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this 

Act. 

Section 503 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal year 

and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 504 limits expenditures for consulting service through 

procurement contracts where such expenditures are a matter of 

public record and available for public inspection. 

Section 505 prohibits funds in this Act to be transferred without 

express authority. 

Section 506 prohibits the use of funds to engage in activities that 

would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the 1930 Tariff 

Act. 

Section 507 protects employment rights of Federal employees 

who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed 

Forces. 

Section 508 prohibits the use of funds in compliance with the 

Buy American Act. 

Section 509 expresses the sense of the Congress to purchase only 

American-made equipment and products. 

Section 510 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances may 

remain available for certain purposes. 

Section 511 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and specifies 

the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by this Act. 

Section 512 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 513 ensures that the cost accounting standard shall not 

apply with respect to a contract under the Federal Employees 

Health Benefits Program. 

Section 514 references non-foreign area cost of living allowances. 

Section 515 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 516 extends the consultation requirement beyond the Office of Management and Budget to all other Federal agencies to the 

extent it applies to Indian tribes. 

Section 517 prohibits the use of funds for a proposed rule relating to the determination that real estate brokerage is a financial 

activity. 

Section 518 requires the Tennessee Valley Authority to register 

with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
202 

Section 519 amends the Denali Commission Act to include docks, 

waterfront transportation development, and related infrastructure 

projects. 

Section 520 directs each agency to acquire a Chief Privacy Officer 

to assume primary responsibility for privacy and data protection 

policy. 

Section 521 allows donations to State and local candidates as a 

permissible use of Federal campaign funds. 

Section 522 amends section 432 of title 2, United States Code, so 

that the term ‘‘support’’ will not include a contribution by any authorized committee in amounts of $2,000 or less (rather than the 

current $1,000 or less) to an authorized committee of any other 

candidate. 
(203) 

TITLE VI—GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENTS, 

AGENCIES, AND CORPORATIONS 

Section 601 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 602 requires agencies to administer a policy designed to 

ensure that all of its workplaces are free from the illegal use of controlled substances. 

Section 603 limits the price on vehicles to be purchased by the 

Federal Government. 

Section 604 allows funds made available to agencies for travel to 

also be used for quarters allowances and cost-of-living allowances. 

Section 605 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 606 ensures that agencies will have authority to pay the 

General Services Administration bills for space renovation and 

other services. 

Section 607 allows agencies to finance the costs of recycling and 

waste prevention programs with proceeds from the sale of materials recovered through such programs. 

Section 608 provides that funds may be used to pay rent and 

other service costs in the District of Columbia. 

Section 609 prohibits the use of appropriated funds to pay the 

salary of any nominee after the Senate voted not to approve the 

nomination. 

Section 610 precludes interagency financing of groups absent 

prior statutory approval. 

Section 611 authorizes the Postal Service to employ guards. 

Section 612 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for enforcing 

regulations disapproved in accordance with the applicable law of 

the United States. 

Section 613 limits the pay increases of certain prevailing rate 

employees. 

Section 614 limits the amount that can be used for redecoration 

of offices under certain circumstances. 

Section 615 permits interagency funding of national security and 

emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives, which benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, and entities. 

Section 616 requires agencies to certify that a schedule C appointment was not created solely or primarily to detail the employee to the White House. 

Section 617 requires agencies to administer a policy designed to 

ensure that all of its workplaces are free from discrimination and 

sexual harassment. 
204 

Section 618 prohibits the use of funds to prevent Federal employees from communicating with Congress or to take disciplinary or 

personnel actions against employees for such communication. 

Section 619 prohibits training not directly related to the performance of official duties. 

Section 620 prohibits the expenditure of funds for the implementation of agreements in certain nondisclosure policies unless certain 

provisions are included in the policies. 

Section 621 prohibits use of appropriated funds for publicity or 

propaganda designed to support or defeat legislation pending before Congress. 

Section 622 prohibits use of appropriated funds by an agency to 

provide Federal employees home address to labor organizations. 

Section 623 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 624 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for publicity 

or propaganda purposes within the United States not authorized by 

Congress. 

Section 625 directs agencies employees to use official time in an 

honest effort to perform official duties. 

Section 626 authorizes the use of current fiscal year funds to finance an appropriate share of the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program. 

Section 627 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 628 prohibits the use of funds in this or any other Act 

to restrict any agency from using appropriated funds as they see 

fit to independently contract with private companies to provide online employment applications and processing services. 

Section 629 authorizes breastfeeding at any location in a Federal 

building or on Federal property. 

Section 630 permits interagency funding of the National Science 

and Technology Council. 

Section 631 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 632 continues a provision which extends the authorization for franchise fund pilots for 1 year with modification. 

Section 633 continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds to 

monitor personal information relating to the use of Federal internet sites; the conferees apply this provision government-wide. 

Section 634 continues a provision regarding contraceptive coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. 

Section 635 clarifies that the United States Anti-Doping Agency 

is the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American, and 

Paralympic sport in the United States. 

Section 636 prohibits the purchase of a product or service offered 

by the Federal Prison Industries, Inc., unless the Agency making 
205 

such purchase determines that such product or service provides the 

best value. 

Section 637 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 638 allows the use of appropriated funds for official travel by Federal departments and agencies to participate in the fractional aircraft ownership pilot program. 

Section 639 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. 

Section 640 adjusts the rate of basic pay for Federal employees. 

Sections 641 prohibits the expenditure of funds for the acquisition of additional Federal Law Enforcement Training facilities. 

Section 642 eliminates the 10-year limitations period applicable 

to the offset of Federal non-tax payments. 

Section 643 permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

to match information, provided by the Secretary of the Treasury 

with respect to persons owing delinquent debt to the Federal Government, with information contained in the HHS National Directory of New Hires. 

Section 644 allows for the offset of Federal tax refunds to collect 

delinquent State unemployment compensation overpayments. 

Section 645 provides for the funding of airport operations at Midway Atoll Airfield. 

Section 646 prohibits the use of funds related to the 2003 version 

of A–76. 
(206) 

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 

Appalachian development highway system 

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 
207 

Air Transportation Stabilization Program 

Treasury Building and annex, repair and restoration 

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 September 14, 2004, 

the Committee ordered reported en bloc S. 2803, an original bill 

making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 

and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, S. 2804, an original bill 

making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005; and 

S. 2806, an original bill making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and independent agencies 

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, each subject to 

amendment and each subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29–0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Stevens 

Mr. Cochran 

Mr. Specter 

Mr. Domenici 

Mr. Bond 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Burns 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Gregg 
208 

Mr. Bennett 

Mr. Campbell 

Mr. Craig 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. DeWine 

Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Byrd 

Mr. Inouye 

Mr. Hollings 

Mr. Leahy 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Reid 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 

Mr. Dorgan 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson 

Ms. Landrieu 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing 

law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing 

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is 

printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is proposed 

is shown in roman. 

With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the Committee that 

it is necessary to dispense with these requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate. 
209 

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 2005: Subcommittee on Transportation and Treasury: 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 25,439 25,439 69,605 1 69,601 

Mandatory ............................................................................ 18,261 18,261 18,262 18,262 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2005 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 49,823 

2006 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 23,488 

2007 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 9,191 

2008 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3,978 

2009 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 3,312 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2005 ......................................................................................... NA 697 NA 11,775 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
210 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 80,426 102,689 86,000 ∂5,574 ¥16,689 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .................................................................................................................... (2,179 ) (2,738 ) (2,400 ) (∂221 ) (¥338 ) Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary ........................................................................................................ (690 ) (1,070 ) (725 ) (∂35 ) (¥345 ) Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary ................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Office of the General Counsel ........................................................................................................................... (14,985 ) (16,920 ) (15,700 ) (∂715 ) (¥1,220 ) Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy ................................................................................... (12,141 ) (12,918 ) (12,627 ) (∂486 ) (¥291 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ........................................................................... (8,418 ) (8,889 ) (8,600 ) (∂182 ) (¥289 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ............................................................................. (2,268 ) (2,587 ) (2,500 ) (∂232 ) (¥87 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ....................................................................................... (22,984 ) (32,935 ) (24,364 ) (∂1,380 ) (¥8,571 ) Office of Public Affairs ..................................................................................................................................... (1,889 ) (2,034 ) (1,968 ) (∂79 ) (¥66 ) Executive Secretariat ......................................................................................................................................... (1,426 ) (1,500 ) (1,484 ) (∂58 ) (¥16 ) Board of Contract Appeals ................................................................................................................................ (690 ) (801 ) (750 ) (∂60 ) (¥51 ) Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ................................................................................ (1,261 ) (1,295 ) (1,290 ) (∂29 ) (¥5 ) Office of Intelligence and Security ................................................................................................................... (1,972 ) (2,260 ) (2,200 ) (∂228 ) (¥60 ) Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................. (7,396 ) (16,742 ) (11,392 ) (∂3,996 ) (¥5,350 ) 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (78,299 ) (102,689 ) (86,000 ) (∂7,701 ) (¥16,689 ) 

Office of Civil Rights ................................................................................................................................................. 8,518 8,700 8,700 ∂182 ............................Rescission of excess compensation for air carriers .................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ¥235,000 ¥235,000 ¥235,000 Transportation planning, research, and development ............................................................................................... 20,741 10,800 15,000 ¥5,741 ∂4,200 Working capital fund .................................................................................................................................................. (116,026 ) ............................ (151,054 ) (∂35,028 ) (∂151,054 ) Minority business resource center program ............................................................................................................... 895 900 900 ∂5 ............................

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (18,367 ) (18,367 ) (18,367 ) ............................ ............................

Minority business outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 2,982 3,000 3,000 ∂18 ............................New headquarters building ........................................................................................................................................ ............................ 160,000 ............................ ............................ ¥160,000 Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ........................................................................................... 51,693 50,000 52,000 ∂307 ∂2,000 
211 

Total, Office of the Secretary ....................................................................................................................... 165,255 336,089 165,600 ∂345 ¥170,489 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Operations .................................................................................................................................................................. 7,486,493 7,849,000 7,784,000 ∂297,507 ¥65,000 Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) .............................................................................................. 2,892,831 2,500,000 2,500,000 ¥392,831 ............................

Rescission (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) ..................................................................................................... ¥30,000 ............................ ¥50,000 ¥20,000 ¥50,000 

Subtotal, F&E ................................................................................................................................................ 2,862,831 2,500,000 2,450,000 ¥412,831 ¥50,000 

Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) ............................................................. 118,734 117,000 129,427 ∂10,693 ∂12,427 Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (3,379,940 ) (2,800,000 ) (2,800,000 ) (¥579,940 ) ............................(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (3,379,940 ) (3,500,000 ) (3,500,000 ) (∂120,060 ) ............................

(Small community air service pilot program) .......................................................................................... (20,000 ) ............................ (20,000 ) ............................ (∂20,000 ) 

Alliance Airport, TX (Sec. 167) .......................................................................................................................... 1,988 ............................ ............................ ¥1,988 ............................Rescission of contract authorization ................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ¥265,000 ¥265,000 ¥265,000 

Subtotal, Grants-in-aid ................................................................................................................................. (3,381,928 ) (3,500,000 ) (3,235,000 ) (¥146,928 ) (¥265,000 ) 

War risk insurance (Sec. 105) ................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 ¥50,000 ¥50,000 

Total, Federal Aviation Administration ......................................................................................................... 10,500,046 10,466,000 10,363,427 ¥136,619 ¥102,573 

(Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (3,379,940 ) (3,500,000 ) (3,500,000 ) (∂120,060 ) ............................Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ¥30,000 ............................ ¥50,000 ¥20,000 ¥50,000 Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ¥265,000 ¥265,000 ¥265,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (13,849,986 ) (13,966,000 ) (13,548,427 ) (¥301,559 ) (¥417,573 ) 

Federal Highway Administration 

Limitation on administrative expenses ...................................................................................................................... (335,612 ) (349,594 ) (349,594 ) (∂13,982 ) ............................Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (33,643,326 ) (33,643,326 ) (34,900,000 ) (∂1,256,674 ) (∂1,256,674 ) 

Subtotal (limitations on obligations) (HTF) .................................................................................................. (33,643,326 ) (33,643,326 ) (34,900,000 ) (∂1,256,674 ) (∂1,256,674 ) 

(Exempt obligations) .................................................................................................................................................. (931,297 ) (834,632 ) (834,632 ) (¥96,665 ) ............................(Liquidation of contract authorization) ...................................................................................................................... (34,000,000 ) (34,000,000 ) (35,000,000 ) (∂1,000,000 ) (∂1,000,000 ) Miscellaneous rescission of contract authority ......................................................................................................... ¥207,000 ¥300,000 ¥300,000 ¥93,000 ............................Appalachian development highway system ............................................................................................................... 124,263 ............................ 100,000 ¥24,263 ∂100,000 TFIA (rescission) ......................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥100,000 ¥100,000 ¥100,000 Miscellaneous projects (Highway trust fund) (Sec. 162) .......................................................................................... 49,705 ............................ ............................ ¥49,705 ............................
212 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

Rock County road, Jamesville, WI (Sec. 167) ............................................................................................................ 994 ............................ ............................ ¥994 ............................I-75 improvements, Lee County, FL (Sec. 167) ......................................................................................................... 2,485 ............................ ............................ ¥2,485 ............................

Total, Federal Highway Administration ......................................................................................................... 177,447 ............................ 100,000 ¥77,447 ∂100,000 

(Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (33,643,326 ) (33,643,326 ) (34,900,000 ) (∂1,256,674 ) (∂1,256,674 ) (Exempt obligations) ............................................................................................................................ (931,297 ) (834,632 ) (834,632 ) (¥96,665 ) ............................Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥100,000 ¥100,000 ¥100,000 Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ ¥207,000 ¥300,000 ¥300,000 ¥93,000 ............................

Net total, FHWA ............................................................................................................................... (34,545,070 ) (34,177,958 ) (35,434,632 ) (∂889,562 ) (∂1,256,674 ) 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrative expenses) (limitation on obligations) ........................................ (175,031 ) (228,000 ) (260,000 ) (∂84,969 ) (∂32,000 ) National motor carrier safety program (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (190,000 ) (227,000 ) (190,000 ) ............................ (¥37,000 ) (Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (188,879 ) (227,000 ) (190,000 ) (∂1,121 ) (¥37,000 ) RABA transfer from FHWA ................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................E-Gov (Highway trust fund) .............................................................................................................................. ............................ 450 ............................ ............................ ¥450 

Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin ................................................................................................... ............................ 450 ............................ ............................ ¥450 

(Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (363,910 ) (455,000 ) (450,000 ) (∂86,090 ) (¥5,000 ) 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Operations and research ............................................................................................................................................ ............................ 139,300 ............................ ............................ ¥139,300 Operations and research (HTF) .................................................................................................................................. (149,657 ) ............................ (152,300 ) (∂2,643 ) (∂152,300 ) Operations and research (Highway trust fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (72,000 ) (90,000 ) (72,000 ) ............................ (¥18,000 ) (Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (71,575 ) (90,000 ) (72,000 ) (∂425 ) (¥18,000 ) 

National Driver Register (Highway trust fund) .......................................................................................................... (3,558 ) (4,000 ) (4,000 ) (∂442 ) ............................

Subtotal, Operations and research ............................................................................................................... (224,790 ) (233,300 ) (228,300 ) (∂3,510 ) (¥5,000 ) 
213 

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (223,673 ) (456,000 ) (225,000 ) (∂1,327 ) (¥231,000 ) (Limitation on obligations): 

Highway safety programs (Sec. 402) ....................................................................................................... (164,027 ) (296,000 ) (165,000 ) (∂973 ) (¥131,000 ) Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405) .................................................................................... (19,882 ) ............................ (20,000 ) (∂118 ) (∂20,000 ) Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec. 410) ................................................................ (39,764 ) ............................ (40,000 ) (∂236 ) (∂40,000 ) 

Emergency medical services grants (Sec. 407) ............................................................................................... ............................ (10,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥10,000 ) State traffic safety info system improvement grants (Sec. 412) .................................................................... ............................ (50,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥50,000 ) Safety Incentive Grants for primary seat belt laws ......................................................................................... ............................ (100,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥100,000 ) 

Subtotal, limitation on obligations ............................................................................................................... (223,673 ) (456,000 ) (225,000 ) (∂1,327 ) (¥231,000 ) Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin ............................................................................................. ............................ 139,300 ............................ ............................ ¥139,300 

(Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (448,463 ) (550,000 ) (453,300 ) (∂4,837 ) (¥96,700 ) 

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................... (448,463 ) (689,300 ) (453,300 ) (∂4,837 ) (¥236,000 ) 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety and operations ................................................................................................................................................ 130,053 142,396 139,849 ∂9,796 ¥2,547 Railroad research and development .......................................................................................................................... 33,824 36,025 35,225 ∂1,401 ¥800 Amtrak RRIF repayment deferment ............................................................................................................................ 2,982 ............................ ............................ ¥2,982 ............................Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment project (advance appropriation) .................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Next generation high-speed rail ................................................................................................................................ 37,179 10,000 20,000 ¥17,179 ∂10,000 Alaska Railroad rehabilitation ................................................................................................................................... 24,853 ............................ 25,000 ∂147 ∂25,000 Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ........................................................................................... 1,217,773 900,000 1,217,000 ¥773 ∂317,000 

Total, Federal Railroad Administration ......................................................................................................... 1,446,664 1,088,421 1,437,074 ¥9,590 ∂348,653 

Federal Transit Administration 

Administrative expenses ............................................................................................................................................. 15,011 ............................ 9,984 ¥5,027 ∂9,984 Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) ........................ (60,044 ) ............................ (68,016 ) (∂7,972 ) (∂68,016 ) 

Office of the Administrator ............................................................................................................................... (965 ) ............................ (900 ) (¥65 ) (∂900 ) Office of Cheif Counsel ..................................................................................................................................... (3,870 ) ............................ (4,050 ) (∂180 ) (∂4,050 ) Office of Civil Rights ........................................................................................................................................ (2,701 ) ............................ (2,750 ) (∂49 ) (∂2,750 ) Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs ..................................................................................... (1,162 ) ............................ (1,210 ) (∂48 ) (∂1,210 ) Office of Budget and Policy .............................................................................................................................. (6,195 ) ............................ (6,700 ) (∂505 ) (∂6,700 ) Office of of Planning ......................................................................................................................................... (3,646 ) ............................ (4,000 ) (∂354 ) (∂4,000 ) Office of of Program Management ................................................................................................................... (7,115 ) ............................ (7,120 ) (∂5 ) (∂7,120 ) Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation .......................................................................................... (4,826 ) ............................ (4,830 ) (∂4 ) (∂4,830 ) Office of Administration .................................................................................................................................... (6,716 ) ............................ (6,725 ) (∂9 ) (∂6,725 ) 
214 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

Central Account ................................................................................................................................................. (16,734 ) ............................ (18,015 ) (∂1,281 ) (∂18,015 ) Regional offices ................................................................................................................................................. (18,938 ) ............................ (19,200 ) (∂262 ) (∂19,200 ) National Transit database ................................................................................................................................ (2,187 ) ............................ (2,500 ) (∂313 ) (∂2,500 ) 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (75,055 ) ............................ (78,000 ) (∂2,945 ) (∂78,000 ) Subtotal, Administrative expenses ............................................................................................................... (75,055 ) ............................ (78,000 ) (∂2,945 ) (∂78,000 ) 

Administrative expenses per President’s request ...................................................................................................... ............................ 79,931 ............................ ............................ ¥79,931 Formula grants ........................................................................................................................................................... 763,270 ............................ 512,918 ¥250,352 ∂512,918 Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund) (limitation on obligations) ........................................................................... (3,053,080 ) (5,622,871 ) (3,494,257 ) (∂441,177 ) (¥2,128,614 ) Formula grants (rescission) ....................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Formula grants .............................................................................................................................. (3,816,350 ) (5,622,871 ) (4,007,175 ) (∂190,825 ) (¥1,615,696 ) 

University transportation research ............................................................................................................................. 1,193 ............................ 768 ¥425 ∂768 University transportation research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Acct) (limitation on obligations) .............. (4,772 ) ............................ (5,232 ) (∂460 ) (∂5,232 ) 

Subtotal, University transportation research ................................................................................................ (5,965 ) ............................ (6,000 ) (∂35 ) (∂6,000 ) 

Transit planning and research .................................................................................................................................. 25,051 ............................ 16,384 ¥8,667 ∂16,384 Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) .............. (100,205 ) ............................ (111,616 ) (∂11,411 ) (∂111,616 ) 

Subtotal, Transit planning and research ..................................................................................................... (125,256 ) ............................ (128,000 ) (∂2,744 ) (∂128,000 ) 

Rural transportation assistance ....................................................................................................................... (5,219 ) ............................ (5,250 ) (∂31 ) (∂5,250 ) National Transit Institute .................................................................................................................................. (3,976 ) ............................ (4,000 ) (∂24 ) (∂4,000 ) Transit cooperative research ............................................................................................................................. (8,201 ) ............................ (8,250 ) (∂49 ) (∂8,250 ) Metropolitan planning ....................................................................................................................................... (60,030 ) ............................ (60,386 ) (∂356 ) (∂60,386 ) State planning ................................................................................................................................................... (12,540 ) ............................ (12,614 ) (∂74 ) (∂12,614 ) National planning and research ....................................................................................................................... (35,291 ) ............................ (37,500 ) (∂2,209 ) (∂37,500 ) 

Subtotal, Transit planning and research ..................................................................................................... (125,257 ) ............................ (128,000 ) (∂2,743 ) (∂128,000 ) 
215 

Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation of contract authorization) .................................. (5,812,702 ) (329,006 ) (6,764,976 ) (∂952,274 ) (∂6,435,970 ) Capital investment grants ......................................................................................................................................... 623,798 ............................ 436,970 ¥186,828 ∂436,970 Capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) .................... (2,495,191 ) ............................ (2,976,855 ) (∂481,664 ) (∂2,976,855 ) 

Subtotal, Capital investment grants ............................................................................................................ (3,118,989 ) ............................ (3,413,825 ) (∂294,836 ) (∂3,413,825 ) 

Major capital investment grants ............................................................................................................................... ............................ 1,234,192 ............................ ............................ ¥1,234,192 Major capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (Limitation on obligations) .......... ............................ (329,006 ) ............................ ............................ (¥329,006 ) 

Fixed guideway modernization .......................................................................................................................... (1,199,388 ) ............................ (1,214,400 ) (∂15,012 ) (∂1,214,400 ) Buses and bus-related facilities ...................................................................................................................... (603,618 ) ............................ (725,000 ) (∂121,382 ) (∂725,000 ) New starts ......................................................................................................................................................... (1,315,984 ) ............................ (1,474,425 ) (∂158,441 ) (∂1,474,425 ) 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (3,118,990 ) ............................ (3,413,825 ) (∂294,835 ) (∂3,413,825 ) 

Job access and reverse commute grants .................................................................................................................. 24,853 ............................ 16,000 ¥8,853 ∂16,000 

(Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) ....................................................... (99,410 ) ............................ (109,000 ) (∂9,590 ) (∂109,000 ) 

Subtotal, Job access and reverse commute grants ..................................................................................... (124,263 ) ............................ (125,000 ) (∂737 ) (∂125,000 ) Total, Federal Transit Administration ........................................................................................................... 1,453,176 ............................ 993,024 ¥460,152 ∂993,024 

FTA per President’s request ................................................................................................................. ............................ 1,314,123 ............................ ............................ ¥1,314,123 (Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (5,812,702 ) (5,951,877 ) (6,764,976 ) (∂952,274 ) (∂813,099 ) 

Total budgetary resources, FTA ....................................................................................................... (7,265,878 ) (7,266,000 ) (7,758,000 ) (∂492,122 ) (∂492,000 ) 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) .............................................................................. 14,315 15,900 15,900 ∂1,585 ............................

Maritime Administration 

Maritime security program ......................................................................................................................................... 98,118 98,700 98,700 ∂582 ............................Operations and training ............................................................................................................................................. 106,366 109,300 110,910 ∂4,544 ∂1,610 Ship disposal .............................................................................................................................................................. 16,115 21,616 21,616 ∂5,501 ............................Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account: 

Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................................... 4,471 4,764 4,764 ∂293 ............................

National defense tank vessel construction program ................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 150,000 ∂150,000 ∂150,000 

Total, Maritime Administration ..................................................................................................................... 225,070 234,380 385,990 ∂160,920 ∂151,610 

Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ¥4,107 ............................ ¥1,900 ∂2,207 ¥1,900 

Net total, Maritime Administration ................................................................................................. 220,963 234,380 384,090 ∂163,127 ∂149,710 
216 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

Research and Special Programs Administration 

Research and special programs ................................................................................................................................ 46,167 52,936 49,000 ∂2,833 ¥3,936 Pipeline safety: 

Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 52,991 51,073 52,073 ¥918 ∂1,000 Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ............................................................................................................................. 12,923 19,000 19,000 ∂6,077 ............................

Subtotal, Pipeline safety program (incl reserve) ......................................................................................... 65,914 70,073 71,073 ∂5,159 ∂1,000 

Emergency preparedness grants: 

Emergency preparedness fund .......................................................................................................................... 199 200 200 ∂1 ............................Limitation on emergency preparedness fund ................................................................................................... (14,300 ) (14,300 ) (14,300 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Research and Special Programs Admin ............................................................................................. 112,280 123,209 120,273 ∂7,993 ¥2,936 

Office of Inspector General 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 55,670 59,000 59,000 ∂3,330 ............................

Surface Transportation Board 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 19,406 20,521 21,250 ∂1,844 ∂729 

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥1,050 ¥1,050 ¥1,050 ............................ ............................

Total, Surface Transportation Board ............................................................................................................ 18,356 19,471 20,200 ∂1,844 ∂729 Net total, title I, Department of Transportation ........................................................................................... 13,927,172 13,496,343 12,708,588 ¥1,218,584 ¥787,755 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (14,168,279 ) (13,796,343 ) (13,660,488 ) (¥507,791 ) (¥135,855 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥34,107 ) ............................ (¥386,900 ) (¥352,793 ) (¥386,900 ) Rescission of contract authority .......................................................................................................... (¥207,000 ) (¥300,000 ) (¥565,000 ) (¥358,000 ) (¥265,000 ) (Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (43,648,341 ) (44,100,203 ) (46,068,276 ) (∂2,419,935 ) (∂1,968,073 ) (Exempt obligations) ............................................................................................................................ (931,297 ) (834,632 ) (834,632 ) (¥96,665 ) ............................
217 

Net total budgetary resources ......................................................................................................... (58,506,810 ) (58,431,178 ) (59,611,496 ) (∂1,104,686 ) (∂1,180,318 ) 

Transportation discretionary total .............................................................................................................................. 13,927,172 13,496,343 12,708,588 ¥1,218,584 ¥787,755 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Departmental Offices ................................................................................................................................................. 175,070 185,041 161,313 ¥13,757 ¥23,728 

Executive direction ............................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (10,020 ) (∂10,020 ) (∂10,020 ) General Counsel ................................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (7,532 ) (∂7,532 ) (∂7,532 ) Economic policies and and programs .............................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ (33,186 ) (∂33,186 ) (∂33,186 ) Financial policies and programs ...................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ (26,914 ) (∂26,914 ) (∂26,914 ) Financial crimes ................................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (5,912 ) (∂5,912 ) (∂5,912 ) Treasury wide management .............................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ (17,569 ) (∂17,569 ) (∂17,569 ) Administration ................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ (60,180 ) (∂60,180 ) (∂60,180 ) 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ (161,313 ) (∂161,313 ) (∂161,313 ) 

Office of Foreign Asset Control .................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 22,291 ∂22,291 ∂22,291 Department-wide systems and capital investments programs ................................................................................. 36,185 36,072 30,260 ¥5,925 ¥5,812 Office of Inspector General ........................................................................................................................................ 12,923 14,158 16,158 ∂3,235 ∂2,000 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration ................................................................................................... 127,279 129,126 129,126 ∂1,847 ............................Treasury Inspector General ......................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Air Transportation Stabilization Program Account ..................................................................................................... 2,523 2,800 2,000 ¥523 ¥800 Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration .............................................................................................. 24,853 20,316 12,316 ¥12,537 ¥8,000 Expanded Access to Financial Services (rescission) ................................................................................................. ............................ ¥4,000 ¥4,000 ¥4,000 ............................Violent crime reduction program (rescission) ............................................................................................................ ............................ ¥1,000 ¥1,200 ¥1,200 ¥200 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ..................................................................................................................... 57,231 64,502 72,502 ∂15,271 ∂8,000 Financial Management Service .................................................................................................................................. 227,210 230,930 230,930 ∂3,720 ............................Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau ............................................................................................................. 79,528 81,942 83,000 ∂3,472 ∂1,058 Bureau of the Public Debt ......................................................................................................................................... 172,627 175,166 175,166 ∂2,539 ............................Payment of government losses in shipment ............................................................................................................. 500 1,000 1,000 ∂500 ............................Internal Revenue Service: 

Processing, Assistance, and Management ....................................................................................................... 4,009,205 4,148,403 4,107,325 ∂98,120 ¥41,078 Tax Law Enforcement ........................................................................................................................................ 4,171,244 4,564,350 4,519,350 ∂348,106 ¥45,000 Information Systems .......................................................................................................................................... 1,581,575 1,641,768 1,606,768 ∂25,193 ¥35,000 Business systems modernization ...................................................................................................................... 387,699 285,000 125,000 ¥262,699 ¥160,000 BSM (rescission of unapproved funds) ............................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ¥140,000 ¥140,000 ¥140,000 Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration ..................................................................................................... 34,794 34,841 34,841 ∂47 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 10,184,517 10,674,362 10,253,284 ∂68,767 ¥421,078 
218 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, title II, Department of the Treasury ................................................................................................... 11,100,446 11,610,415 11,184,146 ∂83,700 ¥426,269 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... 11,100,446 11,615,415 11,329,346 ∂228,900 ¥286,069 Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥5,000 ¥145,200 ¥145,200 ¥140,200 

TITLE III—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT 

Compensation of the President and the White House Office: 

Compensation of the President ......................................................................................................................... 450 ............................ 450 ............................ ∂450 Salaries and Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 68,760 ............................ 63,698 ¥5,062 ∂63,698 

Homeland Security Council ........................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Executive Residence at the White House: 

Operating Expenses ........................................................................................................................................... 12,427 ............................ 12,760 ∂333 ∂12,760 White House Repair and Restoration ................................................................................................................ 4,200 ............................ 1,900 ¥2,300 ∂1,900 

Council of Economic Advisers .................................................................................................................................... 4,475 ............................ 4,040 ¥435 ∂4,040 Office of Policy Development ..................................................................................................................................... 4,085 ............................ 2,392 ¥1,693 ∂2,392 National Security Council ........................................................................................................................................... 10,489 ............................ 8,932 ¥1,557 ∂8,932 Office of Administration ............................................................................................................................................. 82,337 ............................ 92,869 ∂10,532 ∂92,869 The White House salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................... ............................ 181,048 ............................ ............................ ¥181,048 Office of Management and Budget ........................................................................................................................... 66,763 76,565 68,411 ∂1,648 ¥8,154 Office of National Drug Control Policy: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 27,832 27,609 27,000 ¥832 ¥609 Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center .................................................................................................... 41,752 40,000 42,000 ∂248 ∂2,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 69,584 67,609 69,000 ¥584 ∂1,391 

Federal Drug Control Programs: 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program ................................................................................................ 225,015 208,350 228,350 ∂3,335 ∂20,000 Other Federal Drug Control Programs ............................................................................................................... 227,649 235,000 195,500 ¥32,149 ¥39,500 

Unanticipated Needs .................................................................................................................................................. 994 1,000 1,000 ∂6 ............................Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the Vice President: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 4,435 4,571 4,571 ∂136 ............................
219 

Operating expenses ........................................................................................................................................... 329 333 333 ∂4 ............................

Total, title III, Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President ...................... 781,992 774,476 754,206 ¥27,786 ¥20,270 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 5,369 5,686 5,686 ∂317 ............................

National Transportation Safety Board: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 73,065 74,425 76,425 ∂3,360 ∂2,000 

Rescission of prior year funds ................................................................................................................. ............................ ¥8,000 ¥8,000 ¥8,000 ............................

Emergency fund ................................................................................................................................................. 596 ............................ ............................ ¥596 ............................

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled ............................................................. 4,697 4,672 4,672 ¥25 ............................Federal Election Commission ..................................................................................................................................... 50,938 52,159 52,159 ∂1,221 ............................Election Assistance Commission: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 1,193 20,000 10,000 ∂8,807 ¥10,000 Election reform programs .................................................................................................................................. 1,491,150 30,000 ............................ ¥1,491,150 ¥30,000 

Federal Labor Relations Authority .............................................................................................................................. 29,436 29,673 25,673 ¥3,763 ¥4,000 

FLRA (rescission) ............................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥3,000 ¥3,000 ¥3,000 

Federal Maritime Commission .................................................................................................................................... 18,362 19,496 19,496 ∂1,134 ............................General Services Administration: 

Federal Buildings Fund: 

Appropriations .......................................................................................................................................... 443,369 ............................ ............................ ¥443,369 ............................Limitations on availability of revenue: 

Construction and acquisition of facilities ...................................................................................... (708,268 ) (650,223 ) (710,823 ) (∂2,555 ) (∂60,600 ) Repairs and alterations .................................................................................................................. (991,300 ) (980,222 ) (980,222 ) (¥11,078 ) ............................Installment acquisition payments ................................................................................................... (169,745 ) (161,442 ) (161,442 ) (¥8,303 ) ............................Rental of space ............................................................................................................................... (3,280,187 ) (3,672,315 ) (3,597,315 ) (∂317,128 ) (¥75,000 ) Building Operations ......................................................................................................................... (1,608,708 ) (1,709,522 ) (1,709,522 ) (∂100,814 ) ............................

Subtotal, limitations ................................................................................................................... (6,758,208 ) (7,173,724 ) (7,159,324 ) (∂401,116 ) (¥14,400 ) 

Repayment of Debt ................................................................................................................................... (54,256 ) (41,000 ) (41,000 ) (¥13,256 ) ............................

Total, Federal Buildings Fund ............................................................................................................. 443,369 ............................ ............................ ¥443,369 ............................

(Limitations) ................................................................................................................................ (6,812,464 ) (7,214,724 ) (7,200,324 ) (∂387,860 ) (¥14,400 ) 

Governmentwide policy ...................................................................................................................................... 56,050 62,100 62,100 ∂6,050 ............................Operating Expenses ........................................................................................................................................... 87,590 82,175 85,175 ¥2,415 ∂3,000 Office of Inspector General ............................................................................................................................... 38,938 42,351 42,351 ∂3,413 ............................Electronic Government (E-Gov) Fund ................................................................................................................ 2,982 5,000 3,000 ∂18 ¥2,000 
220 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

General supply fund for E-Gov (fiscal year 2005 Sec. 409) ............................................................................ ............................ 40,000 ............................ ............................ ¥40,000 Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents ......................................................................................... 3,373 3,449 3,106 ¥267 ¥343 Expenses, Presidential transition ...................................................................................................................... ............................ 7,700 7,700 ∂7,700 ............................Federal building project (fiscal year 2004 Sec. 408) ...................................................................................... 13,917 ............................ ............................ ¥13,917 ............................San Joaquin conveyance (fiscal year 2004 Sec. 412) ...................................................................................... ¥1,000 ............................ ............................ ∂1,000 ............................Middle River Depot sale (fiscal year 2005 Sec. 407) ...................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Federal building construction schedule adjustments (Sec. 409) ..................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥106,000 ¥106,000 ¥106,000 

Total, General Services Administration ........................................................................................................ 645,219 242,775 97,432 ¥547,787 ¥145,343 

Merit Systems Protection Board: 

Salaries and Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 32,683 37,303 34,677 ∂1,994 ¥2,626 Limitation on administrative expenses ............................................................................................................. 2,611 ............................ ............................ ¥2,611 ............................

Morris K. Udall Foundation: 

Morris K. Udall Trust Fund ................................................................................................................................ 1,984 ............................ 1,996 ∂12 ∂1,996 Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund ........................................................................................................... 1,301 700 1,309 ∂8 ∂609 

National Archives and Records Administration: 

Operating expenses ........................................................................................................................................... 255,185 266,945 266,945 ∂11,760 ............................Electronic records archive ................................................................................................................................. 35,702 35,914 35,914 ∂212 ............................Reduction of debt .............................................................................................................................................. ¥7,810 ¥8,000 ¥8,000 ¥190 ............................Repairs and Restoration ................................................................................................................................... 13,627 6,182 12,182 ¥1,445 ∂6,000 National Historical Publications and Records Commission: Grants program .................................................. 9,941 3,000 5,000 ¥4,941 ∂2,000 

Total, National Archives and Records Admin ............................................................................................... 306,645 304,041 312,041 ∂5,396 ∂8,000 

Office of Government Ethics ...................................................................................................................................... 10,675 11,238 11,238 ∂563 ............................Office of Personnel Management: 

Salaries and Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 118,793 131,291 130,600 ∂11,807 ¥691 

Limitation on administrative expenses .................................................................................................... 135,112 128,462 128,462 ¥6,650 ............................
221 

Office of Inspector General ............................................................................................................................... 1,489 1,627 1,627 ∂138 ............................

Limitation on administrative expenses .................................................................................................... 14,342 16,461 16,461 ∂2,119 ............................

Government Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health Benefits ................................................................... 7,219,000 8,135,000 8,135,000 ∂916,000 ............................Government Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life Insurance ....................................................................... 35,000 35,000 35,000 ............................ ............................Payment to Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund ............................................................................... 9,987,000 9,772,000 9,772,000 ¥215,000 ............................Human Capital Performance Fund .................................................................................................................... 994 300,000 ............................ ¥994 ¥300,000 

Total, Office of Personnel Management ....................................................................................................... 17,511,730 18,519,841 18,219,150 ∂707,420 ¥300,691 

Office of Special Counsel ........................................................................................................................................... 13,424 15,449 15,449 ∂2,025 ............................Postal Service: 

Payment to the Postal Service Fund ................................................................................................................. 28,829 ............................ 29,000 ∂171 ∂29,000 

Advance appropriation provided in previous act for fiscal year 2005 ................................................... 30,831 36,521 36,521 ∂5,690 ............................

Total available for fiscal year 2005 .................................................................................................... 59,660 36,521 65,521 ∂5,861 ∂29,000 

Advance appropriation for fiscal year 2006 ............................................................................................ 36,306 61,709 61,709 ∂25,403 ............................

Emergency preparedness plan (emergency appropriations) ............................................................................. ............................ ............................ 507,000 ∂507,000 ∂507,000 

United States Tax Court ............................................................................................................................................. 39,950 41,180 41,180 ∂1,230 ............................White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance ...................................................................... 249 250 250 ∂1 ............................

Total, title IV, Independent Agencies ........................................................................................................... 20,337,243 19,499,118 19,552,063 ¥785,180 ∂52,945 

Title V—General Provisions, This Act 

Continued dumping/subsidy offset (fiscal year 2005 Sec. 635) .............................................................................. ............................ ¥1,450,000 ............................ ............................ ∂1,450,000 Eliminate 10 year limit on debt collection (fiscal year 2005 Sec. 636) .................................................................. ............................ ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ............................HHS info match—new hires (fiscal year 2005 Sec. 637) ........................................................................................ ............................ ¥125,000 ¥125,000 ¥125,000 ............................Collect unemployment overpayment (fiscal year 2005 Sec. 638) ............................................................................. ............................ ¥20,000 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 ............................

Total, General provisions .............................................................................................................................. ............................ ¥1,597,000 ¥147,000 ¥147,000 ∂1,450,000 Grand total .................................................................................................................................................... 46,146,853 43,783,352 44,052,003 ¥2,094,850 ∂268,651 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (46,320,823 ) (43,998,122 ) (44,554,873 ) (¥1,765,950 ) (∂556,751 ) (Emergency appropriations) ................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ (507,000 ) (∂507,000 ) (∂507,000 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥34,107 ) (¥13,000 ) (¥543,100 ) (¥508,993 ) (¥530,100 ) Rescission of contract authority .......................................................................................................... (¥207,000 ) (¥300,000 ) (¥565,000 ) (¥358,000 ) (¥265,000 ) Advance appropriation provided in previous act for fiscal year 2005 ............................................... (30,831 ) (36,521 ) (36,521 ) (∂5,690 ) ............................Advance appropriation ......................................................................................................................... (36,306 ) (61,709 ) (61,709 ) (∂25,403 ) ............................(Limitation on obligations) .................................................................................................................. (43,648,341 ) (44,100,203 ) (46,068,276 ) (∂2,419,935 ) (∂1,968,073 ) 
222 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2004 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2004 appropriation Budget estimate 

(Rescissions of limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................(Exempt obligations) ............................................................................................................................ (931,297 ) (834,632 ) (834,632 ) (¥96,665 ) ............................

Net total budgetary resources ......................................................................................................... (90,726,491 ) (88,718,187 ) (90,954,911 ) (∂228,420 ) (∂2,236,724 ) 

Æ