```

[Senate Report 108-353]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 708
108th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     108-353

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

 
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2005

                                _______
                                

               September 21, 2004.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2825]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2825) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs 
and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other 
purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the 
bill do pass.

Amount of new budget (obligational) authority

Amount of bill as reported to Senate....................$130,038,049,000
Amount of appropriations, 2004.......................... 123,483,681,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2005........................ 127,235,739,000
    Above estimates for 2005............................   2,802,310,000
    Above appropriations for 2004.......................   6,554,368,000

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs..........................     5
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development............    27
Title III--Independent agencies:
    American Battle Monuments Commission.........................    73
    Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board...............    74
    Department of the Treasury: Community development financial 
      institutions...............................................    74
    Consumer Product Safety Commission...........................    75
    Corporation for National and Community Service...............    76
    U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims....................    81
    Department of Defense--Civil: Cemeterial expenses, Army......    82
    Department of Health and Human Services:
        National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences......    82
        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.........    83
    Environmental Protection Agency..............................    84
    Executive Office of the President:
        Office of Science and Technology Policy..................   111
        Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
          Environmental Quality..................................   112
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector 
      General....................................................   113
    General Services Administration: Federal Citizen Information
      Center.....................................................   114
    U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness.....................   115
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration................   116
    National Credit Union Administration.........................   133
    National Science Foundation..................................   134
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................   143
    Selective Service System.....................................   144
Title IV--General provisions.....................................   146
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Sen- 
  ate............................................................   147
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   147
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   148

                              INTRODUCTION

    The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2005 provides a total of $130,038,049,000 in budget 
authority, including approximately $35,108,084,000 in mandatory 
spending. The Committee did its best to meet all important 
priorities within the bill, with the highest priority given to 
veterans programs and section 8 contract renewals. Other 
priorities included maintaining environmental programs at or 
above current year levels, and ensuring needed funds for our 
Nation's space and scientific research programs. The Committee 
paid special attention to the final report of the Columbia 
Accident Investigation Board which was issued on August 26, 
2003.
    As recommended by the Committee, this bill attempts to 
provide a fair and balanced approach to the many competing 
programs and activities under the VA-HUD subcommittee's 
jurisdiction.
    The Committee recommendation provides $32,951,348,000 in 
discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
an increase of $2,260,874,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level and $1,295,823,000 above the budget request. The 
funds include $1,200,000,000 in emergency funding for medical 
services. The Committee has made veterans programs the highest 
priority in the bill. Increases in VA programs above the budget 
request are recommended for medical services, medical research, 
and operating expenses for the Veterans Benefits 
Administration.
    For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
Committee recommendation totals $36,417,763,000, an increase of 
$1,015,504,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and 
$698,404,000 above the budget request. The Committee has 
provided significant funding for all HUD programs while also 
providing the needed funding for all expiring section 8 
contracts. The Committee believes a balanced approach to the 
funding of housing programs is key to meeting the housing needs 
of low-income families.
    For the Environmental Protection Agency, the Committee 
recommendation totals $8,500,408,000, an increase of 
$134,591,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and an 
increase of $711,163,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration totals $15,579,200,000, the same as 
the fiscal year 2004 level and $664,800,000 below the budget 
request.
    For the National Science Foundation, the Committee 
recommendation totals $5,747,000,000, an increase of $2,310,000 
above the budget request. The Committee views NSF as a key 
investment in the future and this funding is intended to 
reaffirm the strong and longstanding leadership of this 
Committee in support of scientific research and education.

              Reprogramming and Initiation of New Programs

    The Committee continues to have a particular interest in 
being informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not 
change either the total amount available in an account or any 
of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally 
available, represent a significant departure from budget plans 
presented to the Committee in an agency's budget 
justifications.
    Consequently, the Committee directs the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and the 
agencies funded through this bill, to notify the chairman of 
the Committee prior to each reprogramming of funds in excess of 
$250,000 between programs, activities, or elements unless an 
alternate amount for the agency or department in question is 
specified elsewhere in this report. The Committee desires to be 
notified of reprogramming actions which involve less than the 
above-mentioned amounts if such actions would have the effect 
of changing an agency's funding requirements in future years or 
if programs or projects specifically cited in the Committee's 
reports are affected. Finally, the Committee wishes to be 
consulted regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, and 
activities prior to the planned implementation of such 
reorganizations.
    The Committee also expects the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the National Science Foundation, the 
Corporation for National and Community Service, and the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, to submit operating plans, 
signed by the respective secretary, administrator, chief 
executive officer, or agency head, for the Committee's approval 
within 30 days of the bill's enactment. Other agencies within 
the bill should continue to submit operating plans consistent 
with prior year policy.

                TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Appropriations, 2004.................................... $63,400,186,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................  66,763,609,000
Committee recommendation................................  68,059,432,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Veterans Administration was established as an 
independent agency by Executive Order 5398 of July 21, 1930, in 
accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 1016). This 
act authorized the President to consolidate and coordinate 
Federal agencies especially created for or concerned with the 
administration of laws providing benefits to veterans, 
including the Veterans' Bureau, the Bureau of Pensions, and the 
National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers. On March 15, 
1989, VA was elevated to Cabinet-level status as the Department 
of Veterans Affairs.
    The VA's mission is to serve America's veterans and their 
families as their principal advocate in ensuring that they 
receive the care, support, and recognition they have earned in 
service to the Nation. The VA's operating units include the 
Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Benefits 
Administration, National Cemetery Administration, and staff 
offices.
    The Veterans Health Administration develops, maintains, and 
operates a national health care delivery system for eligible 
veterans; carries out a program of education and training of 
health care personnel; carries out a program of medical 
research and development; and furnishes health services to 
members of the Armed Forces during periods of war or national 
emergency. A system of 157 hospitals, 879 outpatient clinics, 
133 nursing homes, and 42 VA residential rehabilitation 
treatment programs (formerly called ``domicilaries'') is 
maintained to meet the VA's medical mission.
    The Veterans Benefits Administration provides an integrated 
program of nonmedical veteran benefits. This Administration 
administers a broad range of benefits to veterans and other 
eligible beneficiaries through 58 regional offices and the 
records processing center in St. Louis, MO. The benefits 
provided include: compensation for service-connected 
disabilities; pensions for wartime, needy, and totally disabled 
veterans; vocational rehabilitation assistance; educational and 
training assistance; home buying assistance; estate protection 
services for veterans under legal disability; information and 
assistance through personalized contacts; and six life 
insurance programs.
    The National Cemetery Administration provides for the 
interment of the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons 
and discharged veterans in any national cemetery with available 
grave space; permanently maintains these graves; marks graves 
of eligible persons in national and private cemeteries; and 
administers the grant program for aid to States in 
establishing, expanding, or improving State veterans' 
cemeteries. The National Cemetery Administration includes 158 
cemeterial installations and activities.
    Other VA offices, including the general counsel, inspector 
general, Boards of Contract Appeals and Veterans Appeals, and 
the general administration, support the Secretary, Deputy 
Secretary, Under Secretary for Health, Under Secretary for 
Benefits, and the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $68,059,432,000 for the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, including $35,108,084,000 in mandatory 
spending and $32,951,348,000 in discretionary spending. The 
amount provided for discretionary activities represents an 
increase of $2,260,874,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level and $1,295,823,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee once again has made VA its top priority in 
the fiscal year 2005 VA-HUD bill. Specifically, veterans' 
medical care funding remains a major priority.
    The Committee is primarily interested in ensuring that the 
VA's core constituency--veterans with service-connected 
disabilities, lower-income veterans, and veterans who require 
specialized services--have timely access to quality medical 
care services. Accordingly, the Committee remains strongly 
committed to funding fully the health care needs of VA's core 
constituents.
    Addressing the health care needs of VA's core constituents, 
unfortunately, remains a major challenge for the Committee due 
to the overwhelming demand of new veterans seeking VA services. 
Laws enacted by the Congress that expanded eligibility and 
benefits to all veterans have primarily caused this 
overwhelming demand and driven up the funding needs for the VA 
medical care account. In 1996, the Congress enacted the 
``Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act.'' This Act 
opened up VA health care services to all 26 million veterans--
thus, veterans of any income level and veterans with or without 
service-connected disabilities are eligible to enroll. The 
primary authors of eligibility reform believed that this Act 
would attract relatively few new users and would be budget 
neutral. In 1999, the Congress passed the ``Veterans Millennium 
Health Care Act'', which expanded long-term care benefits for 
veterans.
    Further, increased demand was influenced by the opening of 
hundreds of new outpatient clinics and by the vastly improved 
quality of care through numerous medical technological 
innovations.
    The combination of these factors has resulted in a 54 
percent growth in users in the VA health care system since 1996 
with non-core veterans comprising the largest percentage 
increase. Further, the number of enrolled veterans has grown 
from 4.3 million veterans in fiscal year 1999 to 7.2 million 
veterans in fiscal year 2004.
    To respond to this exploding growth, the Congress has 
increased VA medical care funding by some $11,000,000,000 since 
1998. Since 2001, the Congress has increased VA medical care 
funding by $7,300,000,000 alone or 34.7 percent. In 1997, the 
Congress allowed the VA to use third-party insurance 
collections for medical care purposes instead of transferring 
these funds to the Treasury Department as previously required.
    While the Committee has provided record funding increases 
to meet the needs of VA's core constituents and the VA has done 
much to improve access to health care, many veterans face long 
waiting times to see a doctor and some veterans must travel 
long distances to reach a VA facility due to overwhelming 
growth in non-core patients. In fact, many core veterans must 
wait over 6 months for a primary care or specialty care 
appointment and nearly 2 million or more than 25 percent of 
enrolled veterans live over 60 minutes driving time from a VA 
hospital. At its highest point, over 300,000 veterans were 
waiting more than 6 months for a medical care appointment.
    The administration has addressed the problems of access and 
waiting times for VA's core patients by suspending the 
enrollment of certain higher income veterans without service-
connected disabilities (``Priority 8'' veterans) as dictated by 
the 1996 Act. The authors of the 1996 Act expected the VA to 
suspend enrollment in order to prevent ``diminishing the 
quality of care to an unacceptable level or unreasonably 
delaying the timeliness of VA's care delivery.'' Further, the 
law provided the VA with ``new tools both to limit demand 
consistent with available funding and to discourage veterans 
from seeking VA care simply to fill an occasional need not met 
by a private health plan.''
    In addition to suspending enrollment of higher income 
veterans, the VA established new rules that require VA medical 
facilities to provide priority access for service-connected 
veterans rated 50 percent disabled or greater. Further, the VA 
recently implemented a pilot program to allow veterans on the 
waiting list to fill their privately written prescriptions from 
the VA (this program is called the ``Transitional Pharmacy 
Benefit'' or TPB program). These actions along with the 
additional funds provided by the Congress have almost 
eliminated the waiting list in its entirety.
    Despite this progress and the expected decline in the 
overall veteran population, the VA faces an impending challenge 
over the next decade in meeting the medical care needs of its 
constituents. VA's recent projections of acute health care 
workload indicate a significant surge in demand for acute 
health care services over the next 10 years. VA's data also 
indicates that specialty outpatient demand is expected almost 
to double by fiscal year 2012.
    To respond to this expected growth in demand for VA health 
care service, the VA recently announced a national plan on May 
7, 2004, to improve veterans' access to medical care by 
realigning its medical care infrastructure. Under this plan, 
called the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services or 
CARES initiative, the VA will make better use of its medical 
care resources by reducing its excess capacity and increasing 
its capacity in areas of higher demand. In effect, CARES will 
allow the VA to treat thousands more veterans without 
significant increases to medical care funds.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has provided 
$1,736,546,000 in additional funding above the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level for VA medical services. This amount is 
$1,200,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee provided 
these additional funds over the budget request because the 
Committee bill did not include the administration's proposed 
new fees on higher-income veterans. The administration proposed 
these new fees to raise revenue to pay for care for its core 
constituents.
    In addition to medical services funding, the Committee has 
provided additional funding for medical and prosthetic research 
and operating expenses for the Veterans Benefits Administration 
[VBA].
    The Committee has chosen not to use the administration's 
new budget account structure due to the changes already made by 
the conferees in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations act. The 
Committee applauds the administration's efforts to align better 
the costs and funding with each program. However, the Committee 
is sensitive to the administrative burden on VA staff in 
implementing such major changes and advises the administration 
to take this concern into mind when exploring future account 
changes.

                    Veterans Benefits Administration

                       COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004.................................... $29,845,127,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................  32,607,688,000
Committee recommendation................................  32,607,688,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Compensation is payable to living veterans who have 
suffered impairment of earning power from service-connected 
disabilities. The amount of compensation is based upon the 
impact of disabilities on earning capacity. Death compensation 
or dependency and indemnity compensation is payable to the 
surviving spouses and dependents of veterans whose deaths occur 
while on active duty or result from service-connected 
disabilities. A clothing allowance may also be provided for 
service-connected veterans who use a prosthetic or orthopedic 
device.
    Pensions are an income security benefit payable to needy 
wartime veterans who are precluded from gainful employment due 
to non-service-connected disabilities which render them 
permanently and totally disabled. Under the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990, veterans 65 years of age or older 
are no longer considered permanently and totally disabled by 
law and are thus subject to a medical evaluation. Death 
pensions are payable to needy surviving spouses and children of 
deceased wartime veterans. The rate payable for both disability 
and death pensions is determined on the basis of the annual 
income of the veteran or his survivors.
    This account also funds burial benefits and miscellaneous 
assistance. The estimated caseload and cost by program for 2004 
and 2005 are included in the budget justification materials.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $32,607,688,000 for compensation 
and pensions. This is an increase of $2,762,561,000 above the 
fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget 
request. This amount includes the cost of living adjustment for 
fiscal year 2005.
    The appropriation includes $20,703,000 in payments to the 
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical services'' 
accounts for expenses related to implementing provisions of the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the Veterans' 
Benefits Act of 1992, the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act 
of 1994, and the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1996. 
The amount also includes funds for a projected fiscal year 2005 
cost-of-living increase of 1.3 percent for pension recipients.

                         READJUSTMENT BENEFITS

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $2,529,734,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   2,556,232,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,556,232,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The readjustment benefits appropriation finances the 
education and training of veterans and servicepersons whose 
initial entry on active duty took place on or after July 1, 
1985. These benefits are included in the All-Volunteer Force 
Educational Assistance Program (Montgomery GI bill) authorized 
under 38 U.S.C. 30. Eligibility to receive this assistance 
began in 1987. Basic benefits are funded through appropriations 
made to the readjustment benefits appropriation and transfers 
from the Department of Defense. Supplemental benefits are also 
provided to certain veterans and this funding is available from 
transfers from the Department of Defense. This account also 
finances vocational rehabilitation, specially adapted housing 
grants, automobile grants with the associated approved adaptive 
equipment for certain disabled veterans, and educational 
assistance allowances for eligible dependents of those veterans 
who died from service-connected causes or have a total 
permanent service-connected disability as well as dependents of 
servicepersons who were captured or missing in action. The 
estimated caseload and cost by program for 2004 and 2005 are 
included in the budget justification materials.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget estimate of 
$2,556,232,000 for readjustment benefits. The amount 
recommended is an increase of $26,498,000 above the fiscal year 
2004 enacted level.

                   VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $29,017,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      44,380,000
Committee recommendation................................      44,380,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The veterans insurance and indemnities appropriation is 
made up of the former appropriations for military and naval 
insurance, applicable to World War I veterans; National Service 
Life Insurance, applicable to certain World War II veterans; 
Servicemen's indemnities, applicable to Korean conflict 
veterans; and veterans mortgage life insurance to individuals 
who have received a grant for specially adapted housing.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $44,380,000 
for veterans insurance and indemnities. This is an increase of 
$15,363,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The 
Department estimates there will be 7,439,095 policies in force 
in fiscal year 2005 with a value of $747,636,000,000.

         VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Administrative
                                        Program account      expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004..................  \1\ $305,834,00     $153,936,385
                                                      0
Budget estimate, 2005.................       43,784,000      154,075,000
Committee recommendation..............       43,784,000      154,075,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects subsidy estimate from last year's report. The new estimate
  for 2004 is $278,215,000.

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides for all costs, with the 
exception of the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program, 
of VA's direct and guaranteed housing loans, as well as the 
administrative expenses to carry out these programs, which may 
be transferred to and merged with the general operating 
expenses appropriation.
    VA loan guaranties are made to service members, veterans, 
reservists and unremarried surviving spouses for the purchase 
of homes, condominiums, manufactured homes and for refinancing 
loans. VA guarantees part of the total loan, permitting the 
purchaser to obtain a mortgage with a competitive interest 
rate, even without a downpayment if the lender agrees. VA 
requires that a downpayment be made for a manufactured home. 
With a VA guaranty, the lender is protected against loss up to 
the amount of the guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the 
loan.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends such sums as may be necessary for 
funding subsidy payments, estimated to total $43,784,000, and 
$154,075,000 for administrative expenses. The administrative 
expenses may be transferred to the ``General operating 
expenses'' account. Bill language limits gross obligations for 
direct loans for specially adapted housing to $500,000.

                  EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004....................            $994         $69,587
Budget estimate, 2005...................  ..............  ..............
Committee recommendation................  ..............  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation covered the cost of direct loans for 
eligible dependents and, in addition, it includes 
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct loan 
program. This loan fund program was terminated pursuant to 
enactment of Public Law 108-183, the Veterans Benefits Act of 
2003. Section 306 of this Act repealed all provisions relating 
to the obsolete education loan program.

            VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004....................         $51,693        $298,230
Budget estimate, 2005...................          47,000         311,000
Committee recommendation................          47,000         311,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation covers the funding subsidy cost of 
direct loans for vocational rehabilitation of eligible veterans 
and, in addition, it includes administrative expenses necessary 
to carry out the direct loan program. Loans of up to $910 
(based on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are 
available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in 
vocational rehabilitation programs as provided under 38 U.S.C. 
chapter 31 when the veteran is temporarily in need of 
additional assistance. Repayment is made in 10 monthly 
installments, without interest, through deductions from future 
payments of compensation, pension, subsistence allowance, 
educational assistance allowance, or retirement pay.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the requested $47,000 for program 
costs and $311,000 for administrative expenses for the 
Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program account. The 
administrative expenses may be transferred to and merged with 
the ``General operating expenses'' account. Bill language is 
included limiting program direct loans to $4,108,000. It is 
estimated that VA will make 4,524 loans in fiscal year 2005, 
with an average amount of $908.
    Language was added allowing the principal amount of direct 
loans to be calculated based on the subsidy appropriated for 
the Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program account. The loan 
level provided in the language should be considered an 
estimate. The Committee directs the Department to monitor 
carefully the program's loan activity and notify the Committee 
during the year if it determines that it may exceed the loan 
level amount.

          NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                                                          Administrative
                                                                expenses

Appropriations, 2004....................................        $567,631
Budget estimate, 2005...................................         571,000
Committee recommendation................................         571,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program will test the feasibility of enabling VA to 
make direct home loans to native American veterans who live on 
U.S. trust lands. It is a pilot program that began in 1993 and 
expires on December 31, 2005. Subsidy amounts necessary to 
support this program were appropriated in fiscal year 1993.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $571,000 
for administrative expenses associated with this program in 
fiscal year 2005. These funds may be transferred to the 
``General operating expenses'' account.

  GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS PROGRAM 
                                ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program was established by Public Law 105-368, the 
Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. The program is a 
pilot project designed to expand the supply of transitional 
housing for homeless veterans and to guarantee up to 15 loans 
with a maximum aggregate value of $100,000,000. Not more than 
five loans may be guaranteed in the first 3 years of the 
program. The project must enforce sobriety standards and 
provide a wide range of supportive services such as counseling 
for substance abuse and job readiness skills. Residents will be 
required to pay a reasonable fee.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    All funds authorized for this program have been 
appropriated. Therefore, additional appropriations are not 
required. Administrative expenses of the program, limited to 
$600,000 for fiscal year 2005, will be borne by the ``Medical 
administration'' and ``General operating expenses'' 
appropriations.

                     Veterans Health Administration

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates the 
largest Federal medical care delivery system in the country, 
with 157 hospitals, 42 VA residential rehabilitation treatment 
programs (formerly called ``domiciliaries''), 133 nursing 
homes, and 879 outpatient clinics which includes independent, 
satellite, community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
    In 2004, the Congress funded the Veterans Health 
Administration [VHA] through a new account structure comprised 
of four accounts: medical services, medical administration, 
medical facilities, and medical and prosthetic research. This 
action was taken to provide better oversight and to receive a 
more accurate accounting of funds.
    The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections 
Fund [MCCF] was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
(Public Law 105-33). In fiscal year 2004, Public Law 108-199 
allowed the Department to deposit first-party and pharmacy co-
payments, third-party insurance payments and enhanced use 
collections, long-term care co-payments, Compensated Work 
Therapy Program collections, Compensation and Pension Living 
Expenses Program collections, Parking Program fees, and 
collections from the sales of assets into the MCCF.
    The Parking Program provides funds for the construction, 
alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking 
garages at VA medical facilities authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8109. 
The Secretary is required under certain circumstances to 
establish and collect fees for the use of such garages and 
parking facilities. Receipts from the parking fees are to be 
deposited into the MCCF and would be used for medical services 
activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $28,354,192,800 for 
the Veterans Health Administration [VHA] for fiscal year 2005, 
without collections. This amount is comprised of 
$19,498,600,000 for medical services, $4,705,000,000 for 
medical administration, $3,745,000,000 for medical facilities, 
and $405,592,800 for medical and prosthetic research. With 
medical care collections expected to be $2,002,000,000 and 
projected carryover to be $800,812,000, VHA will have total 
resources of $31,157,004,800 available in fiscal year 2005.

                            MEDICAL SERVICES

                         (INCLUDING TRANSFERS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Total medical
                                                       Direct             Medical care          services with
                                                   appropriations          collections           collections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004..........................       $17,762,054,000        $1,554,794,000       $19,316,848,000
Budget estimate, 2005.........................        18,298,600,000         2,002,000,000        20,300,600,000
Committee recommendation......................        19,498,600,000         2,002,000,000        21,500,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``Medical services'' account provides for medical 
services of eligible veterans and beneficiaries in VA medical 
centers, outpatient clinic facilities, contract hospitals, 
State homes, and outpatient programs on a fee basis. Hospital 
and outpatient care is also provided by the private sector for 
certain dependents and survivors of veterans under the civilian 
health and medical programs for the VA.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $19,498,600,000 in 
direct appropriations for medical services in fiscal year 2005, 
an increase of $1,736,546,000 over the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level and $1,200,000,000 above the budget request. The 
Committee has designated $1,200,000,000 as contingent emergency 
funds. In addition, VA has authority to retain co-payments and 
third-party collections, estimated to total $2,002,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2005. Combined with the appropriated funds, medical 
services would receive $2,183,752,000 in additional funds above 
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. Therefore, the VA would 
receive a total of $21,500,600,000 for medical services in 
fiscal year 2005.
    The bill includes requested language in the Compensation, 
Pension, and Burial Benefits appropriation transferring 
$11,203,000 for administrative expenses of implementing cost 
saving provisions required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1990, and the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992.
    The Committee has included bill language under 
administrative provisions to allow the Secretary to transfer 
funds between the medical services appropriation, medical 
administration appropriation, and medical facilities 
appropriation with a limitation on transfers up to 20 percent 
as necessary after notifying the Committees on Appropriations.
    The Committee has included bill language to make available 
through September 30, 2006, up to $1,100,000,000 of the medical 
services appropriation. This provides flexibility to the 
Department as it continues to implement significant program 
changes.
    Emergency Funding.--The Committee has provided 
$1,200,000,000 in emergency funding for medical services due to 
the unanticipated and urgent need of veterans seeking medical 
treatment and services. Because of new laws enacted by the 
Congress that opened up medical service eligibility to all 
veterans and vastly expanded benefits, the VA has seen an 
unprecedented and unanticipated growth in workload. This growth 
was originally unexpected because the authors of the act 
believed that eligibility reform's ``impact would be less far-
reaching in practice than it appears on its face.'' Further, 
the authors believed that the ``view of VA being besieged by a 
large wave of new enrollees for VA care is unrealistic.'' These 
beliefs led to the authors' conclusion that the eligibility 
reform would be budget neutral. Nevertheless, since the 
enactment of eligibility reform, demand for VA care has risen 
by 54 percent with ``non-core'' veterans comprising the largest 
percentage increase. Moreover, enrollments have increased by 
some 3.1 million since 1999 alone.
    Further, the Congress enacted ``The Veterans Programs 
Enhancement Act of 1998'', which legally requires VA to provide 
2 years of medical care benefits for returning service-members, 
including members of the National Guard and Reserve, upon 
release or separation from service. This law was originally 
passed to meet the medical care needs of those veterans who had 
served in the first Persian Gulf War and it applies to those 
service-members currently serving in the Iraqi conflict. To 
address the medical care and benefit processing needs of some 
of the first returning service-members, the Congress provided a 
downpayment of $100,000,000 funds in the Emergency Wartime 
Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-11) in fiscal 
year 2003. Since the enactment of Public Law 108-11, the VA has 
seen an upsurge in wounded returning service-members from the 
Iraqi conflict. As of September 22, 2003, 15,813 service-
members who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom have separated 
from military duty. Among these service-members, almost 2,000 
or 12.4 percent had sought VA health care during 2003. However, 
according to a May 19, 2004, VA analysis, 139,778 service-
members who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom have separated 
from military duty. Among these service-members, 21,021 or 15 
percent had sought VA health care. Further, 58 percent of these 
veterans who received VA health care were members of the 
Reserve/National Guard.
    In response to the thousands of returning veterans from 
Iraq and Afghanistan, the VA has taken a number of steps to 
ensure smooth and seamless transition for these veterans from 
the Department of Defense to the VA. For example, the 
Department has detailed veterans service representatives and 
social workers to military treatment facilities, such as Walter 
Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center 
in Bethesda. The Committee commends the Department for these 
efforts, however, the Committee remains concerned that these 
efforts are not adequate in meeting the demand of returning 
service members. Accordingly, the Committee strongly urges the 
Department to allocate the resources and staffing necessary to 
improve the transition from DOD to the VA for returning service 
members and directs the Department to submit a report to the 
Committees on Appropriations on the specific steps, funds, and 
staff assigned to this effort. This report should be submitted 
by no later than April 12, 2005.
    CARES.--The Committee has provided bill language that 
allows the Secretary to transfer up to $250,000,000 from 
medical services to major construction for purposes of 
implementing the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced 
Services or ``CARES'' program. This language is included to 
provide the Secretary with the flexibility to provide increased 
funding to the major construction account in order to 
accelerate the implementation of the CARES recommendations 
adopted by the Secretary on May 7, 2004. The Committee directs 
the Secretary to notify the Committee prior to the transfer of 
funds. This notification should include the amount of funds 
transferred and the specific projects funded.
    Homelessness.--According to the VA, the Department expects 
to spend around $1,470,000,000 (an increase of $100,000,000 
over fiscal year 2004) in medical care funds to serve homeless 
veterans and another $188,000,000 (an increase of $12,300,000 
over fiscal year 2004) in specialized homeless programs in 
fiscal year 2005. The Committee fully supports these 
expenditures and remains strongly committed to ending 
homelessness among veterans. The Committee directs the VA to 
provide a detailed plan on ending homelessness, including its 
efforts in coordinating with other Federal agencies through the 
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. This plan should be 
submitted to the Committee by no later than April 25, 2005.
    The Committee urges the Department to continue its support 
for the Brother Francis Shelter, which supports homeless 
veterans in Anchorage, Alaska.
    DOD-VA Health Care Sharing.--The bill includes requested 
language for the DOD-VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund, as 
authorized by section 721 of the fiscal year 2003 National 
Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 107-314) to transfer a 
minimum of $15,000,000, to remain available until expended for 
any purpose authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8111. The Department of 
Defense and VA are required to establish a joint incentives 
program through the creation of a DOD-VA Health Care Sharing 
Incentive Fund. The purpose of the program is to identify, 
provide incentives to, implement, fund, and evaluate creative 
coordination and sharing initiatives at the facility, intra-
regional, and nationwide levels. There is a minimum 
contribution of $15,000,000 by each Department each year for 4 
years.
    VISN Boundaries.--The Committee is concerned about the 
jurisdictional boundary lines for VISN 15 due to access and 
quality of care concerns for veterans in the Southwest corner 
of Missouri. Accordingly, the Committee directs the VA to study 
and review the feasibility of redrawing the jurisdictional 
boundary lines for VISN 15 to include Southwest Missouri.
    Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative.--The Committee 
supports continuation at the current level of support of the 
Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative at the White River 
Junction, VT VAMC.
    Joslin Vision Network [JVN].--The Committee is aware of the 
JVN's benefits to the VA's diabetic patients, and encourages 
the VA to initiate new pilot sites.
    Psychology Post-Doctoral Training Program.--The Committee 
is interested in the progress of the VA's Psychology Post-
Doctoral Training program and other interdisciplinary training 
programs, and directs the VA to provide a report by December 7, 
2004 on the number and location of training slots for 
psychologists.
    Prosthetics and Integrative Health Care Initiative.--The 
Committee is deeply committed to the care of our newest 
veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The VA has 
already treated over 21,000 returning soldiers, and the numbers 
will continue to grow. Advances in body armor and improved 
combat health care are saving lives on the battlefield. But 
many soldiers are returning with lost limbs and other very 
severe and lasting injuries. In addition, many returning 
soldiers also bear less visible, psychological wounds of war. 
The Committee believes that the VA must provide these veterans 
with the best of both modern medicine and integrative holistic 
therapies for rehabilitation, such as those currently being 
employed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including at the 
Amputee Center.
    Elko, Nevada Veterans.--The Committee is concerned about 
the underserved veterans population, now totaling well over 
5,000, living in and around Elko, Nevada. Currently, Elko 
veterans do not have timely access to a VA doctor or clinic and 
must drive hundreds of miles through often hazardous driving 
conditions to Salt Lake City or Reno to receive care at a VA 
Medical Center. Accordingly, the Committee directs the VA to 
submit a report within 60 days of the enactment of this Act on 
its plan to serve the rapidly growing Elko veterans population, 
including any recommendations to establish a new Community 
Based Outpatient Clinic.
    To that end, the Committee has included $20,000,000 for a 
Prosthetics and Integrative Health Care Initiative. This 
initiative will focus on caring for veterans returning from war 
with severe, permanent, long-term needs such as loss of limbs 
or other very severe and lasting injuries. The initiative will 
also ensure continuity of care for our veterans leaving Walter 
Reed. The Committee directs VA to report by December 31, 2004, 
on the status of this initiative.
    Complementary Medicine.--The Committee strongly supports 
VA's plans to establish an advisory committee on complementary 
medicine, and directs the Department to establish this 
committee before the end of 2004. The Committee also directs 
the VA to report by December 31, 2004, on the VA's efforts to 
implement the recommendations of the White House Commission on 
Complementary Medicine.

                         MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION

                         (INCLUDING TRANSFERS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $4,970,570,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   4,705,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,705,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``Medical administration'' account provides funds for 
the expenses of management, security, and administration of the 
VA health care system. This appropriation provides for costs 
associated with operation of VA medical centers, other 
facilities, and VHA headquarters (formerly funded under the 
Medical Administration and Miscellaneous Operating Expenses 
account), plus the costs of VISN offices and facility director 
offices, Chief of Staff operations, quality of care oversight, 
all information technology hardware and software, legal 
services, billing and coding activities, and procurement.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request level of 
$4,705,000,000 for medical administration in fiscal year 2005. 
This amount is $265,500,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level.
    The Committee has included bill language to allow the 
Secretary to transfer funds between the medical services 
appropriation, medical administration appropriation, and 
medical facilities appropriation with a limitation on transfers 
up to 20 percent as necessary after notifying the Committees on 
Appropriations.
    The Committee has included bill language to make available 
through September 30, 2006, up to $250,000,000 of the medical 
administration appropriation. This provides flexibility to the 
Department as it continues to implement significant program 
changes.

                           MEDICAL FACILITIES

                         (INCLUDING TRANSFERS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $3,976,456,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   3,745,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,745,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``Medical facilities'' account provides funds for the 
operation, maintenance of the VA health care system's vast 
capital infrastructure. This appropriation provides for costs 
associated with utilities, engineering, capital planning, 
leases, laundry and food services, grounds keeping, garbage, 
housekeeping, facility repair, and property disposition and 
acquisition.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides the budget request 
level of $3,745,000,000 for medical facilities in fiscal year 
2005. This amount is $231,400,000 below the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level.
    The Committee is interested in the impact of the CARES 
program on medical facilities funding for each VISN and medical 
facility. Specifically, the Committee encourages the VA to 
collect information, on a per VISN basis, on the amount of 
funds spent on underutilized or empty facilities and to develop 
a long-range plan to reduce or eliminate medical facilities 
expenditures on these facilities.
    The Committee has included bill language to allow the 
Secretary to transfer funds between the medical services 
appropriation, medical administration appropriation, and 
medical facilities appropriation with a limitation on transfers 
up to 20 percent as necessary after notifying the Committees on 
Appropriations.
    The Committee has included bill language to make available 
through September 30, 2006, up to $250,000,000 of the medical 
facilities appropriation. This provides flexibility to the 
Department as it continues to implement significant program 
changes.

                    MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $405,592,800
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     384,770,000
Committee recommendation................................     405,592,800

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``Medical and prosthetic research'' account provides 
funds for medical, rehabilitative, and health services 
research. Medical research supports basic and clinical studies 
that advance knowledge leading to improvements in the 
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and 
disabilities. Rehabilitation research focuses on rehabilitation 
engineering problems in the fields of prosthetics, orthotics, 
adaptive equipment for vehicles, sensory aids and related 
areas. Health services research focuses on improving the 
effectiveness and economy of delivery of health services.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $405,592,800 for medical and 
prosthetic research, which is $20,822,800 above the budget 
request and equal to the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The 
Committee remains highly supportive of this program, and 
recognizes its importance both in improving health care 
services to veterans and recruiting and retaining high-quality 
medical professionals in the Veterans Health Administration.
    Human Identical Cytochromes.--The Committee is encouraged 
by the potential results from research by the Nashville VA 
Medical Center and Vanderbilt University Medical Center on 
human identical cytochromes. Research in this field will 
improve methods for the synthesis and characterization of drug 
metabolites prior to initiating human testing. Unfortunately, 
the Department has not yet taken steps to evaluate human 
identical cytochrome research. The Committee strongly urges the 
Department to continue evaluating this promising research.
    Prosthetics Research.--Again, the Committee stresses the 
importance of caring for veterans returning from the 
battlefield. Prosthetics research, including the development of 
high-tech, ``smart limb'' technology can restore quality of 
life and functional independence for veterans who have lost 
limbs. But the Committee is deeply concerned that VA has lost 
its focus on prosthetics development. The Committee therefore 
directs the VA to prioritize prosthetics in its research 
agenda, and to report to the Committee by December 31, 2004, on 
how VA will make prosthetics research a priority for our 
returning soldiers. The Committee also strongly encourages VA 
to collaborate with the Department of Defense, which also 
conducts a research program into improved prosthetic care, limb 
development, and rehabilitation.

                      Departmental Administration

                       GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $1,275,700,695
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   1,324,753,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,399,753,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides for the administration of 
nonmedical veterans benefits through the Veterans Benefits 
Administration [VBA], the executive direction of the 
Department, several top level supporting offices, of the Board 
of Contract Appeals, and the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

     The Committee recommends $1,399,753,000 for general 
operating expenses, an increase of $75,000,000 above the budget 
request and $124,052,305 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level. The amount provided includes $1,102,193,000 for the 
Veterans Benefits Administration and $297,560,000 for general 
administration. In addition to this appropriation, resources 
are made available for general operating expenses through 
reimbursements totaling $613,050,000 for fiscal year 2005, with 
total estimated obligations of approximately $2,012,803,000.
    The Committee has provided additional funds to VBA to 
prevent any reductions in staffing in processing disability 
benefit claims. The additional funds will allow the VA to 
continue its progress in bringing the claims backlog under 
control and to prevent reductions in the vocational 
rehabilitation and employment office. The Department has made 
substantial progress in reducing the claims backlog; however, 
this progress is threatened by the increased workload in claims 
that has jumped by well over 20,000 per month. Some of these 
additional claims are due to the increased number of veterans 
returning from the Iraqi conflict.
    The Committee recommends making available $66,000,000 of 
the GOE appropriation for 2 years, and the current level of 
$25,000 for official reception and representation expenses.

                    NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $143,352,202
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     148,925,000
Committee recommendation................................     148,925,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Cemetery Administration was established in 
accordance with the National Cemeteries Act of 1973. It has a 
fourfold mission: to provide for the interment in any national 
cemetery of the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons and 
discharged veterans, together with their spouses and certain 
dependents, and permanently to maintain their graves; to mark 
graves of eligible persons in national and private cemeteries; 
to administer the grant program for aid to States in 
establishing, expanding, or improving State veterans' 
cemeteries; and to administer the Presidential Memorial 
Certificate Program.
    There are a total of 158 cemeterial installations in 39 
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The 
Committee's recommendation for the National Cemetery 
Administration provides funds for all of these cemeterial 
installations.
    Language to clarify the treatment of 2-year funding was 
added to permit treating the operating dollars as one fund 
during the first year of availability.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $148,925,000 for the National 
Cemetery Administration. This is an increase of $5,572,798 over 
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget 
request.

                    OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $61,634,200
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      64,711,000
Committee recommendation................................      64,711,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit 
and investigation and inspections of all Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs and operations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $64,711,000 for the Inspector 
General. This is an increase of $3,076,800 above the fiscal 
year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $271,578,179
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     458,800,000
Committee recommendation................................     458,800,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The construction, major projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities (including parking projects) under the jurisdiction 
or for the use of VA, including planning, architectural and 
engineering services, Capital Asset Realignment Enhanced 
Services [CARES] activities, assessment, and site acquisition 
where the estimated cost of a project is more than the amount 
set forth in 38 U.S.C. 8104(a)(3)(A). Proceeds realized from 
Enhanced Use Lease activities may also be transferred from the 
Medical Care Collections Fund and merged with the major 
construction account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $458,800,000 
for construction, major projects, $187,221,821 above the fiscal 
year 2004 enacted level and the same level as the budget 
request.
    The following table compares the Committee recommendation 
with the budget request.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Available                           Committee
                 Location and description                     through 2004      2005 request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans Health Administration [VHA]:
    Tampa, FL, SCI expansion..............................  ................             7,100             7,100
    Pensacola, FL, Joint VA and Navy OPC..................  ................            55,500            55,500
    Temple, TX, Blind rehabilitation and psychiatric beds.  ................            56,000            56,000
    San Juan, PR, Seismic corrections, design.............  ................            15,000            15,000
    Syracuse, NY, SCI addition............................  ................            53,900            53,900
    Atlanta, GA, Wards modernization......................  ................            20,700            20,700
    Menlo Park, CA, Seismic corrections...................  ................            33,239            33,239
    San Francisco, CA, Seismic corrections................  ................            41,500            41,500
    Los Angeles, CA, Seismic corrections, design..........  ................             8,000             8,000
    Lee County, FL, Outpatient clinic, land purchase......  ................             6,510             6,510
    Des Moines, IA, Extended care building................  ................            25,000            25,000
    San Diego, CA, Seismic corrections....................  ................            48,260            48,260
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, CARES.....................................  ................           370,709           370,709
                                                           =====================================================
    Advance planning fund: Various stations...............  ................            14,000            14,000
    Asbestos abatement: Various stations..................  ................             3,000             3,000
    Claims Analyses: Various locations....................  ................             1,000             1,000
    Judgment Fund: Various locations......................  ................             8,091             8,091
    Hazardous Waste: Various locations....................  ................             2,000             2,000
    Emergency Response Security Study.....................  ................             2,000             2,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other line-items..........................  ................            30,091            30,091
                                                           =====================================================
      Total VHA construction, major projects..............  ................           400,800           400,800
                                                           =====================================================
Veterans Benefits Administration [VBA]
    National Cemetery Administration [NCA]: \1\
        Sacramento, CA Phase I Development................  ................            21,600            21,600
        Florida Gravesite Expansion and Cemetery            ................            20,000            20,000
         Improvements.....................................
        Rock Island, IL Gravesite Expansion and Cemetery    ................            10,200            10,200
         Improvements.....................................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Construction........................  ................            51,800            51,800
                                                           =====================================================
    Design Fund: Various locations........................  ................             3,200             3,200
    Advance planning fund: Various locations..............  ................             1,000             1,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other line-items..........................  ................             4,200             4,200
                                                           =====================================================
      Total NCA construction, major projects..............  ................            56,000            56,000
                                                           =====================================================
Staff Offices: Various locations..........................  ................             2,000             2,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total construction, major projects..................  ................           458,800           458,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Cemetery Administration major project requests do not include the purchase of pre-placed crypts,
  which are funded by the Compensation and Pensions appropriation.

    CARES.--The Committee recommends $370,709,000 for major 
construction projects approved through the Capital Asset 
Realignment for Enhanced Services [CARES] program. The 
Committee's recommendation funds the Secretary's list of 
prioritized projects for fiscal year 2005 as identified in the 
May 20, 2004 report entitled ``CARES Major Construction 
Projects Fiscal Year 2004-2010.'' The Committee also approves 
the funding of the fiscal year 2004 major construction projects 
approved under CARES, totaling $558,360,000 also listed in the 
May 20, 2004 report. The Committee applauds the VA for 
completing its national CARES plan as detailed in its CARES 
Decision report, which was released on May 7, 2004, and remains 
strongly committed to funding the Secretary's May 7, 2004, 
recommendations. The Committee believes that CARES is the most 
important effort ever undertaken by the VA in improving access 
for current and future veterans. With the funding provided in 
this bill and the fiscal year 2004 enacted bill, the VA will 
have over $1,000,000,000 to begin implementation of the 
national CARES plan.
    To keep the Committee informed of the VA's progress in 
implementing the Secretary's CARES Decision recommendations, 
the Committee directs the VA to update its 5-year strategic 
plan for capital asset management. This plan should include the 
costs associated with its capital investments, including 
projects related to major construction, minor construction, 
research facilities, and safety and seismic improvements. 
Further, the Committee directs the VA to review the financial 
status of all existing major construction projects and the 
major working reserve account and provide information on any 
unobligated and unexpended funds that may be recaptured and 
spent on other CARES projects. These reports should be 
submitted to the Committee by no later than May 26, 2005.
    One of the primary drivers of CARES was the need to ensure 
that the decisions and process was as objective as possible. 
Now that the Secretary has announced a national plan to 
implement CARES, the Committee strongly believes that the 
implementation process is objective and not vulnerable to 
subjective changes. To ensure that the implementation of the 
Secretary's CARES decisions is objective, the Committee 
strongly urges the VA to establish an independent body to 
advise and monitor progress of CARES. The Committee directs the 
VA to submit a plan on the creation of an independent advisory 
body by March 10, 2005.
    The Committee recognizes that the CARES process will 
partially depend on contracting with local providers to deliver 
health care services. In announcing its CARES decisions, the VA 
did not provide information on the budgetary implications of 
its decisions to expand contract care. Accordingly, the 
Committee directs the VA to develop a business plan that 
details the services to be contracted, the location of these 
new services, the amount of resources needed, a timetable on 
when the resources will be needed, and the source of funding 
these new resources (e.g., new appropriations or reallocation 
of existing resources). This plan should be submitted by 
February 28, 2005.
    Lastly, the Committee urges the VA to develop a plan for 
disposing of its vast inventory of vacant and unneeded 
infrastructure. VA identified vacant space totaling some 8.5 
million square feet, involving hundreds of buildings at more 
than 150 health care delivery locations nationwide. The 
Committee directs the VA to develop a business plan that 
details their disposition strategy and budgetary impacts. This 
plan should be submitted by May 20, 2005.
    Beckley, WV Nursing Home.--The Committee urges the VA to 
include sufficient funding in its fiscal year 2006 budget 
request for construction of a 120-bed nursing home care unit at 
the Beckley, WV VAMC, as long as it is consistent with the 
CARES priority list as described in the VA's May 20, 2004, 
CARES Major Construction Projects fiscal year 2004-2010 report.
    NCA.--For the National Cemetery Administration's [NCA] 
construction program, the Committee recommends the requested 
amounts for the development of the Sacramento, California 
National Cemetery, and expansion and improvements for Bushnell, 
Florida, and Rock Island, Illinois, National Cemeteries. The 
Committee also recommends design funding for the Riverside, 
California, and San Joaquin Valley, California, National 
Cemeteries, and for an annex to Fort Rosecrans, California, 
National Cemetery at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. The 
Committee also recommends advance planning funds for the site 
selection process for six new national cemeteries in areas 
directed by the National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003 (Public 
Law 108-109).

                      CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $250,656,350
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     230,779,000
Committee recommendation................................     230,779,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities (including parking) under the jurisdiction or for 
the use of VA, including planning, CARES activities, assessment 
of needs, architectural and engineering services, and site 
acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is equal to 
or less than the amount set forth in 38 U.S.C. 8104(a)(3)(4). 
Public Law 106-117, the Veterans Millennium Health Care and 
Benefits Act of 1999, gave VA the authority to make capital 
contributions from minor construction in enhanced-use leases. 
Proceeds realized from Enhanced Use Lease activities may also 
be transferred from the Medical Care Collections Fund and 
merged with the minor construction account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $230,779,000 for minor 
construction, the same as the budget request and $19,877,350 
below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee's 
recommendation includes $182,100,000 for VHA; $25,000,000 for 
NCA; $19,000,000 for VBA; and $4,700,000 for staff.

       GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $101,497,610
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     105,163,000
Committee recommendation................................     105,163,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account is used to provide grants to assist States in 
acquiring or constructing State home facilities for furnishing 
domiciliary or nursing home care to veterans, and to expand, 
remodel or alter existing buildings for furnishing domiciliary, 
nursing home, or hospital care to veterans in State homes. The 
grant may not exceed 65 percent of the total cost of the 
project, and grants to any one State may not exceed one-third 
of the amount appropriated in any fiscal year. Public Law 102-
585 granted permanent authority for this program and Public Law 
106-117 provided greater specificity in directing VA to 
prescribe regulations for the number of beds for which grant 
assistance may be furnished.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $105,163,000 for grants for the 
construction of State extended care facilities, equal to the 
budget request and $3,665,390 above the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level. This program cost-effectively meets long-term 
health care needs of veterans.

       GRANTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS' CEMETERIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $31,811,200
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      32,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      32,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Public Law 105-368, amended title 38 U.S.C. 2408, which 
established authority to provide aid to States for 
establishment, expansion, and improvement of State veterans' 
cemeteries which are operated and permanently maintained by the 
States. This amendment increased the maximum Federal Share from 
50 percent to 100 percent in order to fund construction costs 
and the initial equipment expenses when the cemetery is 
established. The States remain responsible for providing the 
land and for paying all costs related to the operation and 
maintenance of the State cemeteries, including the costs for 
subsequent equipment purchases.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $32,000,000 for grants for 
construction of State veterans' cemeteries in fiscal year 2005, 
$188,800 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same 
as the budget request.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    The Committee has included 18 administrative provisions 
(Sections 101-113, 115, 116, and 118-120) carried in earlier 
bills and four new administrative provisions. Among these are:
    Section 107 enables VA to use surplus earnings from the 
National service life insurance, U.S. Government life 
insurance, and veterans special life insurance program to 
administer these programs. This provision was included for the 
first time in fiscal year 1996 appropriations legislation. The 
Department estimates that $40,215,000 will be reimbursed to the 
``General operating expenses'' account as a result of this 
provision.
    Section 108 extends the VA's Franchise Fund pilot program.
    Section 109 enables the VA to reimburse accounts from 
enhanced use lease proceeds.
    Section 110 allows for fiscal year 2005 only the 
reimbursement of the Office of Resolution Management [ORM] and 
the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication 
[OEDCA] for services provided, from funds in any appropriation 
for salaries and other administrative expenses.
    Section 112 limits funds for medical treatment of non-
service connected veterans to those who have provided accurate 
insurance annual income information. This provision allows the 
Secretary to manage effectively the billing and collection 
process to third party insurers by ensuring that the VA 
receives timely and accurate identification of private medical 
insurance information. Further, the Secretary may recover, in 
the same manner as any other debt due the United States, the 
reasonable charges for such care or services from any person 
who does not make such disclosure as required. Any amounts so 
recovered for care or services provided in a prior fiscal year 
may be obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal year in 
which amounts are received.
    The four new administrative provisions are as follows:
    Section 114 revises a provision carried in previous bills 
to provide the Secretary with permanent authority in depositing 
receipts from various funds into the Medical Care Collections 
Fund.
    Section 117 allows the transfer of funds from ``General 
operating expenses'' to the housing program account for 
purposes of a national property management contract.
    Section 121 provides access to unobligated balances of 
funds provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 
of 1994.
    Section 122 makes a technical correction to a provision 
from Public Law 108-199.
    Section 123 allows veterans in Alaska to obtain medical 
care services from Indian Health Services, under certain 
conditions.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2004.................................... $35,402,259,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................  35,719,359,000
Committee recommendation................................  36,417,763,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends for fiscal year 2005 an 
appropriation of $36,927,413,000 for the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. This is $1,015,504,000 above the fiscal 
year 2004 enacted level and $698,404,000 above the budget 
request.

                        HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

             (INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004.................................... $19,257,190,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................  18,465,060,000
Committee recommendation................................  20,707,804,000

(None of these totals include rescissions which are part of this account 
for each fiscal year. Each include an advance appropriation of some 
$4,200,000.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding mainly for the section 8 
programs, including tenant-based and project-based rental 
assistance. Section 8 assistance is the principle appropriation 
for Federal housing assistance and provides rental housing 
assistance to over 3 million families. The account provides 
funding for the renewal of the existing Section 8 contracts 
covering Vouchers, Moderate Rehabilitation, Loan Management, 
Property Disposition, New Construction/Substantial 
Rehabilitation, and Preservation contracts. Further, it funds 
incremental vouchers to assist non-elderly disabled families, 
to provide vouchers for tenants that live in projects where the 
owner of the project has decided to leave the section 8 
program, or for replacement of units lost from the assisted 
housing inventory (Tenant Protection vouchers), etc. Under 
these programs, eligible low-income families pay 30 percent of 
their adjusted income for rent, and the Federal Government is 
responsible for the remainder of the rent, up to the fair 
market rent or some other payment standard. This account also 
provides funding for the Contract Administrator program and 
Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS]. The contract administrators are 
responsible for the oversight and administration of section 8 
project-based contracts such as Loan Management, Property 
Disposition, Preservation, and New Construction/Substantial 
Rehabilitation. Under FSS, families receive job training and 
employment that should lead to a decrease in their dependency 
on welfare programs and move towards economic self-sufficiency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$20,707,804,000 for fiscal year 2005, including $4,200,000,000 
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 
2004. In addition, this account includes $2,588,172,000 in 
funds that are rescinded from unobligated balances remaining 
from funds appropriated for this account in previous fiscal 
years.
    Of these overall amounts, the Committee has allocated 
$19,034,000,000 for the renewal of all expiring section 8 
contracts; $100,000,000 for a central fund to be allocated by 
HUD in support of section 8 contracts up to the authorized 
section 8 contract level for all public housing agencies; 
$163,000,000 for section 8 preservation contracts; $48,000,000 
for family self-sufficiency contracts under section 23 of the 
1937 Act; $1,256,000,000 for section 8 administrative costs; 
$101,900,000 for section 8 project-based administration costs; 
and $4,904,000 for the working capital fund. Finally, the 
Committee includes a rescission of $2,588,172,000 from 
unobligated funds under the section 8 tenant-based program from 
previous fiscal years in support of section 8 needs in fiscal 
year 2004.
    The Committee is very concerned over HUD's failure to 
adequately implement the fiscal year 2004 funding mechanism for 
section 8 vouchers. Because both HUD and PHAs waited until more 
than 6 months in the fiscal year to address the rent 
requirements in the fiscal year 2004 conference report, many 
low-income families were put at risk of losing vouchers and 
housing through no fault of their own. The Committee expects 
HUD to develop timely guidance at the beginning of the fiscal 
year.
    Similar to last year, PHAs would receive funding from HUD 
for all section 8 contracts that are currently in use and HUD 
would maintain a central fund to provide additional section 8 
funds for PHAs that can fund additional section 8 voucher units 
up to the authorized contract level. In many cases, PHAs would 
use their reserves to meet the immediate housing needs of 
families that can use vouchers to obtain housing up to the 
PHA's authorized contract level. Once a PHA has exceeded the 
use of 50 percent of its reserve, HUD would be required to 
reimburse the PHA for these funds.
    Nevertheless, the Committee is very concerned that the 
section 8 program is growing at a cost that is undermining its 
financial stability as well as undermining the amount of funds 
that are available for other programs within this bill. The 
Committee believes that program administration is flawed and 
more costly than it should be--in particular, the Committee 
directs the Department to review the mechanisms used for 
determining section 8 rents and the accountability requirements 
that ensure that these rents are reasonable and are no greater 
than the cost of comparable, unsubsidized units in the same 
market area.
    The Committee believes that a budget-based program may be a 
viable solution to control costs, although the Committee is 
concerned about the ability of the current data collection 
system to determine the appropriate level of funding for 
individual section 8 programs to meet the housing needs of the 
neediest families. In particular, the Committee believes that 
the requirement that three-quarters of all vouchers go to 
extremely low-income families--those at or below 30 percent of 
median income--is a critical requirement that is the foundation 
of the bridge that allows households to move from homelessness 
to homeownership.
    Because of these concerns over the cost of section 8 rents, 
the Committee has capped the cost of vouchers for PHAs based on 
the cost of vouchers in use as of October 1, 2004 with rent 
adjustments based on an annual adjustment factor determined by 
HUD which can be appealed by a landlord based on the cost of 
comparable, unsubsidized units in the same census tract or a 
larger market area if appropriate. All rents would still be 
subject to a rent reasonableness test. Finally, PHAs could 
still award additional vouchers up to their authorized level, 
assuming the overall cost to the PHA does not exceed 102 
percent of the cost of vouchers in use as of October 1, 2004, 
including any rent adjustments, costs associated with reduced 
tenant contributions, and utility payments. The Committee notes 
that any recaptures or unobligated funds may be used to augment 
any costs associated with this account in fiscal year 2005.
    Finally, the Committee does not agree with the 
administration's belief that the section 8 program is so flawed 
that it cannot be corrected without a conversion of the program 
into a block grant to the States or to public housing agencies. 
Without a commitment of adequate funding, the block grant 
approach will result in a shrinking commitment to housing 
resources for those with the greatest needs. In particular, the 
administration's budget proposes section 8 funding at some 
$790,000,000 less that the fiscal year 2004 level which means, 
according to CBO estimates, that the section 8 program would be 
funded at some $2,200,000,000 less than needed to maintain the 
current level of anticipated service in fiscal year 2005.
    The administration's block grant proposal asserts that PHAs 
will have the needed flexibility to meet local needs and 
conditions and to respond to local rental costs in a more 
responsible manner. However, the proposal fails for the 
following reasons: (1) the proposed funding is inadequate to 
support current section 8 utilization; (2) the proposal would 
eliminate the current section 8 requirement that three-quarter 
of all vouchers go to extremely low-income families who are 
often the elderly and disabled. This could result in these 
families and households having to live in substandard housing 
at unsustainable rents or else become homeless which would be a 
greater burden and cost on the social safety net than the 
current use of vouchers; and (3) PHAs would set the maximum 
payment standard for subsidies that would likely have to 
require higher rent burdens on families or lower rent levels 
which could result in a policy of reconcentrating the poorest 
families in the poorest and most distressed neighborhoods.
    The Committee believes that a section 8 block grant 
proposal could work if the program receives adequate funding 
and required, as with current policy, PHAs to provide at least 
three-quarters of all vouchers to extremely low-income 
families. Nevertheless, this is a very controversial housing 
policy recommendation that deserves the full attention of the 
House and Senate Banking Committees as well as the 
Appropriations Committees.
    Also, the Committee expects PHAs that have entered into 
contracts for units in excess of their authorized contract 
level for vouchers to meet their authorized voucher level no 
later than 60 days after the start of the fiscal year. A PHA 
also is not to award any additional vouchers (including 
turnover vouchers) until the PHA is within its authorized 
contract level.
    While the Committee supports and understands the need for 
PHAs to allocate to tenants more vouchers than are permissible 
under their authorized contract levels, the Committee is very 
concerned over intentional or negligent abuses of this 
discretion. In particular, the Committee directs the Department 
to make quarterly reports on PHA utilization rates and to 
identify PHAs that have exceeded their authorized contract 
levels by more than 5 percent.
    The Committee understands that project-based Section 8 
oversight and management have been contracted outside of the 
Department, and that it is not clear that doing so saves money 
or improves resident services. The Committee urges the 
Department to reconsider the decision to contract out Section 8 
contract administration, and to conduct an appropriate benefit-
cost analysis to determine whether the practice should be 
continued.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $2,696,291,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   2,674,100,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,700,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,700,000,000 
for the public housing capital fund, which is $25,900,000 above 
the budget request and $3,747,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level.
    Of the amount made available under this section, up to 
$55,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public 
housing, and $15,000,000 is for the Neighborhood Networks 
Initiative in public housing. Funds for the Neighborhood 
Networks Initiative are provided to establish and operate 
computer centers in and around public housing. These funds are 
intended to allow residents of public housing develop the 
technology skills that are increasingly important in the 21st 
century workplace.
    The Committee directs HUD to work with the Department of 
Commerce's Technology Opportunities Program, the Department of 
Education's Community Technology Centers program and other 
Federal agencies to compile best practices from community-based 
organizations that are working to ensure equitable access to 
technology and to disseminate these best practices to other 
community-based organizations engaged in, or interested in, 
bridging the digital divide.
    HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account 
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937, but is provided up to $50,000,000 for 
emergency capital needs including $15,000,000 for troubled PHAs 
and for surveys used to calculate local Fair Market Rents and 
assess housing conditions with regard to the use of section 8 
assistance.
    The bill includes up to $30,000,000 for the demolition, 
relocation, and site remediation for obsolete and distressed 
public housing units.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $3,578,810,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   3,573,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,610,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,610,000,000 
for the public housing operating fund, which is $968,760,000 
below the fiscal year 2004 level and $963,000,000 below the 
budget request.
    The Committee has included language that requires all 
public housing agencies [PHAs] to convert to a calendar year 
budget for all costs associated with PHA operating funding. 
This transition will result in a savings of $1,000,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2005 since PHAs will only receive the funding 
necessary to meet the costs of operations through calendar year 
2005. This is a 1-year savings for fiscal year 2005 only. This 
requirement should ease HUD's management of PHAs and allow 
easier tracking of costs. In addition, the Committee has 
included $30,000,000 to assist PHAs in making this transition 
to calendar year budgeting, including the costs associated with 
implementing appropriate information technology systems for 
tracking operating costs. The Committee expects the 
administration to include in the budget request for fiscal year 
2006 the necessary funds for all PHA operating costs, as 
required under the performance funding system or any subsequent 
funding system which is in place at the time of the budget 
submission.
    The Committee has included $15,000,000, as recommended by 
the administration, for bonuses to PHAs that help move families 
away from depending on housing assistance. The Committee 
expects the Department to issue regulations that provide clear 
criteria for eligibility for these bonuses.
    HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account 
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937. The bill includes language from the fiscal 
year 2004 appropriations bill that prohibits the use of 
operating funds to pay for the operating expenses for a prior 
fiscal year.

     REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $149,117,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     150,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $150,000,000 
for the ``HOPE VI'' account, $150,000,000 above the budget 
request and approximately the same as the fiscal year 2004 
level. The Committee urges the Department to reconsider the 
elimination of the HOPE VI program, especially since the 
program was reauthorized through 2006. This program has 
resulted in the funding of innovative projects that work both 
as public and mixed-income housing as well as building blocks 
for revitalizing neighborhoods.
    This is an important program that has revitalized many 
distressed properties as well as being the anchor for the 
revitalization of many communities in which these properties 
are located. As noted, and in light of the recent finding by 
the Urban Institute that there are between 46,900 and 81,900 
units of severely distressed public housing units still 
existing, the Committee is disappointed that the administration 
has eliminated HOPE VI without a complete review and without 
providing adequate alternative authority and funding to address 
the needs of the remaining PHAs with obsolete units and those 
with substantial rehabilitation needs.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $650,241,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     647,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     650,241,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $650,241,000 for the Native 
American Housing Block Grant, of which $2,000,000 is set aside 
for a credit subsidy for the section 601 Loan Guarantee 
Program. The Committee recommendation is $3,241,000 above the 
budget request and the same as the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level.
    The Committee continues to believe that training and 
technical assistance in support of NAHASDA should be shared, 
with $2,200,000 to be administered by the National American 
Indian Housing Council [NAIHC] and $4,500,000 by HUD in support 
of the inspection of Indian housing units, contract expertise, 
training and technical assistance in the training, oversight, 
and management of Indian housing and tenant-based assistance.
    As discussed last year, the Committee notes that there is 
not a requirement that qualified Indian and Alaska Native owned 
construction companies be given priority consideration in 
construction of Indian housing. In many Indian and Native 
communities, the unemployment rate exceeds 80 percent, and 
housing contracts would provide much needed employment and 
training opportunities for Native Americans living on 
reservations and in Alaska Native villages. As with last year, 
the Committee directs the agency and its grantees to give 
priority consideration to qualified Native owned firms in the 
design and construction of Indian housing. The Committee also 
directs HUD to report on the use of Native owned firms under 
this account by April 15, 2005.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $5,269,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 in program subsidies to 
support a loan guarantee level of $29,069,767. This is 
$4,269,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request.

              NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $1,029,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 in program subsidies to 
support a loan guarantee level of $37,403,101. This is 
$4,269,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request.

                   Community Planning and Development

          HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $294,755,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     294,800,000
Committee recommendation................................     294,800,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $294,800,000 
for this program, which is $45,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee also requires HUD to allocate these funds in 
a manner that preserves existing HOPWA programs to the extent 
those programs are determined to be meeting the needs of 
persons with AIDS. The Committee includes legislation that 
allocates the formula funding in a manner consistent with 
fiscal year 2004 allocations.
    These funds will support some 73,700 housing units for 
persons with HIV/AIDS and their families.

            OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $24,853,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Office of 
Rural Housing and Economic Development for fiscal year 2005 to 
support housing and economic development in rural communities 
as defined by USDA and HUD. This funding level is $147,000 
above the fiscal year 2004 level and $25,000,000 above the 
budget request.
    The Committee does not accept the administration's 
recommendation to eliminate funding for this program. The 
Committee believes that the Office of Rural Housing and 
Economic Development plays an important role in HUD's community 
development activities. Twenty-five percent of nonmetropolitan 
homes are renter-occupied, and the high cost of housing burdens 
those in rural areas, as it does in urban communities. 
Furthermore, the Committee notes that the programs of the 
Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development are 
sufficiently different from the housing programs administered 
by the Department of Agriculture to warrant separate 
appropriations.
    HUD is directed to administer this program according to 
existing regulatory requirements. It is expected that any 
changes to the program shall be made subject to notice and 
comment rulemaking.

                EMPOWERMENT ZONES/ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $14,912,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities [EZ/EC] 
program was authorized under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1993. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 later authorized 
two additional Round I urban EZs and 15 Round II urban EZs. 
This interagency initiative is designed to create self-
sustaining, long-term development in distressed urban and rural 
areas throughout the Nation. The program utilizes a combination 
of Federal tax incentives and flexible grant funds to 
reinvigorate communities that have been in decline for decades.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $0 for this 
program, $14,912,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level and the same as the budget request. As with the previous 
administration. This program was enacted through tax 
legislation and designed to be funded as a mandatory program. 
The Committee, therefore, urges the tax committees to revisit 
the funding needs of this program. Moreover, the Committee 
remains concerned over accountability in this program and notes 
that the HUD Inspector General has been critical about how 
certain communities have implemented this program and used EZ 
funds.
    The Committee is aware that several noncontiguous census 
tracts have been excluded from Renewal Community designation 
even in cases where the areas are within feet of the Renewal 
Community or are non-residential in nature. The Committee urges 
the Department to work with communities to take full advantage 
of the benefits of renewal community designation.

                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $4,920,864,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   4,618,094,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,950,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,950,000,000 
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2005. This is 
an increase of $331,906,000 above the budget request for fiscal 
year 2005 and $29,205,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level.
    The Committee has included $4,547,700,000 for community 
development block grants [CDBG]. Set-asides under this account 
include $72,000,000 for native Americans; $3,300,000 for the 
Housing Assistance Council; $2,500,000 for the National 
American Indian Housing Council; $25,000,000 for the Self Help 
Homeownership Opportunity Program; $35,000,000 for capacity 
building of which $31,500,000 is for Capacity Building for 
Community Development and Affordable Housing for LISC and the 
Enterprise Foundation; and $51,000,000 for section 107 grants, 
including $4,000,000 to support Alaska Native-Serving 
Institutions and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions; 
$3,000,000 for competitive grants awarded to Tribal Colleges 
and Universities to build, expand, renovate, and equip their 
facilities; $3,000,000 for community development work study, 
$11,000,000 for historically black colleges and universities, 
of which up to $1,500,000 is for technical assistance, 
$7,000,000 for insular areas; $6,000,000 for Community Outreach 
Partnerships, and $7,000,000 for Hispanic-serving institutions. 
The Committee includes $10,000,000 for assistance authorized 
under the Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 under 
section 107. The administration proposed to fund this program 
in a separate account. Finally, $500,000 is transferred to the 
working capital fund.
    The Committee also includes $65,000,000 for the Youthbuild 
program of which $7,000,000 is to develop programs in 
underserved and rural areas. The Committee remains concerned 
that this program has not developed a significant base of 
support for funding outside the Federal funds made available 
through this account.
    The Committee also funds the Economic Development 
Initiative at $126,000,000 and the Neighborhood Initiatives 
program at $22,000,000.
    The Economic Development Initiatives are as follows:
    $1,900,000 for the City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama for the 
Urban Renewal Project in Tuscaloosa, Alabama;
    $300,000 for the City of Livingston, Alabama for downtown 
revitalization in Livingston, Alabama;
    $500,000 to the Crenshaw County Economic/Industrial 
Development Authority for industrial site preparation in 
Crenshaw County, Alabama;
    $250,000 to the City of Fairhope, Alabama for development 
of the Fairhope Library;
    $400,000 to the University of South Alabama for the 
Mitchell College of Business Library in Mobile, Alabama;
    $500,000 for the Selma YMCA for facilities improvements in 
Selma, Alabama;
    $450,000 for the Town of Double Springs, Alabama for 
community development;
    $150,000 for Alaska Botanical Garden in Anchorage for 
expansions and renovations;
    $150,000 for Friends of Eagle River Nature Center, Inc. in 
Eagle River, Alaska for costs associated with the construction 
of a community/visitor center;
    $500,000 for the Kincaid Park for Training Center, 
Anchorage, Alaska for costs associated with construction;
    $950,000 for the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska for 
costs associated with the construction of a speed skating rink;
    $300,000 for the North Star Council on Aging in Fairbanks, 
Alaska for costs associated with the construction of the 
Fairbanks Senior Center;
    $175,000 for Love Social Services in Fairbanks, Alaska for 
expansion;
    $1,000,000 for the Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska for 
housing upgrades,
    $900,000 for the City of Ketchikan, Alaska for costs 
associated with the construction of the Tongass Coast Aquarium;
    $350,000 for Community Association of Hyder, Alaska for 
costs associated with the construction of a high speed water 
plant;
    $300,000 for the Juneau Family Birth Center, Alaska for the 
construction of a one-stop family resources center;
    $200,000 for the Upper Kuskowim Community Learning Center 
in Aniak, Alaska for costs associated with the construction of 
a high tech training facility;
    $525,000 for the Bering Straits Native Corporation in Nome, 
Alaska for Cape Nome Quarry Upgrade;
    $500,000 for Shishmaref, Alaska for the construction of 
barriers;
    $500,000 for the Special Olympics, Anchorage, Alaska for 
costs associated with the construction of a training center for 
disabled children;
    $275,000 for the National History Museum of the Adirondacks 
in Tupper Lake, New York for the design and construction of 
museum;
    $250,000 for the Old Independence Regional Museum in 
Batesville, Arkansas for costs associated with expansion;
    $250,000 for Mountain Home, Arkansas for the construction 
of the Vada Sheid Community Development Center;
    $250,000 for the City of Malvern, Arkansas for the 
completion of the Ouachita River Millennium Park Pavillion;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Inglewood, California for the 
construction of a senior center;
    $250,000 for the City of Stockton, California for costs 
associated with construction of the Eldorado Teen Center;
    $250,000 for the City of San Francisco, California for the 
Old Mint Redevelopment Project;
    $350,000 for the City of Davis, California for the 
construction of a senior center;
    $450,000 for the Los Angeles Harbor/Watts Economic 
Development Corporation, California for the development of a 
park and recreation site;
    $250,000 for the Denver Art Museum, Center for American 
Indian Art, Denver, Colorado for expansion;
    $250,000 for the Weld Food Bank in Greeley, Colorado for 
expansion and renovation;
    $250,000 for the La Gente Youth Sports Recreation Center in 
Pueblo, Colorado for the expansion of facilities;
    $250,000 for the Town of Mountain Village, Colorado for 
construction of the Affordable Housing Initiative;
    $250,000 for the Town of Montrose, Colorado for the 
Montrose Pavillion/Senior Center renovation;
    $215,000 for the Town of Ignacio, Colorado for affordable 
housing development;
    $250,000 for Foodshare, Inc., in Hartford County, 
Connecticut for the construction of a new distribution center;
    $250,000 for the Main Street Development Corporation in 
Ansonia, Connecticut for the Lower Naugatuck Valley Economic 
Development Initiative;
    $500,000 for the Mark Twain House and Museum in Hartford, 
Connecticut for costs associated with restoration and 
development;
    $250,000 for the Town of Plainfield, Connecticut for the 
InterRoyal Facility Remediation Initiative;
    $250,000 for Sacred Heart Village, Inc. in Wilmington, 
Delaware for costs associated with renovations;
    $250,000 for City of Ocilla, Georgia, for the renovations 
of the Old Ocilla School;
    $250,000 for Tubman African American Museum, Macon, Georgia 
for costs associated with renovations;
    $500,000 for the City of Coral Gables, Florida for the 
Biltmore Complex Restoration Project;
    $250,000 for the Miami Performing Arts Center, Florida for 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Hawaii in Honolulu 
for costs associated with construction of the Nanakuli site on 
Hawaiian Homelands;
    $250,000 for Poamoho Camp Community Association in Wahiawa, 
Hawaii for infrastructure improvements;
    $350,000 for Binhi At Ani in Wailuku, Hawaii for the 
construction of the Maui Filipino Community Center;
    $400,000 for Friends of Drug Court in Honolulu, Hawaii for 
the acquisition of a building;
    $250,000 for Kauai Economic Opportunity, Inc., in Kauai, 
Hawaii for improvements and renovations to a homeless shelter;
    $250,000 for the Hawaii Island Community Development 
Corporation in Hilo for the construction of low-income elderly 
housing;
    $1,000,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development 
Association, Idaho, for implementation of the Lewis and Clark 
Bicentennial plan;
    $900,000 for Boise State University in Idaho, for planning, 
design, and construction for the Center for Environmental 
Science and Economic Development;
    $900,000 for the University of Idaho, at Moscow, Idaho, for 
planning and design for a science and new technologies 
laboratory;
    $350,000 for the Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois for 
improvements;
    $150,000 for the Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, Illinois 
for the expansion of the School of the Botanic Garden;
    $750,000 for the City of Springfield, Illinois for the 
design and construction of a community center on the city's 
east side;
    $250,000 for the Campbell Center for Historic Preservation 
in Mount Carroll, Illinois to complete the planning, 
feasibility, and design phase of its program expansion and 
rehabilitation project;
    $200,000 for the Northwest Illinois Chapter of the American 
Red Cross in Freeport, Illinois for the acquisition of property 
and construction of a new chapter office;
    $200,000 for the Chicago Food Depository, Illinois for 
capacity expansion and related programs;
    $200,000 for the Chicago House and Social Service Agency in 
Illinois to develop and construct a social services community 
center and programs on the West Side of Chicago, in partnership 
with Vital Bridges/Open Hand;
    $250,000 for The Community Foundation of Muncie and 
Delaware County, Inc., Anderson, Indiana for expansion of its 
food bank facilities;
    $250,000 for the City of Anderson, Indiana for the 
completion of the Anderson Fiber Network;
    $250,000 for the City of Indianapolis, Indiana for the 
construction of the Holmes Court Housing Development;
    $250,000 for the City of Jefferson, Indiana for costs 
associated with the redevelopment of Spring Street;
    $250,000 for the City of Waterloo, Iowa for the acquisition 
of the Cedar Valley TechWorks Facility;
    $250,000 for the City of Fort Dodge, Iowa for the Lincoln 
Neighborhood Redevelopment Project;
    $250,000 for the City of Storm Lake, Iowa for costs 
associated with the construction of the Destination Park 
Interpretative Center;
    $250,000 for the City of Bettendorf, Iowa for the River's 
Edge Redevelopment Project;
    $200,000 for the Mid America Housing Partnership in Cedar 
Rapids, Iowa for the housing trust fund;
    $200,000 for the Scott County Housing Council, Davenport, 
Iowa for the construction and rehabilitation of housing;
    $200,000 for the City of Waterloo, Iowa for the Rath 
Housing Initiative;
    $200,000 for Homeward Inc., in Iowa for construction of low 
income housing;
    $250,000 for the Kansas Chapter of National Korean War 
Veterans Association, Overland Park, Kansas for the 
construction of a Korean War Memorial;
    $500,000 for the City Vision Ministry, Kansas City, Kansas 
for Rosedale neighborhood affordable housing;
    $650,000 for the City of Great Bend, Kansas for 
construction of an environmental education center;
    $1,225,000 for Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas 
for the construction of a science center;
    $500,000 for the City of Topeka, Kansas for infrastructure 
construction at the Center Point Commerce Park;
    $300,000 for the Veterans Memorial Park of Wichita, Kansas 
for renovation project;
    $200,000 for TLC for Children and Families, Inc. in Olathe, 
Kansas for the construction of residential, educational, and 
therapy facilities for homeless teens, foster care youth and 
parents, and teens in the Juvenile Justice System;
    $275,000 for Sedgwick County, Kansas for the construction 
of the Oaklawn Community Center;
    $1,500,000 for the City of Bowling Green, Kentucky, for 
purchasing equipment for the South Central Kentucky Training 
and Development Project;
    $800,000 for the City of Bowling Green, Kentucky for costs 
associated with the development of the Lost River Cave 
Improvement Project;
    $250,000 for Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization in 
Graves County, Kentucky for costs associated with the 
construction of the PACRO Industrial Park;
    $300,000 for the Owen County Industrial Authority, Kentucky 
for the Owen County Gas Line;
    $250,000 for the Edmonson County, Kentucky for costs 
associated with the construction of the Edmonson Technology and 
Economic Development Center;
    $500,000 for Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of New 
Orleans, Louisiana for costs associated with construction for 
the West Bank Senior Services Continuum;
    $750,000 for the City of Grand Isle, Louisiana for the 
construction of a community center;
    $250,000 for the Audubon Nature Institute in New Orleans, 
Louisiana for facility improvements;
    $300,000 for the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana Recreation 
Commission for downtown recreation development;
    $250,000 for the City of Dequincy, Louisiana for downtown 
revitalization;
    $250,000 for St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana for the 
construction of a maritime training center;
    $300,000 for the City of Baltimore, Maryland, for costs 
associated with the relocation of the Central Garage;
    $250,000 for Associated Catholic Charities, Inc., in 
Baltimore, Maryland to build a new facility and renovate an 
existing facility for Our Daily Bread Employment Center and My 
Sister's Place Women's Center;
    $300,000 for St. Ambrose Housing, for purchase and 
rehabilitation of houses in northeast Baltimore, Maryland;
    $400,000 for Baltimore County, Maryland, for the 
rehabilitation of the Dundalk Community Center;
    $400,000 for Baltimore County, Maryland, for the 
Randallstown Community Center;
    $250,000 for the Charles County Economic Development 
Commission in Maryland for the design of the Energetics 
Technology Center;
    $200,000 for Montgomery County, Maryland for pedestrian 
enhancements and safety improvements in Long Branch;
    $200,000 for Montgomery County, Maryland for Fenton Street 
Village pedestrian linkages;
    $200,000 for Easter Seals, in Silver Spring, Maryland for 
the construction of the Easter Seal Inter-Generational Center;
    $500,000 for Prince Georges' County, Maryland, for the 
renovation of the Employment and Training Center and the 
Multicultural Academy;
    $500,000 for St. Mary's County, Maryland, for the 
acquisition and redevelopment of Lexington Manor;
    $1,000,000 for the Mandel Center for Nonprofit 
Organizations in Cleveland, Ohio, to capitalize a scholarship 
endowment established in memory of Art Naparstek;
    $500,000 for the National Council of Negro Women, in 
Washington, DC, for the construction and renovation of 633 
Pennsylvania Avenue, in Northwest, Washington, DC;
    $500,000 for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America to 
establish programs for youth living in Public and Indian 
housing communities;
    $250,000 for the City of Brewer, Maine to acquire and 
redevelop eight parcels of land on the Penobscot River;
    $250,000 for the City of Caribou, Maine to improve and 
repair a gymnasium and related facilities in the Armory 
building;
    $250,000 for the City of Auburn, Maine to construct the 
Great Falls Parking Garage;
    $250,000 for the People's Regional Opportunity Program 
[PROP] for the construction of affordable housing units and a 
neighborhood center in Portland, Maine;
    $350,000 for the Attleboro Redevelopment Authority, 
Massachusetts for the Attleboro Redevelopment Authority 
Manufacturing Site Remediation and Redevelopment;
    $350,000 for the Greater Boston Food Bank, Massachusetts 
for expansion of its distribution center;
    $350,000 for the City of Lawrence, Massachusetts for the 
demolition and remediation of the Lawrence In-Town Mall 
building;
    $200,000 for the City of Northampton, Massachusetts for the 
redevelopment of blighted land;
    $300,000 for the State of Michigan for costs associated 
with the relocation of the A.E. Seaman Mineral Museum;
    $300,000 for the Motown Center in Detroit, Michigan for 
costs associated with the relocation of the center;
    $300,000 for the City of Detroit, Michigan for costs 
associated with the restoration of the riverfront;
    $350,000 for the State Theatre of Bay City/Bay County, 
Michigan for the restoration of the State Theatre;
    $350,000 for the City of Port Huron, Michigan for 
revitalization;
    $250,000 to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for 
supportive housing for homelessness in St. Paul, Minnesota;
    $250,000 to the City of St. Paul, Minnesota for 
rehabilitation needs at the Ames Lake Neighborhood/Phalen Place 
Apartments;
    $700,000 for Neighborhood House in St. Paul, Minnesota for 
construction of the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for 
Community Building;
    $250,000 for the Organization of Liberians in Minnesota in 
Brooklyn Park for costs associated with the construction of The 
Liberian Cultural and Community Center;
    $1,000,000 for the Area Development Partnership in 
Hattiesburg, Mississippi for costs associated with the 
construction of the Hattiesburg Innovation Commercialization 
Center;
    $1,850,000 to Mississippi State University for renovation 
of the Lloyd-Ricks building in Starkville, Mississippi;
    $750,000 to Lafayette County for restoration of the 
Lafayette County Courthouse in Oxford, Mississippi;
    $300,000 to the City of Waynesboro for relocation of the 
Police Department in Waynesboro, Mississippi;
    $300,000 to the City of Brookhaven for renovation of the 
Fire House in Brookhaven, Mississippi;
    $300,000 to the City of Holly Springs for the North Memphis 
Street Redevelopment project in Holly Springs, Mississippi;
    $250,000 to Kemper County for infrastructure improvements 
in Kemper County, Mississippi;
    $200,000 for the City of Booneville, Mississippi for 
community development;
    $250,000 to the Martin Luther King Foundation for the 
rehabilitation of the community center in Pickens, Mississippi;
    $800,000 to the City of Jackson for the remediation and 
renovation of historic King Edward Hotel in Jackson, 
Mississippi;
    $250,000 to the City of Pascagoula for public library 
repairs in Pascagoula, Mississippi;
    $250,000 to the City of Ellisville for the renovation and 
construction of the public library in Ellisville, Mississippi;
    $250,000 for St. Patrick Center for the Homeless 
Partnership Center in St. Louis, Missouri for construction;
    $250,000 for the Green Hills Regional Planning Commission 
for construction of renewable energy and rural economic 
development projects in Putnam County, Missouri;
    $250,000 for Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce Foundation in 
Missouri for the Joseph Newman Business and Technology 
Innovation Center;
    $250,000 for Greene County, Missouri for developing a 
natural history museum in Springfield, Missouri;
    $1,000,000 to St. Charles County Association for Retarded 
Citizens for Family Support Center construction in St. Louis 
County, Missouri;
    $1,000,000 to the City of St. Joseph, Missouri for 
construction associated with the St. Joseph Community 
Riverfront Redevelopment Project;
    $1,000,000 to the St. Louis Science Center for visitor 
center construction in St. Louis, Missouri;
    $1,000,000 to the Ozarks Development Corporation to provide 
infrastructure improvements to a development park in West 
Plains/Pamona, Missouri;
    $1,000,000 to the City of St. Joseph, Missouri for 
demolition of the Heartland Regional Medical Center;
    $1,000,000 to the City of St. Louis, Missouri for 
construction of a truck entrance at Broadway and St. Louis 
Avenue, utility relocation, rail track relocation and perimeter 
fencing;
    $500,000 to the Bartley-Decatur Neighborhood Center, Inc. 
to restore/re-construct home for use as revitalized 
neighborhood center in Springfield, Missouri;
    $500,000 for the Northern Rockies Center for Senior Health, 
Billings, Montana, for construction of a senior citizens 
facility;
    $700,000 for the Big Sky Economic Development Authority, 
Billings, Montana, for economic development outreach;
    $300,000 for the Great Falls Development Authority, Great 
Falls, Montana, for economic development outreach;
    $350,000 for the Chippewa Cree Tribe, Box Elder, Montana, 
for a housing construction project;
    $300,000 for the Story Mansion, Bozeman, Montana for 
historical renovations and improvements;
    $300,000 for the Rocky Mountain Development Council/PenKay 
Eagle Manor Renovation, Helena, Montana, for renovations and 
improvements;
    $300,000 for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Missoula, 
Montana for construction projects;
    $300,000 for the City of Billings, Montana West Side 
planning and development project;
    $250,000 for the Billings Child and Family Intervention 
Center, Billings, Montana for construction projects;
    $250,000 for the Montana Technology Enterprise Center in 
Missoula, Montana for a revolving loan fund;
    $250,000 for the Omaha Performing Arts Society, Nebraska 
for construction costs associated with the Omaha Performing 
Arts Center;
    $250,000 for the Boys and Girls Home of Nebraska, in 
Columbus, Nebraska to develop the Columbus Family Resource 
Center;
    $250,000 for the Davey Area Community Center in Davey, 
Nebraska for costs associated with construction;
    $500,000 for the Penacook Tannery in Concord, New Hampshire 
for restoration;
    $500,000 for the Claremont Mill in Claremont, New Hampshire 
for redevelopment;
    $400,000 for the Tilton Riverfront Park in Tilton, New 
Hampshire for development;
    $250,000 for the Old New Hampshire State House Planning 
Project in Concord, New Hampshire for planning of 
reconstruction of the first New Hampshire State House;
    $450,000 for the New Hampshire Main Street Center in 
Concord, New Hampshire for the development of downtown areas;
    $350,000 for the Souhegan Boys and Girls Club in Milford, 
New Hampshire for the construction of a new center;
    $350,000 for the Manchester Historical Association in 
Manchester, New Hampshire for the renovation of the Center for 
Preserving Manchester's History;
    $250,000 for the Northern Community Investment Corporation, 
Colebrook, New Hampshire for rural broadband telecommunications 
project;
    $250,000 for the Tri-County Community Action Program/City 
of Berlin, New Hampshire, for elimination of blighted and 
unsafe buildings;
    $250,000 for the City of East Orange, New Jersey for 
construction of a senior center;
    $250,000 for the Town of Hammonton, New Jersey for the 
construction of a community center complex;
    $250,000 for La Casa de Don Pedro in Newark, New Jersey for 
renovations in relation to the Lower Broadway Improvement Zone 
project;
    $250,000 for the City of Woodbine, New Jersey for 
renovations in relation to the Woodbine Community Center 
Complex project;
    $250,000 for the Borough of Carteret, New Jersey for the 
construction of an International Trade and Logistics Center;
    $250,000 for the South Jersey Economic Development District 
for economic revitalization in Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, 
and Salem counties;
    $400,000 for the Office of the New Mexico State Fire 
Marshal, Santa Fe, New Mexico, to support improved fire 
service, training services, infrastructure, and/or information 
systems in the State of New Mexico and at the New Mexico State 
Fire Academy in Socorro, New Mexico;
    $500,000 for Goodwill Industries of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque, New Mexico, for renovation of its headquarters and 
client training center;
    $275,000 for the Village of Tijeras, New Mexico, for 
purchase of a fire pumper truck to serve the community and 
Federal installations in the area;
    $1,175,000 for Presbyterian Medical Services, Santa Fe, New 
Mexico, for the construction of Santa Fe County Head Start and 
Early Head Start facilities;
    $400,000 for the City of Clovis Fire Department, New 
Mexico, for purchase of emergency medical vehicles to serve the 
community and Federal installations in the area;
    $750,000 for the City of Hobbs, New Mexico, for 
infrastructure associated with the development of the Hobbs 
Industrial Air Park;
    $500,000 for Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, New 
Mexico, for purchase of telecommunications equipment for its 
communications program and public radio station KENW;
    $250,000 for the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce, 
New Mexico for the expansion of the Barelas Job Opportunity 
Center;
    $250,000 for the Town of North Hempstead, New York for the 
New Cassel Revitalization and Redevelopment Project;
    $250,000 for the City of Buffalo, New York for the 
renovation of a building to create housing for the Buffalo Arts 
Homesteading Program;
    $250,000 for The Olana Partnership in Hudson, New York for 
costs associated with construction;
    $250,000 for the City of Poughkeepsie, New York for costs 
associated with replacing the roof on the Historic Luckey, 
Platt Building;
    $500,000 for Pucho's, Inc., in Buffalo, New York for the 
construction of a new recreational and educational resource 
room;
    $500,000 for the United Jewish Organizations of 
Williamsburg, Inc. in Brooklyn, New York for the construction 
of a new community services building;
    $800,000 for the City of Las Vegas, Nevada for improvements 
to a historic building;
    $250,000 for the City of Reno, Las Vegas for the Reno 
Fourth Street Corridor Enhancements which include but are not 
limited to streetscape improvements, safety upgrades, and the 
installation of lighting;
    $250,000 for Nevada Partners, Home of the Culinary Training 
Institute in North Las Vegas, Nevada for the expansion of the 
Southern Nevada Strategic Vocational Training Center;
    $250,000 for the Urban Chamber of Commerce in Las Vegas, 
Nevada for costs associates with the construction of a multi-
use and instructional center;
    $250,000 for the North Las Vegas Library District, Nevada 
for costs associated with the construction of a full service 
library;
    $250,000 for East Las Vegas Community Development 
Corporation, Nevada for equipment;
    $200,000 for Ethel-Willia, Incorporated in Nevada for the 
Smart Start Child Care Center;
    $200,000 for the Town of Pahrump, Nevada for costs 
associated with the construction of the Pahrump/Nye County 
Fairground;
    $500,000 for the City of Reno/Good Shepherd Clothes Closet 
Project, Reno, Nevada;
    $200,000 for the National Whitewater Center in Charlotte, 
North Carolina for costs associated with construction;
    $200,000 for the Wake County Library Foundation in Raleigh, 
North Carolina for costs associated with construction;
    $200,000 for the Blowing Rock Performing Arts in Blowing 
Rock, North Carolina for construction;
    $250,000 for Ashe County, North Carolina to develop a 
Business Incubator in the Family Central Complex;
    $250,000 for Our Children's Place in Granville County, 
North Carolina to construct a facility;
    $350,000 for the Northwest Ventures Communities Inc., 
Minot, North Dakota for the construction of the Northwest 
Career and Technology Center;
    $350,000 for the Three Affiliated Tribes Tourism 
Department, New Town, North Dakota for a cultural interpretive 
center;
    $300,000 for the United Tribes Technical College in 
Bismarck, North Dakota for the construction of family housing;
    $300,000 for the NDSU Research and Technology Park Inc., in 
Fargo, North Dakota for the Advanced Technology Career Center;
    $250,000 for the Minot Area Community Foundation, North 
Dakota for the Prairie Community Development Center;
    $250,000 for the Franklin County Metro Parks, Franklin 
County, Ohio for the purchase of land in the Darby Creek 
Watershed;
    $250,000 for the Springfield Center City Association, 
Springfield, Ohio for the construction of a business incubator;
    $250,000 for Improved Solutions for Urban Systems, Inc., 
Dayton, Ohio to create a new model for economic, community and 
workforce development;
    $250,000 for the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority for the 
Northwest Ohio Brownfield Restoration Initiative;
    $250,000 for the Youngstown Central Area Community 
Improvement Corporation, Youngstown, Ohio for construction of 
the Advanced Technology Incubator for Market Ready 
Applications;
    $250,000 for First Frontier, Inc., Xenia, Ohio for 
revitalization of the amphitheatre;
    $550,000 for Cleveland Playhouse Square, Cleveland, Ohio 
for IDEA Center;
    $450,000 for Development Projects, Inc., Dayton, Ohio for 
Downtown Dayton Northeast Quadrant;
    $300,000 for CAMP, Cleveland, Ohio for Cleveland 
Manufacturing Technology Complex;
    $500,000 for the Standing Bear Native American Foundation, 
Ponca City, Oklahoma for creation of the Standing Bear Museum 
and Education Center;
    $250,000 to Washington County, Oregon for costs associated 
with the construction of a homeless shelter;
    $250,000 to the Portland Development Commission, Oregon, 
for the North Macadam affordable housing project;
    $250,000 to the City of Gresham, Oregon for costs 
associated with the construction of a cultural arts center;
    $250,000 to the City of Brookings Harbor, Oregon for the 
redevelopment of the boardwalk;
    $500,000 for the City of Portland, Oregon for development 
of the Portland Streetcar;
    $200,000 for the Bean Foundation, Inc. in Bend, Oregon for 
costs associated with the construction of the Madras Center for 
Education and Workforce Training;
    $200,000 for Brookings Harbor, Oregon for costs associated 
with the construction of the Brookings Harbor Seafood 
Processing Plant;
    $300,000 for the Urban Redevelopment Authority of 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the redevelopment of South Side 
Works;
    $300,000 for the City of Scranton, Pennsylvania, for the 
Cedar Avenue Revitalization;
    $300,000 for Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania 
for the Lewisburg Downtown Theater rehabilitation;
    $250,000 for the Allegheny West Foundation, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, for the Budd Plant rehabilitation project;
    $250,000 for the Indiana County Development Corporation, 
Indiana, Pennsylvania, for the Indiana Springs development 
project;
    $250,000 for the City of Erie, Pennsylvania, for site 
preparation and redevelopment of the vacant and blighted 
Koehler Brewery Building;
    $250,000 for the City of Greensburg, Pennsylvania, for 
construction of a Center for the Arts;
    $250,000 for Our City Reading, in Reading, Pennsylvania, 
for the rehabilitation of abandoned houses and parks to provide 
quality home ownership opportunities to low-income families;
    $250,000 for the Greater Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Business 
and Industry, in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, for the 
acquisition and redevelopment of the historic Irem Temple;
    $250,000 for the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, for the 
rehabilitation and renovation of the Lancaster Central Market;
    $250,000 for Eagles Mere Village, Inc., in Eagles Mere, 
Pennsylvania, for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 
downtown buildings;
    $250,000 for the Allegheny County Department of Community 
and Economic Development, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the 
planning, design, and construction of Schenley Plaza;
    $250,000 for the Greene County Department of Planning and 
Development, in Franklin Township, Pennsylvania, for 
construction of a multi-tenant facility at EverGreene 
Technology Park;
    $200,000 for Universal Community Homes in Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, for the conversion of land into for-sale units to 
low- and moderate-income families;
    $200,000 for the Borough of Lewistown, Pennsylvania, for 
the rehabilitation and renovation of the Lewistown Municipal 
Building;
    $200,000 for the Darby Borough Community Development 
Corporation, in Darby, Pennsylvania, for a Main Street 
revitalization initiative including acquisition, renovation, 
and demolition of downtown buildings;
    $200,000 for the Chester County Industrial Development 
Authority, in East Whiteland and Tredyffrin Townships, 
Pennsylvania, for the redevelopment of the Atwater Brownfields 
site;
    $200,000 for the Inglis Foundation, in Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, for the planning, design, and construction of 
housing for individuals with disabilities;
    $250,000 to the Pawtucket Armory Association in Pawtucket, 
Rhode Island for renovation of the armory into a performing 
arts and arts education center;
    $250,000 to Westbay Community Action in Warwick, Rhode 
Island for the purchase and renovation of a building for use as 
a child care center;
    $250,000 to the Providence Neighborhood Investment Program 
in Providence, Rhode Island for economic revitalization 
projects in distressed communities;
    $250,000 for the Meeting Street National Center of 
Excellence in Providence, Rhode Island for the construction of 
a new facility and recreation space;
    $250,000 for Rhode Island College in Providence, Rhode 
Island for the renovation of the former State Home and School;
    $250,000 to the Old Slater Mill Association in Pawtucket, 
Rhode Island for improvements to the exhibitry and the 
building;
    $500,000 for Meeting Street in Providence, Rhode Island for 
a recreational facility;
    $250,000 for the West Warwick Senior Center, Inc. in Rhode 
Island for the costs associated with construction of affordable 
housing and community center;
    $250,000 for Travelers Aid of Rhode Island in Providence, 
Rhode Island for building renovations;
    $250,000 for City of Anderson, South Carolina for costs 
associated with the construction of the Murray/Franklin Street 
Project;
    $250,000 for American College of the Building Arts, 
Charleston, South Carolina for training and skills;
    $400,000 for EngenuitySC in Columbia, South Carolina for 
building renovations and purchasing of technology equipment;
    $1,400,000 for the Wakpa Sica Historical Society in Fort 
Pierre, South Dakota for the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Center;
    $400,000 for the City of Mobridge, South Dakota for the 
Missouri River riverfront economic development project;
    $250,000 for the Sioux Empire Housing Partnership in Sioux 
Falls, South Dakota for development of low income housing;
    $250,000 for City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota for a day 
care center;
    $400,000 for the Sioux Falls Family YMCA, South Dakota for 
construction of a facility;
    $250,000 for Tea, South Dakota for costs associated with 
construction of a city hall;
    $250,000 for the Cheyenne River Youth Project, Eagle Butte, 
South Dakota for the construction of a teen center;
    $400,000 for the Oglala Sioux Tribe in Pine Ridge, South 
Dakota for the construction of a veterans center;
    $400,000 for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in Eagle Butte, 
South Dakota for the construction of a veterans center;
    $250,000 for the Central States Fair Inc., in Rapid City, 
South Dakota for infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for City of Brookings, South Dakota for Growth 
Partnership Research Park;
    $250,000 for Rapid City YMCA, South Dakota for the 
construction of a teen wellness center;
    $500,000 for the City of Sturgis, South Dakota, for the 
Sturgis Industrial Park;
    $250,000 for the Rapid City Arts Council, Rapid City, South 
Dakota, for the Dahl Arts Center;
    $500,000 for the City of Huntingdon, Tennessee for land 
acquisition;
    $500,000 for the Rolling Mill Hill Revitalization Project 
in Nashville, Tennessee for the revitalization of distressed 
urban areas;
    $500,000 for the Big South Fork Visitors Center, Scott 
County, Tennessee to develop new visitors facilities;
    $250,000 for the Chattanooga Public Housing Authority to 
support the Economic Self Sufficiency and 21st Century Work 
Skills program in Chattanooga, Tennessee;
    $250,000 for the Native American Indian Association of 
Tennessee, Nashville, Tennessee for construction of a cultural 
center;
    $250,000 for the Lauderdale County Industrial Park, 
Lauderdale County, Tennessee for industrial site development;
    $250,000 for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum, 
Nashville, Tennessee to support community programs;
    $250,000 for the Chattanooga African American Chamber of 
Commerce, Tennessee to construct the Martin Luther King 
Business Solutions Center;
    $250,000 for the Appalachian Service Project, Johnson City, 
Tennessee to support the Summer Home Repair Program;
    $500,000 for Covenant House Texas in Houston to evaluate 
the structural and mechanical systems of the current emergency 
shelter and upgrade the agency's infrastructure;
    $400,000 for the Acres Home Economic Development Initiative 
in Houston, Texas to redevelop the Acres home-community;
    $250,000 for the World Congress on Information Technology 
in Austin, Texas for renovations to the Austin Convention 
Center;
    $200,000 for the Beaumont Downtown Improvement Program in 
Beaumont, Texas for downtown redevelopment;
    $200,000 for the Texas Theater Renovations in Dallas, Texas 
for renovations to the building;
    $250,000 for Caritas of Austin, Texas for the Austin Basic 
Needs Collaboration Economic Development Initiative;
    $200,000 for the Fort Worth Urban Villages Revitalization 
initiative in Fort Worth, Texas for downtown improvements;
    $200,000 for the Houston Freedman's Town African American 
Archive in Houston, Texas for continued renovations to the 
Gregory School;
    $200,000 for the San Angelo Home Loan Program in San 
Angelo, Texas to continue helping low and moderate income 
families with housing needs;
    $200,000 for the East Austin Improvements project in 
Austin, Texas to provide improvements to the Central East 
Austin neighborhood;
    $200,000 for the Denton Downtown Redevelopment project in 
Denton, Texas for downtown square improvements;
    $200,000 for the Plaza Theater Renovations in Laredo, Texas 
to renovate the Plaza Theater;
    $200,000 for the Corpus Christi Downtown Redevelopment in 
Corpus Christi, Texas to provide streetscape improvements;
    $100,000 for the St. Phillips Neighborhood Redevelopment 
Initiative in Dallas, Texas to provide improvements to the 
community;
    $200,000 for the Vermont Institute of Natural Science, 
Woodstock, Vermont for the construction of a wildlife 
rehabilitation facility;
    $200,000 for Vermont Housing and Conservation Board for the 
development of affordable housing in Rutland, Vermont;
    $750,000 for the Vermont Center on Emerging Technologies, 
Burlington, Vermont for development of a technology incubator;
    $600,000 for the Preservation Trust of Vermont, Burlington, 
Vermont for the Village Revitalization Initiative;
    $450,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, 
Montpelier, Vermont for development of affordable housing and 
downtown revitalization in Burlington, Vermont;
    $250,000 for the Art Museum of Western Virginia in Roanoke, 
Virginia for planning and construction of a new museum;
    $250,000 for the George C Marshall Foundation in Lexington, 
Virginia for renovation and repair;
    $700,000 for Christopher Newport University Real Estate 
Foundation, Newport News, Virginia for the Warwick Boulevard 
Commercial Corridor Redevelopment project;
    $500,000 for the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library, 
Staunton, Virginia for planning, construction, and renovation 
of the facility;
    $300,000 for Virginia Economic Bridge, Inc., Radford, 
Virginia for development and operation of programs to address 
employment and economic development in Southwest Virginia;
    $650,000 for Wayne County, Utah for the Wayne County 
Community Center;
    $250,000 for West Jordan, Utah for the West Jordan Pioneer 
Hall Renovation;
    $900,000 for USF Elizabethan Theater, Cedar City, Utah for 
design and construction of an Elizabethan theater;
    $1,000,000 for Brigham City, Utah for the Academy Building 
Renovation;
    $500,000 for Salt Lake City, Utah for renovation of 
Historic Pioneer Park;
    $250,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of South Puget Sound 
in Tacoma, Washington for costs associated with construction of 
new community centers;
    $250,000 for the SWIFT Cyber Group in Richland, Washington 
for the SWIFT Initiative I--Elimination of Broadband Gaps;
    $200,000 for the Washington Technology Center in Seattle 
for the Washington Nanotechnology Initiative;
    $200,000 for the City of Burien, Washington for the 
acquisition and redevelopment of the Burien Highline Senior 
Center;
    $500,000 for the Delridge Development Association in 
Seattle, Washington for renovations of the Old Cooper School;
    $500,000 for Yakima Valley Farmworkers Clinic in Toppenish, 
Washington for costs associated with the construction of 
Science and Technology Partnership Center;
    $300,000 for the Edmonds Public Facilities District in 
Washington for costs associated with the construction of the 
Edmonds Center for the Arts;
    $300,000 for St. Anne's Children/Family Center in Spokane, 
Washington for costs associated with construction;
    $250,000 for the Northwest Maritime Center in Port 
Townsend, Washington for construction;
    $250,000 for the Washington Public Ports Association in 
Olympia, Washington for the WPAA Education Foundation;
    $1,250,000 for West Virginia University for the development 
of a facility to house forensic science research and academic 
programs;
    $1,250,000 for the McDowell County Commission, West 
Virginia for infrastructure and site development at the Indian 
Ridge Industrial Park;
    $750,000 for the City of Beckley, West Virginia for 
downtown revitalization;
    $300,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the City of 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the Riverwest Neighborhood Housing 
Initiative;
    $250,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the City of 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the redevelopment of the Tower 
Automotive site;
    $300,000 for the City of Madison, Wisconsin for the South 
Madison Redevelopment Project;
    $300,000 for the Town of Madison, Wisconsin for the 
continued work on the Novation Technology Campus;
    $300,000 for the City of Kenosha, Wisconsin for the Brass 
Redevelopment Project;
    $250,000 for the Menomonee Valley Partners of Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin for the redevelopment of a former rail yard;
    $250,000 for the City of Manitowoc, Wisconsin for economic 
development activities;
    $300,000 for the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning 
Commission in Eau Claire for technology start ups and 
expansions;
    $250,000 for Riverfront Inc., in La Crosse, Wisconsin for 
the construction of work centers for the disabled;
    $750,000 for the University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 
for the construction of the Wyoming Technology Business Center;
    $250,000 for the Cottonwood Park Estates, Gillette, Wyoming 
for the removal of asbestos for senior housing construction.
    The Neighborhood Initiative grants are as follows:
    $500,000 for the City of Conway, Arkansas for downtown 
revitalization;
    $500,000 for the Sacramento Housing and Development Agency, 
California for the construction of new low income housing;
    $250,000 for the Riverfront Development Corporation in 
Wilmington, Delaware for construction of a pedestrian bridge as 
part of the efforts to redevelop the Christina riverfront;
    $250,000 for the City of Orlando, Florida for the Parramore 
Neighborhood Revitalization Project;
    $300,000 for Lokahi Pacific in Wailuku, Hawaii for costs 
associated with the construction of the Blue Hawaii Building 
Projects and the Wailuku Small Business Center;
    $200,000 for the Patriot's Gateway Center in Rockford, 
Illinois for continuation of programs and neighborhood 
revitalization in Rockford;
    $500,000 for the City of Terre Haute, Indiana for the Terre 
Haute Business Incubator;
    $500,000 for the Iowa Department of Economic Development 
for the enhancement of regional economic development 
capabilities;
    $300,000 for the City of Council Bluffs, Iowa for downtown 
revitalization;
    $200,000 for the City of Fort Dodge, Iowa for the Lincoln 
Neighborhood Initiative;
    $500,000 for Catholic Housing of Wyandotte County, Kansas, 
Inc. for construction of low-cost housing and economic 
development activities as part of the Bethany Redevelopment 
Project in Wyandotte County, Kansas;
    $1,000,000 for the Casey County Fiscal Court, Kentucky for 
the Central Kentucky Agriculture and Exposition Center in Casey 
County, Kentucky;
    $1,000,000 for East Baltimore Development Inc., in 
Baltimore, Maryland for redevelopment activities in East 
Baltimore;
    $1,300,000 for the Denali Commission for economic 
development in remote Native and rural villages in Alaska;
    $300,000 for the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, 
Massachusetts for the Kendall Square Renewal Area Project;
    $300,000 for the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy, Michigan 
for costs associated with the restoration of the riverfront;
    $1,000,000 to the B.B. King Museum Foundation for the B.B 
King Museum in Indianola, Mississippi;
    $300,000 to Mississippi State University for the Capacity 
Development Initiative in Starkville, Mississippi;
    $250,000 to Jackson State University for the Lynch Street 
Development Corridor Redevelopment in Jackson, Mississippi;
    $250,000 to the City of Grenada for the Taylor Hall 
renovation in Grenada, Mississippi;
    $350,000 for the LeFleur Lakes Development Foundation for 
an Economic Development Plan in Rankin and Hinds County, 
Mississippi;
    $350,000 to Lincoln County for the restoration of the Boys 
& Girls Club in Lincoln County, Mississippi;
    $5,000,000 for the Grace Hill Neighborhood Health Centers, 
Inc. shall be spent on primary prevention activities with no 
less than $4,000,000 spent on remediation and abatement 
activities of housing in St. Louis, Missouri;
    $500,000 to the Urban League of Kansas City, Missouri for 
programs to support at-risk youth in the urban core of Kansas 
City;
    $260,000 to the Central Missouri Food Bank in Columbia, 
Missouri for capital campaign project;
    $90,000 to the Special Learning Center in Jefferson City, 
Missouri for staffing, training, equipment, supplies and 
renovations;
    $50,000 to the Children's Therapy and Early Education 
School in Mexico, Missouri for an indoor exercise and gym area 
and to provide location for occupational and physical therapy 
for children with developmental delays and special needs;
    $1,000,000 for the Georgia Museum of Art in Athens, Georgia 
for completion of phase II;
    $1,000,000 for the Memphis Biotech Foundation in Memphis, 
Tennessee for planning, design, construction, and equipment 
associated with the Memphis Biotech Foundation;
    $250,000 for the City of North Las Vegas, Nevada for a 
neighborhood beautification project;
    $500,000 for the City of Rugby, North Dakota to continue 
work on information technology and energy projects;
    $1,400,000 for Charleston Housing Trust Incorporated in 
South Carolina for the development of affordable housing;
    $300,000 for Mercy Housing, Inc. for improvements to rural 
housing in Yakima, Washington; and
    $1,250,000 for the Raleigh County Commission, West Virginia 
for further development at the Raleigh County Airport 
Industrial Park.

         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Limitation on
                                     guarantee loans     Program costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004..............       $275,000,000         $6,288,000
Budget estimate, 2005.............  .................  .................
Committee recommendation..........        275,000,000          6,325,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,325,000 for 
program costs associated with the section 108 loan guarantee 
program. This amount is $37,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level and $6,325,000 more than the budget request. The 
Administration recommended no funding for this program. While 
the program has had an uneven history, it does afford some 
communities the ability to leverage private capital for large 
projects through a pledge of future CDBG funds.
    Of the funds provided, $6,325,000 is for credit subsidy 
costs to guarantee $275,000,000 in section 108 loan commitments 
in fiscal year 2005, and $1,000,000 is for administrative 
expenses to be transferred to the salaries and expenses 
account.

                       BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $24,853,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 
for this program. This amount is $147,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2004 enacted level and $25,000,000 above the budget 
request. The administration requested no funding for this 
program. This program has been instrumental in the 
redevelopment of many communities and the administration has 
not provided an adequate justification for its elimination.

                  HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $2,005,625,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   2,084,200,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,050,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,050,000,000 
for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This amount is 
$44,375,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and 
$34,200,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee includes $18,000,000 for technical 
assistance, the same amount as provided in fiscal year 2004. Of 
this amount, $7,000,000 is for qualified non-profit 
intermediaries to provide technical assistance to Community 
Housing and Development Organizations [CHDOs]. The remaining 
$11,000,000 is for intermediaries to provide technical 
assistance to HOME participating jurisdictions. The Committee 
objects to any proposal by the Department that ties the use of 
HOME funds for homeownership to the allocation of funds under 
the American Dream Downpayment Fund.
    The Committee includes $50,000,000 for the Administration's 
proposed American Dream Downpayment Fund. The Committee 
supports expanding homeownership opportunities, but is 
concerned that this program may be helping families with 
excessive credit risk and who may not be the best candidates 
for homeownership. The Committee requests that HUD report to 
the Committees on Appropriations on the rate of default by 
those in the program as well as the numbers of participants who 
have missed their mortgage payments by 30 days, by 60 days and 
by 90 days and/or who have received some form of relief to keep 
their mortgages current. This report is due no later than July 
31, 2005. The Committee supports efforts the Department may 
undertake to educate communities on how to use HOME funds to 
expand homeownership, and encourages the Department to use its 
technical assistance funds towards this end.
    In addition, according to a recent GAO review of the 
American Dream Downpayment Fund/Program, HUD is unlikely to be 
able to obligate more than $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2005. This is consistent with HUD's own calculations which 
are further highlighted by HUD's projection that by the end of 
fiscal year 2005 only 16 percent of the obligated funds 
appropriated for this program in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 
will have been expended. This represents a spend-out rate of 
some 10 percent. This means that funding this program at the 
full budget request of $200,000,000 will likely result in the 
build-up of large unexpended balances which is counter-
productive in a time when the administration and the Congress 
are committed to reducing large Federal budget deficits and 
where many other programs are facing a very tight budget.
    Of the amount provided for the HOME program, $45,000,000 is 
for housing counseling assistance. The Committee does not fund 
housing assistance counseling in a new account, as proposed by 
the administration. The Committee views homeownership 
counseling, including pre- and post-purchase counseling, as an 
essential part of successful homeownership. The Committee 
expects that this program will remain available to those 
participating in all HUD's homeownership programs. The 
Committee continues to urge HUD to utilize this program as a 
means of educating homebuyers on the dangers of predatory 
lending, in addition to the Administration's stated purpose of 
expanding homeownership opportunities.

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $1,259,542,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   1,282,400,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,260,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,260,000,000 for homeless 
assistance grants. This level is $458,000 above the fiscal year 
2004 enacted level and $22,400,000 below the budget request. Of 
the amount provided, $186,000,000 is to fund fully Shelter Plus 
Care renewals on an annual basis and $11,900,000 is for 
technical assistance and management information system.
    The Committee remains committed to ending chronic 
homelessness over 10 years. To that end, the Committee supports 
Federal, State, and local efforts to increase, over time, the 
supply of permanent supportive housing for chronically 
homeless, chronically ill people until the need is met at an 
estimated 150,000 units. Accordingly, the Committee again 
includes bill language that requires HUD to spend a minimum of 
30 percent of the funds appropriated under this account for 
permanent housing. The Committee emphasizes that this is the 
minimal level of effort expected to be spent on permanent 
housing and strongly urges the Department to maximize its 
funding on this endeavor.
    The Committee applauds the Department's recent efforts in 
working to ensure that Shelter Plus Care grants are properly 
targeted to providers serving chronically disabled, chronically 
homeless people. HUD's sample of 2003 projects indicates that 
about 70 percent of participants served by Shelter Plus Care 
reported to have a mental illness and a significant percentage 
suffered from alcohol or drug abuse.
    The Committee remains strongly supportive of the 
Department's ongoing efforts on data collection and analysis 
within the homeless programs, especially its efforts to collect 
a nationally representative sample of homeless data. HUD should 
continue its collaborative efforts with local jurisdictions to 
collect an array of data on homelessness in order to analyze 
patterns of use of assistance, including how many people enter 
and exit the homeless assistance system. The Committee directs 
HUD to continue its role in leading the Federal Government's 
efforts on this data collection and analysis activity. The 
Committee directs HUD to report on the progress of this data 
collection and analysis effort by no later than March 21, 2005.
    The Committee continues to support the U.S. Interagency 
Council on Homelessness's [ICH] efforts to develop 10-year 
plans to end chronic homelessness. The Committee believes that 
these performance-based plans will assist local jurisdictions 
and States in developing strategies on ending homelessness. The 
Committee strongly encourages the Department to assist the ICH 
in this effort.
    The Committee remains concerned about the high number of 
homeless veterans. The Committee understands that the 
Department has taken steps to encourage participation of 
veterans in the development of continua of care, and encourages 
the Department to pursue other means of reaching homeless 
veterans including requiring collaboration between continua of 
care and Community Homeless Assessment, Local Education, and 
Networking Groups at VA medical centers.
    Some supportive housing providers have expressed concern 
about the cash match required under the supportive housing 
program [SHP] because some of their services are provided 
directly to the resident instead of funding the provider to 
deliver the services. Accordingly, the Committee directs the 
Department to provide flexibility in defining what types of 
activities qualify in meeting the match requirement under the 
SHP program. The Committee believes that the cash value of 
services provided to a grantee's resident or client by an 
entity other than the grantee may be used as a qualified match 
when documented by a Memorandum of Understanding between the 
grantee and the other entity. The cost value of these services 
should not be included to the extent Federal funds support 
these services.
    The Committee remains concerned about the potential out-
year costs of renewing permanent housing programs. Therefore, 
the Committee directs the Department to include 5-year 
projections, on an annual basis, for the cost of renewing the 
permanent housing component of the Supportive Housing Program 
and Shelter Plus Care grants in its fiscal year 2006 budget 
justifications.

                   EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2004....................................................
Budget estimate, 2005...................................    $153,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Emergency Food and Shelter Program originated as a one-
time emergency appropriation to combat the effects of high 
unemployment in the emergency jobs bill (Public Law 98-8) which 
was enacted in March 1983. It was authorized under title III of 
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, Public 
Law 100-177.
    The program has been funded by the Department of Homeland 
Security's [DHS] Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] and 
administered by a national board and the majority of the 
funding has been spent for providing temporary food and shelter 
for the homeless. Participating organizations are restricted by 
legislation from spending more than 3.5 percent of the funding 
received for administrative costs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not include the Administration's 
proposal to transfer the Emergency Food and Shelter Program 
from DHS to HUD. The Committee has provided funding for this 
program within DHS.

                            Housing Programs

                        HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $773,728,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     773,300,000
Committee recommendation................................     773,800,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $773,800,000 
for the Section 202 program, an increase of $72,000 over the 
fiscal year 2004 level and an increase of $500,000 over the 
budget request. Of these funds, $53,000,000 is for service 
coordinators and for the continuation of existing congregate 
service grants; up to $30,000,000 for the conversion of 
projects to assisted living housing for substantial 
rehabilitation an for emergency capital repairs; $20,000,000 
for grants to nonprofits for architectural and engineering 
work, site control and planning activities.
    According to a 2003 GAO report, section 202 has reached 
only 8 percent of very low income elderly households. The 
Committee believes that greater resources should be devoted to 
the section 202 program and encourages the Department to make 
this program more of a priority, including better targeting to 
extremely low-income elderly households. Further, many of the 
existing 202 units have serious repair needs that are not being 
adequately addressed by the Department. Bill language is 
included to allow limited funds to be used for capital repairs. 
The Committee looks forward to receiving the comprehensive 
capital assessment of section 202 and 236 assisted housing and 
alternatives to address those needs as required in the fiscal 
year 2004 Act.
    The Department currently is not engaged in any activities 
to help those people aging in place remain comfortably in their 
homes and communities. The Committee directs that the 
Department work with the Department of Health and Human 
Services' Office of Aging to coordinate expertise and resources 
to strengthen naturally occurring retirement communities, known 
as ``NORCs''.

                 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $249,092,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     248,700,000
Committee recommendation................................     250,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000,000 
for the Section 811 program, an increase of $908,000 over the 
fiscal year 2004 level and $1,300,000 over the budget request. 
HUD is directed to ensure that all tenant-based assistance made 
available under this account shall remain available for persons 
with disabilities upon turnover.

                         FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 
HUD to establish a revolving fund into which rental collections 
in excess of the established basic rents for units in section 
236 subsidized projects are deposited. Subject to approval in 
appropriations acts, the Secretary is authorized under the 
Housing and Community Development Amendment of 1978 to transfer 
excess rent collections received after 1978 to the Troubled 
Projects Operating Subsidy program, renamed the Flexible 
Subsidy Fund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve 
as a repository of excess rental charges appropriated from the 
Rental Housing Assistance Fund. Although these resources will 
not be used for new reservations, they will continue to offset 
Flexible Subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures.

                    OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

                       RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

                              (RESCISSION)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account includes the rent supplement program, the 
section 235 program, the section 236 program and IRP 
rehabilitation grants, all of which provide either grants to 
tenants or subsidies to owners of low-income housing as a 
method of maintaining housing for low-income use.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the cancellation of $675,000,000 
in unused and available contract authority.

                  MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $12,923,000
Budget request, 2004....................................      13,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $13,000,000 to support the 
manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees 
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 
Fund account. The amount recommended is the same as the budget 
request and $77,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level.
    The Committee thanks the Department for submitting line-
item expenses for the manufactured housing program in its 
proposed fiscal year 2005 budget request, and encourages the 
HUD to continue doing so in its future budgets. In addition, 
the Committee encourages HUD to continue to prioritize its 
expenditures for this program in accordance with the 
appropriate sections of the Manufactured Housing Improvement 
Act of 2000.

                     FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

               MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on       Limitation on      Administrative
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004................................         $50,000,000    $185,000,000,000        $356,882,000
Budget estimate, 2005...............................          50,000,000     185,000,000,000         366,000,000
Committee recommendation............................          50,000,000     185,000,000,000         366,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Limitation on     Limitation on     Administrative
                                           direct loans     guaranteed loans      expenses        Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004...................       $50,000,000    $25,000,000,000      $227,649,000       $14,912,000
Budget estimate, 2005..................        50,000,000     35,000,000,000       234,000,000        10,000,000
Committee recommendation...............        50,000,000     35,000,000,000       234,000,000        10,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has included the following amounts for the 
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on 
guaranteed loans of $185,000,000,000, a limitation on direct 
loans of $50,000,000, and an appropriation of $366,000,000 for 
administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee 
recommends $35,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans, 
a limitation on direct loans of $50,000,000, and $234,000,000 
for administrative expenses. The administrative expenses 
appropriation will be transferred and merged with the sums in 
the Department's ``Salaries and expenses'' account and the 
``Office of the Inspector General'' account.
    In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct 
loan programs in 2004 for multifamily bridge loans and single 
family purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain 
properties owned by the Department. Temporary financing shall 
be provided for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 
multifamily projects by purchasers who have obtained 
commitments for permanent financing from another lender. 
Purchase money mortgages will enable governmental and nonprofit 
intermediaries to acquire properties for resale to owner-
occupants in areas undergoing revitalization.
    The Committee remains concerned that HUD continues to fail 
to calculate adequately the amount of credit subsidy necessary 
to support its multifamily mortgage insurance programs.
    In addition, the Committee is very concerned about the 
March 2004 GAO report, ``HUD Single-Family and Multifamily 
Property Programs'', which classified $16,500,000 of payments 
made to single family property disposition contractors in 2002 
and 2003 as questionable, and potentially fraudulent. In some 
cases lack of oversight resulted in the Department paying 
contractors for work that was not completed, and in 
deteriorating property conditions. These deficiencies are not 
only wasteful, but they contribute to the decline of already 
unstable neighborhoods. The Committee directs the Department to 
submit a report by March 1, 2005, that details steps the FHA 
has taken to respond to the findings by the GAO, as well as 
steps taken to implement the recommendations of the GAO, 
including: requiring HUD to monitor contractors' work at 
prescribed time intervals; establishing new policies for 
payments to contractors requiring proper documentation of the 
cost of goods and competitive bids before the work is 
performed; and pursuing recovery of amounts overpaid. Because 
the Department currently contracts out the marketing and 
managing of foreclosed properties to private contractors, the 
report should also include an evaluation of the pros and cons 
of moving disposition of single family properties back in 
house. The report should evaluate the costs and quality of 
services that could be provided by HUD employees versus 
contractors.
    The Committee also remains concerned over the FHA 
foreclosure rate, which, according to the most recent KMPG 
audit, increased by 31 percent last year. The Committee does 
not believe that HUD is taking all necessary steps to help new 
homeowners maintain homeownership. The Committee urges the 
Department to make home inspections mandatory for all FHA-
insured properties in revitalization areas, and to mandate 
homeownership counseling for homebuyers in revitalization 
areas.
    In addition, the Committee has not included the 
administration proposed FHA Zero Downpayment program where all 
fees and costs would be rolled into the mortgage as opposed to 
the current requirement that a homebuyer provide a downpayment 
equal to 3 percent of the mortgage principal. The Committee 
believes that this proposal poses substantial financial risks 
to the FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance program by 
assisting high-risk families in purchasing homes where the new 
homeowners have no stake in these houses and obviously have no 
financial cushion to pay for any big ticket costs such as a 
failed furnace or leaky roof. From a historical perspective, 
FHA was almost bankrupt in the late 1980s due to defaults from 
housing families with high-loan-to-value-ratios. Not only did 
this practice hurt the credit worthiness of these families but, 
equally troubling, the large number of defaults helped to tip 
marginal neighborhoods into becoming distressed areas where the 
FHA foreclosures helped to drive down the value of other 
housing in these neighborhoods.
    More recently, The Fannie Mae Foundation issued a research 
report, ``A Tale of Two Cities: Growing Affordability Problems 
Amidst Rising Homeownership for Urban Minorities'' (June 23, 
2004), that uses census data to examine homeownership and 
affordability trends between 1990 and 2000 for urban 
minorities. Among a number of findings, the number of African-
American homeowners rose by 16 percent between 1990 and 2000 
while, at the same time, the number of African-American 
homeowners who were paying more than half their income for 
homeownership costs grew by 39 percent. Similarly, 
homeownership by Latino families grew by 54 percent while there 
was a 98 percent jump in the number of Latino homeowners with 
affordability problems.
    In addition, there should be concerns about the future 
actuarial soundness of the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund 
[MMIF]. While the MMIF currently is very well capitalized, an 
IG audit of the FHA financial statements, dated November 25, 
2003, states, in relevant part, that FHA defaults rose from 
2.76 percent in fiscal year 1999 to 4.25 percent in fiscal year 
2002. More importantly, loans made in 1999 through 2001 
contributed to over 50 percent of the total defaults in fiscal 
year 2002. In addition, claims rose 31 percent in fiscal year 
2003 to over 85,000 claims, and FHA paid claims of 
$5,500,000,000 in 2002 which rose to $7,800,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2003.
    Finally, FHA's share of the home purchase loan market fell 
by 16.5 percent in 2003 after falling by 1.4 percent in 2002 
and 1 percent in 2001. In contrast, overall purchase loan 
originations by loan number went up in each of these years with 
2003 being a record year for home sales. This and other data 
suggest that there is growing deterioration in the credit-
quality of the FHA book of business; that FHA is essentially 
pricing itself into underwriting the highest risk mortgages 
while the more credit-worthy homebuyers are seeking their 
financing elsewhere.

                Government National Mortgage Association

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                        $200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                              10,695,000

Budget estimate, 2005:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                              10,986,000

Committee recommendation:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000
    Administrative expenses
                                                              10,986,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA], 
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees 
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA 
is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United 
States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed 
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended. 
GNMA is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee 
the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that 
are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of 
mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal 
Housing Administration, the Rural Housing Service, or the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA's guarantee of mortgage-
backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the 
United States.
    In accord with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990 [OBRA] requirements for direct and guaranteed loan 
programs, the administration is requesting $10,986,000 for 
administrative expenses in the mortgage-backed securities 
program. Amounts to fund this direct appropriation to the ``MBS 
program'' account are to be derived from offsetting receipts 
transferred from the ``Mortgage-backed securities financing'' 
account to a Treasury receipt account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments of 
mortgage-backed securities of $200,000,000,000. This amount is 
the same level as proposed by the budget request. The Committee 
also has included $10,986,000 for administrative expenses, the 
same as the budget request and an increase of $291,000 above 
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.

                    Policy Development and Research

                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $46,723,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      46,700,000
Committee recommendation................................      46,700,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $46,700,000 for research and 
technology activities in fiscal year 2004. This amount is 
$23,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request. Of this funding, $7,500,000 is for 
the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing [PATH] 
program. Language is included to ensure the funding of existing 
cooperative agreements in both fiscal years 2004 and 2005. The 
Committee expects the PATH program to continue its cold climate 
housing research with the Cold Climate Housing Research Center 
in Fairbanks, Alaska. The Committee also supports the 
continuing research on promising technologies for the 
manufactured housing industry.
    In addition, because in the past HUD has used this office's 
broad authority to administer new and unauthorized programs, 
the Office of Policy Development and Research is denied 
demonstration authority except where approval is provided by 
Congress in response to a reprogramming request.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

                        FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $47,717,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      47,700,000
Committee recommendation................................      47,700,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides $47,700,000, of which 
$27,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP] 
and no more than $20,700,000 is for the fair housing 
initiatives program [FHIP].
    The Committee emphasizes that State and local agencies 
under FHAP should have the primary responsibility for 
identifying and addressing discrimination in the sale, rental, 
and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage 
services. It is critical that consistent fair housing policies 
be identified and implemented to insure continuity and 
fairness, and that States and localities continue to increase 
their understanding, expertise, and implementation of the law.
    The Committee understands that the Department includes as a 
performance goal adding two new fair housing organizations per 
year as FHIP grantees, despite a request for level funding of 
the FHIP program. The Committee is concerned that this approach 
could lead to a diversion of resources away from experienced 
practitioners and existing services, and urges the Department 
to make FHIP awards in a way that maximizes the quality and 
quantity of fair housing services.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control

                         LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $173,968,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     139,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     175,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for lead-based paint 
hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2005. 
This amount is $36,000,000 more than the budget request and 
$1,032,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. Of 
this amount, HUD may use up to $9,500,000 for the Healthy Homes 
Initiative under which HUD conducts a number of activities 
designed to identify and address housing-related illnesses.
    The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the lead hazard 
reduction demonstration program which was established in fiscal 
year 2003 to focus on major urban areas where children are 
disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning.
    As previously discussed, there remains significant lead 
risks in privately-owned housing, particularly in unsubsidized 
low-income units. For that reason, approximately 1 million 
children under the age of 6 in the United States suffer from 
lead poisoning. While lead poisoning crosses all socioeconomic, 
geographic, and racial boundaries, the burden of this disease 
falls disproportionately on low-income and minority families. 
In the United States, children from poor families are eight 
times more likely to be poisoned than those from higher income 
families. Nevertheless, the risks associated with lead-based 
paint hazards can be addressed fully over the next decade.
    As noted last year, the urban lead hazard reduction program 
is designed to target funding to major urban areas where the 
lead hazard risk for low-income children under the age of 6 is 
greatest. Qualified applicants are identified by the Secretary 
as having the highest number of pre-1940 units of rental 
housing and a disproportionately high number of documented 
cases of lead-poisoned children. At least 90 percent of funds 
must be used for abatement and interim control of lead-based 
paint hazards. Further, the program targets abatement to units 
that serve low-income families. As a condition of assistance, 
each applicant shall submit a detailed plan for use of funds 
that demonstrates sufficient capacity acceptable to the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The plans should 
identify units with the most significant risk, and should 
include strategies to reduce the risk of lead hazards and to 
mobilize public and private resources. The Committee fully 
expects that this program will be administered in a manner 
consistent with the guidelines and criteria used in the fiscal 
year 2003 and 2004 funding cycles.
    The Committee also encourages HUD to work with grantees on 
its lead-based paint abatement hazards programs so that 
information is disclosed to the public on lead hazard 
abatements, risk assessment data and blood lead levels through 
publications and internet sites such as Lead-SafeHomes.info.
    The Committee also includes $5,000,000 in the Neighborhood 
Initiative program to continue a lead-based paint abatement 
pilot program in St. Louis to be coordinated by the Grace Hill 
Neighborhood Health Centers to eliminate the source of lead 
paint poisoning within the city's large, aging housing stock.
    The Committee is concerned over health risks posed by 
household mold, and encourages the Department to continue 
initiatives within the Healthy Homes program for testing and 
evaluating a range of strategies for preventing and controlling 
moisture, mold and other housing related health hazards. The 
Committee directs HUD to report to Congress by March 1, 2005 
detailing lessons learned and the Department's strategy for 
disseminating best practices using existing trades and delivery 
systems to the maximum extent practical. The Committee further 
directs HUD to take all necessary steps to ensure that moisture 
problems are prevented in federally-assisted housing.
    HUD's recent report, ``Mold and Moisture Problems in Native 
American Housing on Tribal Lands: A Report to Congress'' found 
that black mold can be found in nearly 15 percent of tribal 
homes, and, as such, the report should include a discussion of 
the unique needs of Native American housing, including 
recommendations for legislation to assist tribes and tribally 
designated housing entities in developing the capacity to 
address mold problems, while partnering with Federal, State, 
and local agencies and organizations. HUD is encouraged to 
coordinate with the Department of Health and Human Services the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the 
Interior, the Department of Homeland Security, the National 
American Indian Housing Council, the United National Indian 
Housing Association, and the National Congress of American 
Indians on these recommendations.

                     Management and Administration

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                            Indian
                                                                                      FHA      GNMA      CDBG    Title VI   housing   Native
                                                                    Appropriation    funds     funds     funds   transfer    block   Hawaiian    Total
                                                                                                                             grant     loan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004..............................................      543,780     564,000    10,695     1,000       250       150        35  1,119,910
Budget estimate, 2005.............................................      591,579     576,000    10,986  ........       250       150        35  1,179,000
Committee recommendation..........................................      591,579     576,000    10,986  ........       250       150        35  1,179,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,179,000,000 
for salaries and expenses. This amount is $59,097,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget 
request. The appropriation includes the requested amount of 
$576,000,000 transferred from various funds from the Federal 
Housing Administration, $10,986,000 transferred from the 
Government National Mortgage Association, $250,000 from the 
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program, $150,000 from the 
Native American Housing Block Grant, and $35,000 from the 
Native Hawaiian Housing Program as well as $1,000,000 from the 
Community Development Loan Guarantee program, which the 
administration sought to eliminate.
    The Committee remains very concerned over HUD's inability 
to administer adequately many of its programs, despite 
significant hiring in the past. This concern is especially 
evident in the Office of Public and Indian Housing where that 
office has been unable to review and respond to significant 
issues regarding the correct payment standard in the Section 8 
program for many areas of the Nation. This is creating a crisis 
of confidence by the public in HUD's ability to administer its 
very important programs that are often the foundation for the 
decisionmaking of many communities as to housing and economic 
redevelopment issues. The Committee directs HUD to report 
quarterly to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
on all hiring within the Department, including justifications 
for any significant increase in FTEs for any particular office 
or activity.
    In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing 
more than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive 
service employees. The Committee understands that the 
Department is staffed largely by personnel who are close to 
retirement and at the top of the civil service pay schedule. 
The Committee encourages HUD to implement hiring practices that 
result in the hiring of young professionals who can gain 
experience and advancement.
    The Committee directs the Department to issue quarterly 
reports on HUD travel to the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations. These reports shall include a list of all HUD-
related trips, the names of all staff on each trip, and all 
costs, including the individual costs of lodging, food, 
transportation and any other costs.

                      Office of Inspector General

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Drug
                                                                   FHA funds by     elimination
                                                   Appropriation     transfer         grants           Total
                                                                                     transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004............................     $76,547,000     $24,000,000  ..............    $100,547,000
Budget estimate, 2005...........................      77,000,000      24,000,000  ..............     101,000,000
Committee recommendation........................      83,500,000      24,000,000  ..............     107,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an overall funding level of 
$107,500,000 for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This 
amount is $6,954,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level 
and $6,500,000 above the budget request. This funding level 
includes $24,000,000 by transfer from various FHA funds. The 
Committee commends OIG for its commitment and its efforts in 
reducing waste, fraud and abuse in HUD programs.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $233,617,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     234,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     234,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $234,000,000 for the working 
capital fund for fiscal year 2005. These funds are the same as 
the budget request and $383,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
level.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $39,680,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      59,208,753
Committee recommendation................................      59,208,753

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $59,208,753 for the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is the same as the 
budget request and $19,528,753 more than the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level.
    The Committee remains very concerned regarding the 
competency of this office to provide the necessary financial 
oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While the Committee 
believes a new regulatory entity will be more effective than 
OFHEO in providing financial oversight of these government-
sponsored entities [GSEs], the Committee is more concerned that 
a lack of leadership and qualified staffing is at the heart of 
OFHEO's inability to be an effective regulator. Since 
responsibility must begin with leadership, the Committee is 
holding back $10,000,000 until a new director is nominated and 
confirmed.

                       Administrative Provisions

    The Committee recommends 29 administrative provisions. A 
brief description follows.
    Sec. 201. Promotes the refinancing of certain housing 
bonds.
    Sec. 202. Clarifies a limitation on use of funds under the 
Fair Housing Act.
    Sec. 203. Clarifies the allocation of HOPWA funding for 
fiscal year 2005.
    Sec. 204. Clarifies housing issue in Michigan.
    Sec. 205. Requires HUD to award funds on a competitive 
basis unless otherwise provided.
    Sec. 206. Allows funds to be used to reimburse GSEs and 
other Federal entities for various administrative expenses.
    Sec. 207. Limits HUD spending to amounts set out in the 
budget justification.
    Sec. 208. Clarifies expenditure authority for entities 
subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
    Sec. 209. Requires HUD to submit certain additional 
information as part of its annual budget justifications.
    Sec. 210. Exempts Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi from the 
requirement of having a PHA resident on the board of directors 
for fiscal year 2005. Instead, the public housing agencies in 
these States are required to establish advisory boards that 
include public housing tenants and section 8 recipients.
    Sec. 211. Requires quarterly reports on all uncommitted, 
unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD programs.
    Sec. 212. Requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on 
HUD-held or owned multifamily housing.
    Sec. 213. Requires HUD to report on the number of units 
being assisted under section 8 and the per unit cost of these 
units.
    Sec. 214. Provides correction to HOPWA funding for certain 
States.
    Sec. 215. Clarifies insurance requirements for existing 
health care facilities.
    Sec. 216. Makes technical correction to the 1992 Housing 
Act.
    Sec. 217. Clarifies HUD's multifamily housing enforcement 
authority.
    Sec. 218. Clarifies HUD enforcement authority.
    Sec. 219. Provides flexibility for ACA agreements.
    Sec. 220. Technical correction for HUD mortgage insurance 
authority.
    Sec. 221. Limits FHA payment of refunds.
    Sec. 222. Corrects funding problem for PATH initiative.
    Sec. 223. Technical fix for Section 202 and Section 811 
housing.
    Sec. 224. Prohibition on using Federal housing funds for 
political purposes.
    Sec. 225. Reforms certain section 8 rent calculations.
    Sec. 226. Provides allocation requirements for Native 
Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block Grant 
program.
    Sec. 227. Allows HUD to pay for the costs of HUD-owned and 
HUD-held Section 202 and Section 811 housing.
    Sec. 228. Allows public housing agencies in tight rental 
markets to use up to 50 percent of their section 8 assistance 
for project-based assistance.

                    TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $41,056,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      41,100,000
Committee recommendation................................      46,100,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The American Battle Monuments Commission [ABMC] is 
responsible for the maintenance and construction of U.S. 
monuments and memorials commemorating our Armed Forces where 
they have served since April 1917 (the date of U.S. entry into 
World War I); for controlling the erection of monuments and 
markers by U.S. citizens and organizations in foreign 
countries; and for the design, construction, and maintenance of 
permanent military cemetery memorials in foreign countries. The 
Commission maintains 24 military memorial cemeteries and 25 
monuments, memorials, and markers, in 15 countries around the 
world, including three memorials on U.S. soil. It is presently 
charged with erecting an Interpretive Center at the Normandy 
American Cemetery, Normandy, France.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $46,100,000 for the American 
Battle Monuments Commission. This amount is $5,000,000 above 
the budget request and $5,044,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level. Within this amount, the Committee has provided 
the budget request of $9,100,000 to complete the Normandy 
Interpretive Center.
    The Committee has provided additional funds due to 
unanticipated currency fluctuation between the U.S. dollar and 
the euro. Due to a weakening U.S. dollar, the ABMC is 
projecting a significant shortfall in funding to meet the 
operating needs of its sites in Europe. The Committee is 
troubled that the Administration has yet to submit a budget 
amendment to address this deficiency. Further, the Committee 
understands that the funding deficiency may be even higher 
depending on the markets. Accordingly, the Committee directs 
the Commission to improve its monitoring of its foreign 
currency fluctuation account and include in its fiscal year 
2006 budget justifications a complete analysis of the account 
and its needs.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $8,648,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       9,016,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board was 
authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to 
investigate accidental releases of certain chemical substances 
resulting in, or that may cause, serious injury, death, 
substantial property damage, or serious adverse effects on 
human health. It became operational in fiscal year 1998.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for the Chemical Safety 
and Hazard Investigation Board (Board) which is $352,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2004 funding level and $16,000 less than 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request. The Board's made an 
independent budget request for fiscal year 2005 of $9,451,000 
with an additional $400,000 for its Emergency Fund. Instead of 
maintaining a separate Emergency Fund, $400,000 of the 
$9,000,000 is reserved as an emergency fund for accident 
investigations that have not been planned for by the Board in 
its fiscal year 2995 budget plan.
    The Committee directs the Board to submit a report to the 
Committee by April 20, 2005 that identifies its working 
relationship and responsibilities with regard to other Federal 
agencies that have a responsibility to protect public health 
and safety, including the Department of Homeland Security, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Transportation 
Safety Board and the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration.
    The Committee has again included bill language limiting the 
number of career senior executive service positions to three 
and bill language identifying the EPA Inspector General as the 
Inspector General for the Board.

                       Department of the Treasury

              COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $60,640,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      48,403,000
Committee recommendation................................      55,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for the CDFI Fund, 
which is $5,640,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level 
and $6,597,000 above the administration's request. The 
Committee is disappointed with the Administration's proposed 
reductions to CDFI and BEA. Both are important programs and 
play an important role in underserved communities. The 
Committee expects the BEA program to be funded at the fiscal 
year 2004 level.
    The Committee also recommends a set-aside of $4,000,000 for 
grants, loans, and technical assistance and training programs 
to benefit Native American, Alaskan Natives, and Native 
Hawaiian communities in the coordination of development 
strategies, increased access to equity investments, and loans 
for development activities. This amount is the same as the 
fiscal year 2004 enacted level.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $59,647,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      62,650,000
Committee recommendation................................      62,650,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $62,650,000 for the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, equal to the budget request and an 
increase of $3,004,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level.

             Corporation for National and Community Service

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $581,035,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     642,232,000
Committee recommendation................................     590,061,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Corporation for National and Community Service, a 
Corporation owned by the Federal Government, was established by 
the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 (Public 
Law 103-82) to enhance opportunities for national and community 
service and provide national service education awards. The 
Corporation makes grants to States, institutions of higher 
education, public and private nonprofit organizations, and 
others to create service opportunities for a wide variety of 
individuals such as students, out-of-school youth, and adults 
through innovative, full- and part-time national and community 
service programs. National service participants may receive 
education awards which may be used for full-time or part-time 
higher education, vocational education, job training, or 
school-to-work programs.
    The Corporation is governed by a Board of Directors and 
headed by the Chief Executive Officer. Board members, the Chief 
Executive Officer, and the Chief Financial Officer are 
appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed 
by the Senate.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $590,061,000 for the Corporation 
for National and Community Service, an increase of $9,034,000 
over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $52,171,000 below 
the budget request.
    In addition to the normal operating plan requirements as 
directed in this report, the Committee directs the Corporation 
to notify the Chair of the Committee prior to each 
reprogramming of funds in excess of $100,000 between programs, 
activities, or elements.

                NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $549,969,000
Budget estimate, 2005 \1\...............................     636,232,000
Committee recommendation................................     558,311,000

\1\ Includes $28,894,000 for salaries and expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National and Community Service programs operating 
expenses account funds all programs and activities authorized 
by the National and Community Service Act of 1993. This account 
covers two of the three main components to the AmeriCorps 
program (the AmeriCorps State and National, and AmeriCorps 
National Civilian Community Corps [NCCC]); Learn and Serve; 
Innovation, Demonstration, and Assistance activities 
(authorized under subtitle H); program administration for State 
commissions; audits and evaluations; and the Points of Light 
Foundation. Funding for AmeriCorps supports member living 
allowances and education benefits. Education benefits are 
deposited into the National Service Trust, which provides a 
secure repository for education awards earned by eligible 
AmeriCorps members who successfully complete a term of service.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $558,311,000 for the Corporation's 
programs operating expenses. This appropriation provides 
$291,933,000 for AmeriCorps State and National operating grants 
(not including NCCC); $150,500,000 for the National Service 
Trust; $43,000,000 for Learn and Serve; $26,000,000 for 
AmeriCorps NCCC; $16,328,000 for subtitle H fund activities; 
$12,000,000 for State administrative expenses; $3,550,000 for 
audits and evaluations; $10,000,000 for the Points of Light 
Foundation; and $5,000,000 for America's Promise.
    AmeriCorps.--The Committee recommends $291,933,000 for 
AmeriCorps grants, National Direct and State funds. This amount 
is equal to the budget request and $20,214,000 below the fiscal 
year 2004 enacted level. The Committee's recommended funding 
level will support up to 75,000 new full-time equivalent 
volunteers for the AmeriCorps program. Within the amount 
provided for AmeriCorps grants, the Committee is providing 
$55,000,000 for national direct grantees.
    The Committee directs the Corporation to continue providing 
monthly reports to the Committees on Appropriations and the 
Corporation's Inspector General on the actual and projected 
year-end level of AmeriCorps membership enrollment, usage, and 
earnings, and the financial status of the Trust fund (revenue, 
expenses, outstanding liabilities, reserve, etc.). Further, the 
Committee directs the Chief Executive Officer, the Director of 
AmeriCorps, and the Chief Financial Officer to certify that the 
information in these reports is accurate and independently 
verified. If the year-end projections are expected to exceed 
the levels that can be supported financially by the 
Corporation, the Committee expects the Corporation to take 
immediate corrective actions and notify the Committee.
    The Committee appreciates the Corporation's recent efforts 
through rulemaking to address grantee reliance on Federal 
funding and to develop a definition of sustainability. Reducing 
grantee reliance on Federal funding or sustainability has been 
a long-standing concern of the Committee and believes that a 
sensible, flexible approach is needed. Specifically, the 
Committee rejects a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach and believes 
that in addressing this issue, the Corporation should use a 
performance-based method so that well-performing organizations 
are not unduly punished. Moreover, the Corporation should not 
continue to reward poor performing grantees. Further, the 
Committee is aware that some AmeriCorps grantees receive 
substantial funding from multiple Federal sources. For example, 
some grantees receive substantial funding from both the 
Corporation and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. The Corporation should be mindful of this fact 
when addressing sustainability to ensure that there is a level 
playing field of competition for worthy and new developing 
organizations, such as those currently funded under the 
Corporation's Next Generation program.
    Given the fact that there are clearly not enough funds to 
meet the current and future demands of the AmeriCorps program, 
the Corporation must develop a fair and rationale set of rules 
so that new organizations are allowed to compete and receive 
funding. The Corporation should asses the possibility of having 
certain programs ``graduate'' after a number of years. To keep 
the Committee better informed of the recipients receiving 
AmeriCorps funding, the Committee directs the Corporation to 
publish in its fiscal year 2005 budget justifications a list of 
recipients that have received more than $500,000 from the 
Corporation, delineated by program, and the amount and source 
of both other Federal and non-Federal funds that received by 
each recipient.
    The Committee strongly encourages the Corporation to 
support volunteers or organizations that mobilize unpaid 
volunteers for community activities. In other words, by moving 
away from ``retail'' activities to ``wholesale'' activities, 
the Corporation could expand its reach to more citizens who 
wish to respond to the call to service. The Corporation should 
consider this issue in considering grant applications.
    Within the amount provided, the Committee directs the 
Corporation to continue at least the current level of support 
for programs designed to help teach children to read by the 
third grade and for activities dedicated to developing computer 
and information technology skills for students and teachers in 
low-income communities. Further, the Committee directs the 
Corporation to support activities designed to assist the needs 
of veterans, especially homeless veterans.
    Under current law, an individual can serve as an AmeriCorps 
volunteer in an approved national service program, earning 
education awards and stipends, for a maximum of two terms of 
service. A term of service may be full-time (1,700 hours over a 
9-12 month period), part-time (900 hours over a period of up to 
2 years), reduced half-time (675 hours of service), quarter-
time (450 hours of service), or minimum-time (350 hours of 
service). The two term limitation applies whether a volunteer's 
terms of service are full-time, part-time, or less than part-
time.
    The Committee is aware of and sympathetic to concerns that 
the two term of service limit prevents older American 
volunteers from continuing to serve their communities for 
longer than two terms, and reduces the availability of 
volunteers for important community programs. The Committee, 
therefore, directs the Corporation to report by December 31, 
2004, on the impacts of this policy on volunteer programs for 
older Americans. The Corporation should seek input from 
organizations and communities that utilize older American 
volunteers, such as Experience Corps. The Corporation's report 
should include findings on how the two term of service limit 
affects both older American volunteers and the communities in 
which they serve. The report should also include 
recommendations for any legislative changes that might be 
warranted to ensure that communities can continue to harvest, 
to the maximum extent possible, the skills and talents of older 
Americans who want to volunteer.
    National Service Trust.--The Committee recommends 
$150,500,000 for the National Service Trust, of which 
$4,000,000 is to support national service scholarships 
(``President's Freedom Scholarships'') for high school students 
and of which $13,315,000 is for the Trust's reserve fund, as 
established under the Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act of 
2003. This level is $9,800,000 below the budget request because 
the Committee did not agree to fund the proposed new Silver 
Scholarships program. This program is duplicative of the 
Corporation's Senior Corps activities funded under the Labor-
HHS appropriations bill and in an era of budget constraints, 
the Committee does not feel that this new program is warranted.
    Subtitle H.--The Committee recommends $16,328,000 for 
innovation, demonstration, and assistance activities funded 
under subtitle H of the National and Community Service Act. 
Within this amount, the Committee recommends $6,000,000 for 
challenge grants; $2,000,000 for next generation grants; 
$600,000 for Martin Luther King Jr. Day grants; $725,000 for 
Service Learning Clearinghouse and Exchange; $120,000 for 
unified State plans; $2,000,000 for training and technical 
assistance; and $4,883,000 for disability programs. The 
Committee has not funded activities that serve other Federal 
agencies and offices. The Committee expects the Administration 
to fund those activities from the relevant agencies and offices 
and establish appropriate transfer authority in cases where the 
Corporation is administering programs on the agency's behalf.
    The Committee remains strongly committed to the challenge 
grants program due to its success in leveraging private 
matching funds. In fiscal year 2003, the Corporation received 
52 applicants requesting $31,000,000 out of an available pool 
of $6,000,000. Thirty-one of the applicants were new to the 
Corporation. The Committee directs the Corporation to comply 
with the challenge grant funding requirements established under 
the conference report accompanying the Consolidated 
Appropriations Resolution, 2003.
    AmeriCorps NCCC.--The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for 
the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps [NCCC]. This 
amount is $1,147,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level 
and $1,027,000 below the budget request. Due to budget 
constraints, the Committee was unable to fund fully the 
Administration's full budget request for NCCC's capital 
improvements. However, the additional funds provided by the 
Committee should be used as a downpayment that will allow the 
Corporation to begin addressing its NCCC capital needs in 
fiscal year 2005. The Committee is also concerned about the 
current geographic distribution of its existing campuses due to 
the lack of a NCCC presence in the Midwest part of the country. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Corporation to re-
examine the location of its current campuses and develop a plan 
that would improve the NCCC's ability to meet the Nation's 
disaster and public safety needs. This report should be 
submitted to the Committee by no later than March 1, 2005.
    Learn and Serve.--The Committee recommends $43,000,000 for 
school-based and community-based service learning programs. 
This is the same funding level as provided in fiscal year 2004.
    State Administration.--The Committee recommends $12,000,000 
for State commission administrative expenses. This is the same 
funding level as provided in fiscal year 2004. The Committee 
directs the Corporation to address immediately the management 
problems identified by the Office of Inspector General. The 
Committee strongly urges the Corporation to withhold additional 
grant awards to those State commissions that have not taken 
corrective actions in response to the OIG audits.
    Audits and Evaluations.--The Committee recommends 
$3,550,000 for audits and evaluations. Of the funds provided 
for audits and evaluations, the Committee has provided the 
budget requested amounts of $1,200,000 for national performance 
measures; $1,000,000 for a longitudinal study of AmeriCorps 
volunteers; $100,000 for the Corporation's national partners; 
$150,000 for data archives; $150,000 for indicator archives; 
and $450,000 for a capacity study. In addition, the Committee 
has allocated an additional $500,000 for a contract initiated 
in fiscal year 2004 with the National Academy of Public 
Administration [NAPA] to conduct a comprehensive review of the 
leadership, operations and management of the Corporation.
    Points of Light.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for 
the Points of Light Foundation. Of the amounts provided, the 
Foundation may set-aside $2,500,000 for its endowment fund.
    America's Promise.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for 
America's Promise.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $24,853,000
Budget estimate, 2005 \1\...............................................
Committee recommendation................................      25,500,000

\1\ These funds were included under the program account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The salaries and expenses appropriation provides funds for 
staff salaries, benefits, travel, training, rent, advisory and 
assistance services, communications and utilities expenses, 
supplies, equipment, and other operating expenses necessary for 
management of the Corporation's activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,500,000 
for the Corporation's salaries and expenses. The Committee 
reiterates the directive under the program account that the 
Corporation must fund all staffing needs from the salaries and 
expenses account. Under this account, the Committee has 
provided $18,350,000 for salaries and benefits, $650,000 for 
travel, $2,700,000 for technology, $2,000,000 for other 
administrative expenses (rent, supplies, equipment, etc.), and 
$1,800,000 for the Office of Chief Financial Officer for 
purposes of addressing the Corporation's management problems, 
especially grantee management and monitoring. The Committee has 
provided additional funds for salaries and benefits to fund 
expected pay parity requirements. The Committee's 
recommendation does not include the additional $2,247,000 
requested for various public affairs activities.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $6,213,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,250,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Inspector General within the Corporation for 
National and Community Service is authorized by the Inspector 
General Act of 1978, as amended. The goals of the Office are to 
increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness and to 
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. The Office of Inspector 
General within the Corporation for National and Community 
Service was transferred to the Corporation from the former 
ACTION agency when ACTION was abolished and merged into the 
Corporation in April 1994.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,250,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This amount is $250,000 
above the budget request and $37,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level. The Committee is providing additional funds to 
support the OIG's review and audit of the Corporation's grant 
management and oversight activities, given the substantial 
growth in AmeriCorps program funding.
    The Committee directs the OIG to continue reviewing the 
Corporation's management of the National Service Trust fund. 
The Committee directs the OIG to review the monthly Trust 
reports and to notify the Committees on Appropriations on the 
accuracy of the reports.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    The Committee has included four administrative provisions 
carried in prior year appropriations acts.

               U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $15,844,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      17,623,000
Committee recommendation................................      17,623,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was established by 
the Veterans' Judicial Review Act. The court is an independent 
judicial tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction to review 
decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals. It has the 
authority to decide all relevant questions of law; interpret 
constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions; and 
determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an 
action by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is authorized 
to compel action by the Department unlawfully withheld or 
unreasonably delayed. It is authorized to hold unconstitutional 
or otherwise unlawful and set-aside decisions, findings, 
conclusions, rules and regulations issued or adopted by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs or the Board of Veterans' 
Appeals.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $17,623,000 
for the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims, an increase of 
$1,779,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.

                      Department of Defense--Civil

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $28,829,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      29,600,000
Committee recommendation................................      29,600,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Secretary of the Army is responsible for the 
administration, operation and maintenance of Arlington National 
Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. 
At the close of fiscal year 2003, the remains of 302,054 
persons were interred/inurned in these cemeteries. There were 
3,903 interments and 2,342 inurnments in fiscal year 2003. It 
is projected that there will be 3,925 interments and 2,775 
inurnments in fiscal year 2004. In addition to its principal 
function as a national cemetery, Arlington is the site of 
approximately 3,100 nonfuneral ceremonies each year and has 
approximately 4 million visitors annually.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $29,600,000 for the Army's 
cemeterial expenses. This amount is equal to the budget request 
and $771,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The 
Committee has provided these funds to accelerate Arlington 
Cemetery's data automation project, to address the Cemetery's 
distressed headstones, and to continue developing phase II of 
project 90.

                Department of Health and Human Services

                     National Institutes of Health

          NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $78,310,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      80,486,000
Committee recommendation................................      80,486,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an 
agency within the National Institutes of Health, was authorized 
in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, to conduct 
multidisciplinary research and training activities associated 
with the Nation's Hazardous Substance Superfund program, and in 
section 126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations 
Act of 1986, to conduct training and education of workers who 
are or may be engaged in activities related to hazardous waste 
removal or containment or emergency response.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $80,486,000 for the National 
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, [NIEHS] which is 
the same as the budget request and $2,176,000 above the fiscal 
year 2005 enacted level.
    The Committee directs the NIEHS to submit a report to the 
Committee by April 20, 2005 that identifies its working 
relationship and responsibilities with regard to other Federal 
agencies that have a responsibility to protect public health 
and safety, including the Department of Homeland Security, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Transportation 
Safety Board, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 
Board and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

            TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $73,034,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      76,654,000
Committee recommendation................................      76,654,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
[ATSDR], an agency of the Public Health Service, was created in 
section 104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The ATSDR's primary 
mission is to conduct surveys and screening programs to 
determine relationships between exposure to toxic substances 
and illness. Other activities include the maintenance and 
annual update of a list of hazardous substances most commonly 
found at Superfund sites, the preparation of toxicological 
profiles on each such hazardous substance, consultations on 
health issues relating to exposure to hazardous or toxic 
substances, and the development and implementation of certain 
research activities related to ATSDR's mission.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $76,654,000 for the Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR], which is the 
same as the budget request and $3,620,000 above the fiscal year 
2004 enacted level. The ATSDR is directed to continue to assess 
the level of lead poisoning of families, especially children, 
at the Tar Creek Superfund site in Oklahoma and at Herculaneum, 
Missouri.

                    Environmental Protection Agency

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $8,365,420,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   7,759,244,000
Committee recommendation................................   8,500,408,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] was created 
through Executive Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 designed to 
consolidate certain Federal Government environmental activities 
into a single agency. The plan was submitted by the President 
to the Congress on July 8, 1970, and the Agency was established 
as an independent agency in the executive branch on December 2, 
1970, by consolidating 15 components from 5 departments and 
independent agencies.
    A description of EPA's pollution control programs by media 
follows:
    Air.--The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 authorize a 
national program of air pollution research, regulation, 
prevention, and enforcement activities.
    Water Quality.--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
amended, provides the framework for protection of the Nation's 
surface waters. The law recognizes that it is the primary 
responsibility of the States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate 
water pollution. The States determine the desired uses for 
their waters, set standards, identify current uses and, where 
uses are being impaired or threatened, develop plans for the 
protection or restoration of the designated use. They implement 
the plans through control programs such as permitting and 
enforcement, construction of municipal waste water treatment 
works, and nonpoint source control practices. The CWA also 
regulates discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of 
the United States, including wetlands.
    Drinking Water.--The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as 
amended in 1996, charges EPA with the responsibility of 
implementing a program to assure that the Nation's public 
drinking water supplies are free of contamination that may pose 
a human health risk, and to protect and prevent the 
endangerment of ground water resources which serve as drinking 
water supplies.
    Hazardous Waste.--The Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act of 1976 mandated EPA to develop a regulatory program to 
protect human health and the environment from improper 
hazardous waste disposal practices. The RCRA Program manages 
hazardous wastes from generation through disposal.
    EPA's responsibilities and authorities to manage hazardous 
waste were greatly expanded under the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments of 1984. Not only did the regulated universe of 
wastes and facilities dealing with hazardous waste increase 
significantly, but past mismanagement practices, in particular 
prior releases at inactive hazardous and solid waste management 
units, were to be identified and corrective action taken. The 
1984 amendments also authorized a regulatory and implementation 
program directed to owners and operators of underground storage 
tanks.
    Pesticides.--The objective of the Pesticide Program is to 
protect the public health and the environment from unreasonable 
risks while permitting the use of necessary pest control 
approaches. This objective is pursued by EPA under the Food 
Quality Protection Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 through 
three principal means: (1) review of existing and new pesticide 
products; (2) enforcement of pesticide use rules; and (3) 
research and development to reinforce the ability to evaluate 
the risks and benefits of pesticides.
    Radiation.--The radiation program's major emphasis is to 
minimize the exposure of persons to ionizing radiation, whether 
from naturally occurring sources, from medical or industrial 
applications, nuclear power sources, or weapons development.
    Toxic Substances.--The Toxic Substances Control Act 
establishes a program to stimulate the development of adequate 
data on the effects of chemical substances on health and the 
environment, and institute control action for those chemicals 
which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
environment. The act's coverage affects more than 60,000 
chemicals currently in commerce, and all new chemicals.
    Multimedia.--Multimedia activities are designed to support 
programs where the problems, tools, and results are cross media 
and must be integrated to effect results. This integrated 
program encompasses the Agency's research, enforcement, and 
abatement activities.
    Superfund.--The Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 established a national 
program to protect public health and the environment from the 
threats posed by inactive hazardous waste sites and 
uncontrolled spills of hazardous substances. The original 
statute was amended by the Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act of 1986. Under these authorities, EPA 
manages a hazardous waste site cleanup program including 
emergency response and long-term remediation.
    Brownfields.--The Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended by the Small 
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 
2002 establishes a national program to assess, cleanup, and 
provide support to States, Tribes, local communities and other 
stakeholders to work together to reuse Brownfields.
    Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.--The Superfund 
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 established the 
leaking underground storage tank [LUST] trust fund to conduct 
corrective actions for releases from leaking underground 
storage tanks that contain petroleum or other hazardous 
substances. EPA implements the LUST response program primarily 
through cooperative agreements with the States.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $8,500,408,000 for EPA. 
This is an increase of $711,163,000 above the budget request 
and an increase of $134,591,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level.
    The Agency is directed to notify the Committee prior to 
each reprogramming in excess of $500,000 between objectives, 
when those reprogrammings are for different purposes. The 
exceptions to this limitation are as follows: (1) for the 
``Environmental Programs and Management'' account, Committee 
notification is required at $500,000; Committee approval is 
required only above $1,000,000; (2) for the ``State and Tribal 
Assistance Grants'' account, reprogramming of performance 
partnership grant funds is exempt from this limitation; and (3) 
for the ``State and Tribal Assistance Grants'' account, 
movement between wastewater and drinking water objectives for 
the STAG special project funds is exempt from the reprogramming 
limitation.
    Each year approximately one-half of the EPA annual budget 
is distributed in grants and cooperative agreements to 
recipients to implement the program office's objectives. The 
Committee is aware of EPA's steps to institute a policy to 
mandate formal competition and policy to require measurable 
environmental outcomes from those grants along with increased 
personnel and recipient oversight. The Committee recommends 
consistent reporting on the progress of those reforms to both 
the authorizing and appropriations committees, requiring all 
grants recipients to articulate environmental outcomes from 
projects before receiving grant funding, and increased 
attention by the highest levels of administration within EPA 
and its program offices to establish a consistent and 
transparent system of awarding and monitoring grants.
    The Committee directs EPA to round all programs to the 
nearest thousand dollar and requests that the budget submission 
for fiscal year 2006 propose funding at no less than the 
nearest thousand dollar.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $781,684,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     689,185,000
Committee recommendation................................     758,179,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    EPA's ``Science and technology'' account provides funding 
for the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support 
decisions on preventing, regulating, and abating environmental 
pollution and to advance the base of understanding on 
environmental sciences. These efforts are conducted through 
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with 
universities, industries, other private commercial firms, 
nonprofit organizations, State and local government, and 
Federal agencies, as well as through work performed at EPA's 
laboratories and various field stations and field offices. In 
addition, Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund resources 
are transferred to this account directly from the Hazardous 
Substance Superfund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $758,179,000 for science and 
technology, $68,994,000 above the budget request and 
$23,505,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. In 
addition, the Committee recommends the transfer of $36,097,000 
from the Superfund account, for a total of $794,276,000 for 
science and technology.
    The Committee recommends the transfer of $36,097,000 to 
``Science and Technology'' from the ``Hazardous Substance 
Superfund'' account for ongoing research activities in a manner 
consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:
      $9,000,000 for the Clean Air Allowance Trading program, 
        which is $4,367,000 above the 2004 level;
      $63,000,000 for Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and 
        Certification, which is $5,125,000 above the 2004 
        level;
      $2,265,000 for the Registration of New Pesticides, which 
        is equal to the 2004 level;
      $2,370,000 for the Review and Re-registration of Existing 
        Pesticides, which is equal to the 2004 level;
      $17,000,000 for Air Toxics, which is $148,000 above the 
        2004 level;
      $10,000,000 for Endocrine Disruptor, which is $1,956,000 
        above the budget request;
      $170,000,000 for Human Health and Ecosystems, which is 
        $7,408,000 below the budget request;
      $9,000,000 for Land Protection and Restoration, which is 
        $158,000 above the budget request;
      $62,000,000 for Particulate Matter, which is $3,356,000 
        above the 2004 level;
      $4,000,000 for Troposphere Ozone, which is $901,000 below 
        the budget request;
      $11,805,000 for Computational Toxicology, which is equal 
        to the 2004 level;
      $8,000,000 for Fellowships, which is $1,599,000 above the 
        2004 level;
      $20,000,000 for Global Change, which is $690,000 below 
        the budget request;
      $10,000,000 for innovative approaches to the removal/
        reduction of arsenic in water systems.
    The Committee has not provided funding for the following 
programs in this account: Radon/Indoor Air program; the Schools 
and Workplace/Indoor Air program; and, the TRI/Right to Know 
program.
    In addition, the Committee recommends the following 
increases to the budget request:
      $3,600,000 for the American Water Works Association 
        Research Foundation;
      $3,600,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation;
      $500,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology 
        Research;
      $500,000 for the New England Green Chemistry Consortium;
      $500,000 for Utah State University to continue monitoring 
        and assessment activities related to freshwater 
        ecosystems;
      $2,100,000 for the Mine Waste Technology program at the 
        National Environmental Waste Technology, Testing, and 
        Evaluation Center;
      $400,000 to enhance and improve EPA's Tribal Portal 
        program, and to implement this program on a nationwide 
        basis;
      $750,000 for the Environmental Lung Disease Center at the 
        National Jewish Medical Center;
      $500,000 for the University of Maine-Orono to develop 
        Source Water Warning and Analysis Technology;
      $1,500,000 for Boise State University to continue 
        research on multi-purpose sensors to detect and analyze 
        contaminants and time-lapse imaging of shallow 
        subsurface fluid flow;
      $500,000 for the North Carolina State University 
        Turfgrass Research Center;
      $2,000,000 for the National Environmental Respiratory 
        Center at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute 
        in New Mexico;
      $1,000,000 for the Desert Research Institute for western 
        Nevada regionally-based clean water activities;
      $1,000,000 for the University of Tennessee at Knoxville 
        Natural Resources Policy Center;
      $1,000,000 for the University of Louisville/Illinois 
        Waste Management and Research Center;
      $750,000 for the Integrated Petroleum Environmental 
        Consortium [IPEC];
      $1,000,000 for the water and wastewater training program 
        at the Alabama Department of Environmental Management;
      $1,000,000 for the Center for Estuarine Research at the 
        University of South Alabama;
      $425,000 for the Connecticut River Airshed-Watershed 
        Consortium;
      $425,000 for the Center for the Study of Metals in the 
        Environment;
      $900,000 for the Center for Air Toxic Metals at the 
        Energy and Environmental Research Center;
      $700,000 for Clean Air Counts of Northeastern Illinois to 
        develop an innovative and cost effective method to 
        reduce smog-causing emissions in the Chicago 
        metropolitan region--the funding will provide support 
        for an ongoing partnership involving EPA, the 
        Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, Illinois EPA, and the Delta 
        Institute;
      $200,000 for acid rain research at the University of 
        Vermont;
      $200,000 for the University of Vermont's Proctor Maple 
        Research Center to continue mercury deposition 
        monitoring effects;
      $500,000 for the University of Vermont's Aiken Center 
        Greening Initiative;
      $700,000 for Families in Search of the Truth to 
        investigate the incidence of cancer in Fallon, Nevada;
      $700,000 for the demonstration of an integrated approach 
        to perchlorate remediation and treatment in the City of 
        Rialto, California;
      $700,000 for Southeastern Louisiana University for the 
        Turtle Cove research station;
      $200,000 for the State of New Jersey's Smart Growth 
        Initiative;
      $200,000 for ecology research at Fordham University;
      $200,000 for expansion of the Roots and Shoots program 
        headquartered at Western Connecticut State University;
      $200,000 for water resource modeling at the University of 
        Nebraska-Lincoln;
      $1,500,000 for the Healy Zero Air Emission Tecnology;
      $1,000,000 the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in 
        St. Louis, Missouri for a Parasitic Nematodes Controls 
        research project designed to reduce pesticide use; and
      $1,000,000 to the Missouri Pork Producers Federation for 
        development of technology and creation of Innoventor 
        process to decrease environmental impacts of animal 
        waste by conversion into energy sources.

                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $2,280,046,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   2,316,958,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,310,263,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Agency's ``Environmental programs and management'' 
account includes the development of environmental standards; 
monitoring and surveillance of pollution conditions; direct 
Federal pollution control planning; technical assistance to 
pollution control agencies and organizations; preparation of 
environmental impact statements; enforcement and compliance 
assurance; and assistance to Federal agencies in complying with 
environmental standards and insuring that their activities have 
minimal environmental impact. It provides personnel 
compensation, benefits, and travel and other administrative 
expenses for all agency programs except Hazardous Substance 
Superfund, LUST, Science and Technology, Oil Spill Response, 
and OIG.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $2,310,263,000 for environmental 
programs and management, $6,695,000 below the budget request 
and $30,217,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
    The Committee supports the EPA Brownfields program at 
approximately the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of $25,000,000 
within this account. The Committee notes that the inclusion of 
these funds in conjunction with funding of $140,000,000 in the 
State and Tribal Assistance Grants account for Brownfields 
activities results in a total of $165,000,000 being available 
in fiscal year 2005.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:
      $937,000 for Alternative Dispute Resolution, which is 
        equal to the 2004 level;
      $90,849,000 for the Climate Protection program, which is 
        equal to the 2004 level; and includes $50,300,000 for 
        the Energy Star program;
      $3,881,000 for the Commission for Environmental 
        Cooperation, which is equal to the 2004 level;
      $37,000,000 for Compliance Assistance and Centers, which 
        is $9,241,000 above the budget request;
      $9,035,000 for Compliance Incentives, which is equal to 
        the 2004 level;
      $46,415,000 for Congressional, Intergovernmental, and 
        External Relations, which is equal to the 2004 level;
      $54,450,000 for Criminal Enforcement, which is 
        $23,080,000 above the budget request;
      $5,000,000 for Enforcement Targeting;
      $95,000,000 for Drinking Water programs, which is 
        $1,814,000 above the 2004 level;
      $6,000,000 for Enforcement Training, which is $2,698,000 
        above the budget request;
      $1,616,000 for Environment and Trade, which is equal to 
        the 2004 level;
      $5,000,000 for Environmental Education, which is 
        $5,000,000 above the budget request;
      $23,000,000 for the Exchange Network, which is $1,199,000 
        above the 2004 level;
      $309,000,000 for Facilities Infrastructure and 
        Operations, which is $1,965,000 above the 2004 level;
      $21,994,000 for Federal Stationary Source Regulations, 
        which is equal to the 2004 level;
      $90,000,000 for Federal Support for Air Quality 
        Management, which is $3,369,000 above the 2004 level;
      $19,500,000 for the Great Lakes program, which is 
        $663,000 above the 2004 level;
      $6,069,000 for other Geographic programs, which is equal 
        to the 2004 level;
      $25,000,000 for the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which is 
        $15,059,000 above the 2004 level;
      $39,109,000 for Human Resources Management, which is 
        equal to the 2004 level;
      $9,999,000 for Asthma program, which is equal to the 2004 
        level;
      $3,030,000 for Environment Tobacco Smoke program, which 
        is equal to the 2004 level;
      $5,073,000 for the Radon program, which is equal to the 
        2004 level;
      $9,425,000 for the Schools and Workplace program, which 
        is equal to the 2004 level;
      $5,500,000 for International Capacity Building, which is 
        $804,000 below the 2004 level;
      $105,000,000 for IT/Data Management, which is $1,923,000 
        above the 2004 level;
      $34,404,000 for the Legal Advice Environmental program, 
        which is equal to the 2004 level;
      $12,370,000 for the Legal Advice Support program, which 
        is equal to the 2004 level;
      $11,779,000 for Marine Pollution, which is equal to the 
        2004 level;
      $20,000,000 for the National Estuary program, which is 
        $771,000 above the budget request;
      $12,136,000 for NEPA Implementation, which is equal to 
        the 2004 level;
      $25,217,000 for Pesticides Field programs, which is equal 
        to the 2004 level;
      $40,773,000 for Registration of New Pesticides, which is 
        equal to the 2004 level;
      $51,714,000 for the Review and Re-registration of 
        Existing Pesticides, which is equal to the 2004 level;
      $16,822,000 for Pollution Prevention, which is equal to 
        the 2004 level;
      $2,147,000 for POPs Implementation, which is equal to the 
        2004 level;
      $11,285,000 for Radiation/Protection, which is equal to 
        the 2004 level;
      $2,188,000 for Radiation/Response Preparedness, which is 
        equal to the 2004 level;
      $40,000,000 for RCRA/Corrective Action, which is $929,000 
        above the 2004 level;
      $67,000,000 for RCRA/Waste Management, which is $103,000 
        above the 2004 level;
      $12,000,000 for RCRA/Waste Minimization and Recycling, 
        which is $1,172,000 above the 2004 level;
      $7,500,000 for Regional Geographic Initiatives, which is 
        $1,287,000 below the 2004 level;
      $3,368,000 for Regional Science and Technology, which is 
        equal to the 2004 level;
      $17,338,000 for Regulatory Innovation, which is equal to 
        the 2004 level;
      $17,934,000 for Regulatory/Economic Management and 
        Analysis, which is equal to the 2004 level;
      $4,396,000 for the Science Advisory Board, which is equal 
        to the 2004 level;
      $1,651,000 for Science Policy and Biotechnology, which is 
        equal to the 2004 level;
      $3,742,000 for the Small Business Ombudsman, which is 
        equal to the 2004 level;
      $5,000,000 for Stratospheric Ozone/Domestic programs, 
        which is $748,000 below the 2004 level;
      $10,000,000 for the Stratospheric Ozone/Multilateral 
        Fund, which is $935,000 below the 2004 level;
      $185,000,000 for Surface Water Protection, which is 
        $778,000 above the 2004 level;
      $9,252,000 for Chemical Risk Management, which is equal 
        to the 2004 level;
      $44,454,000 for Chemical Risk Review and Reduction, which 
        is equal to the 2004 level; and
      $14,670,000 for the TRI/Right to Know program, which is 
        equal to the 2004 level.
    In addition, the Committee recommends the following 
increases to the budget request:
      $9,000,000 for the National Rural Water Association;
      $3,500,000 for the Rural Community Assistance program;
      $650,000 for the Ground Water Protection Council;
      $750,000 for the Water Systems Council;
      $2,000,000 for the Source Water Protection program;
      $5,000,000 for America's Clean Water Foundation;
      $200,000 for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use 
        Management [NESCAUM];
      $200,000 for the Northeast Waste Management Officials 
        Association [NEWMOA];
      $4,000,000 for the Small Public Water System Technology 
        Centers at Western Kentucky University, the University 
        of New Hampshire, the University of Alaska-Sitka, 
        Pennsylvania State University, the University of 
        Missouri-Columbia, Montana State University, the 
        University of Illinois, and Mississippi State 
        University;
      $500,000 for the City of Boulder's Sustainability Center;
      $300,000 for the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas 
        Environmental Regulations [STRONGER] program;
      $200,000 for the Utah Watershed Coordinator's Council;
      $250,000 for an air monitoring project undertaken by the 
        Louisville/Jefferson County Metro government;
      $600,000 for the University of Southern Mississippi's 
        Gulf of Mexico program to evaluate bacterial source 
        tracking in three Gulf Coast watersheds;
      $350,000 for the Greater Houston Partnership/Houston 
        Advanced Research Center for an air quality study;
      $400,000 to the Baylor University for a Lake Whitney 
        comprehensive assessment;
      $1,500,000 for the Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley 
        Aquifer study with matching funds to be provided by the 
        State of Idaho and Washington;
      $300,000 for the Selenium Information System project at 
        the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
        Laboratory;
      $2,500,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental 
        Research and Policy;
      $500,000 for the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement 
        program;
      $1,000,000 for the City of Maryville, Tennessee to 
        implement an environmental protection and education 
        project;
      $250,000 for the Center for Environmental Citizenship at 
        Luther College in Decorah, Iowa;
      $250,000 for a comprehensive storm and irrigation-water 
        management initiative for Orem, Utah;
      $5,000,000 for the Oklahoma Department of Environmental 
        Quality for ongoing surface water treatment and general 
        environmental remediation in collaboration with other 
        involved state and Federal entities of the effects of 
        mine-waste tailings in the Tar Creek and Spring Creek 
        watersheds and area in Ottawa County, Oklahoma;
      $500,000 for the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental 
        Protection program at the University of Arizona;
      $600,000 for the Western Kentucky University Center for 
        Wastewater Research;
      $400,000 for the Green River Biological Diversity 
        Monitoring project at Western Kentucky University;
      $300,000 for Auburn University to develop a Mobile Delta 
        Initiative;
      $750,000 for the City of Wilsonville, Oregon to develop 
        an innovative rainwater management system;
      $500,000 for the Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources 
        Institute at Southwest Missouri State University;
      $2,000,000 for Chesapeake Bay small watershed grants. The 
        Committee expects that the funds provided for this 
        program, managed by the Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 
        shall be used for community-based projects including 
        those that design and implement on the ground and in 
        the water environmental restoration or protection 
        activities to help meet Chesapeake Bay program goals 
        and objectives. This will result in a total of 
        $22,817,000 available in fiscal year 2005 for the 
        Chesapeake Bay program, which is $82,000 above the 
        fiscal year 2004 level;
      $2,500,000 for the Lake Champlain Basin program, which is 
        an increase of $1,540,000 above the budget request and 
        $60,000 above the 2004 level;
      $2,300,000 for the Long Island Sound program, which is an 
        increase of $1,823,000 above the budget request and 
        $56,000 above the 2004 level;
      $750,000 for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation for 
        Lake Pontchartrain water quality improvement;
      $250,000 for the Maryland Bureau of Mines for an acid 
        mine drainage remediation project;
      $1,000,000 for projects demonstrating the benefits of Low 
        Impact Development along the Anacostia Watershed in 
        Prince Georges County, Maryland, including $500,000 for 
        storm drains and trash traps;
      $750,000 for the City of Waukesha, Wisconsin, for a 
        radium removal research and study project;
      $250,000 for the Northwest Straits Commission for 
        Washington State University's beach watchers program;
      $500,000 for the Columbia Basin Groundwater Management 
        Area;
      $300,000 for the Walker Lake Working Group in Nevada for 
        scientific, analytical, and other technical assistance 
        to evaluate solutions for the restoration of Walker 
        Lake;
      $250,000 for the Friends of Old Maui School and Community 
        Work Day in Hawaii for environmental assessments;
      $350,000 for the County of Hawaii for the Honomolino 
        Irrigation Cooperative surface and ground water 
        project;
      $250,000 for the Hawaii Nature Center East Kauai 
        watershed improvement initiative;
      $500,000 for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
        California for a study of the effectiveness of 
        biological treatment for the removal of perchlorate 
        from groundwater;
      $250,000 for the Fresno County Council of Governments in 
        California for a non-point source water quality 
        management program;
      $500,000 for the Storm Lake, Iowa, water quality project;
      $250,000 for the Iowa Stormwater Runoff Council for the 
        development and implementation of improved urban 
        stormwater control practices;
      $300,000 for the Vermont Department of Agriculture 
        Steven's Brook watershed project;
      $250,000 for the City of Warwick, Rhode Island, for 
        design and engineering of the Potowomut wastewater 
        collection system;
      $400,000 for the City of Las Vegas, New Mexico, for a 
        mechanical biological treatment initiative;
      $750,000 for the University of West Florida's PERCH 
        program;
      $400,000 for the County of Ventura, California, Calleguas 
        Creek Watershed Management Plan;
      $400,000 for a storm water research initiative at the 
        University of Vermont;
      $700,000 for Plimoth Plantation in Plymouth, 
        Massachusetts, for environmental education initiatives;
      $400,000 for the City of Norwalk, Connecticut, for the 
        FILTER project to prevent runoff into the Long Island 
        Sound;
      $500,000 for the State of Nevada to replace or retrofit 
        school buses to lower emissions;
      $250,000 for Chautauqua County, New York, for a sewerage 
        mapping project;
      $400,000 for the Right Place in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 
        for the West Michigan Regional Sustainable 
        Manufacturing Initiative;
      $400,000 for Deschutes County, Oregon, for the Upper 
        Deschutes River water quality and monitoring program;
      $200,000 for pollution prevention of Wreck Pond and 
        nearby beaches in Spring Lake, New Jersey;
      $200,000 for the City of Vineland, New Jersey, for the 
        demonstration of an environmentally sound disabled 
        vehicle removal pilot project;
      $400,000 for the King County, Washington, molten fuel 
        cell demonstration project;
      $200,000 for the North Carolina Rural Economic 
        Development Center for a statewide water and wastewater 
        assessment;
      $750,000 for continued research and watershed activities 
        at the Kenai River Center in Kenai, Alaska;
      $375,000 for regional haze monitoring in the State of 
        Alaska;
      $2,000,000 for an air quality initiative in Fairbanks, 
        Alaska;
      $1,500,000 to the Environmental Resources Coalition for 
        the Southwest Missouri Water Resources Assessment 
        Project; and
      $1,000,000 for the Missouri Department of Natural 
        Resources for the Low Sulfur Coal Emissions Reduction 
        Pilot Project.
    The Committee directs the agency to provide the full budget 
request within available funds for the High Production Volume 
Chemical Challenge program, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 
program, and the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation 
program.
    The Committee also directed EPA in fiscal year 2004 to 
provide equal access to the benefits of the Energy Star Labeled 
Homes program to all sectors of the affordable housing 
industry, and to especially work with the manufactured housing 
industry on ways for manufactured housing to avail itself of 
the Energy Star Labeled Homes program. The Committee directs 
EPA to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on these effects by January 31, 2005.
    Unclear regulations, conflicting court decisions and 
inadequate scientific information are creating confusion over 
whether reporting requirements in the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act cover air 
emissions, including ammonia, from poultry, dairy or livestock 
operations. Producers want to meet their environmental 
obligations and protect air quality but need clear guidance to 
do so. This spring, several Members of Congress wrote to EPA 
requesting EPA produce straightforward, clear and enforceable 
standards in this area. Specific questions for resolution 
included: what is a facility? when has a reportable quantity 
been released? is poultry production or other livestock or 
dairy operation a routine agricultural operation? To date, EPA 
has not responded substantively to this request. The Committee 
directs EPA to resolve this issue promptly.
    The Committee believes that a strong criminal enforcement 
program is essential to reducing pollution and protecting 
public health, and is concerned that the Agency has not devoted 
adequate resources to the program, leading to staffing and case 
backlogs. While the Committee also supports the Agency's 
compliance assistance and monitoring activities, these 
activities should be complementary to traditional criminal 
enforcement activities, not in lieu of them. Similarly, the 
Agency's increased criminal activities related to homeland 
security should be conducted in addition to, not at the expense 
of, the traditional criminal enforcement program. The Committee 
therefore directs the Agency to report by March 15, 2005, with 
a plan to reduce case backlogs and ensure adequate resource and 
staffing levels.
    In addition, a recent report by the EPA IG as well as an 
internal EPA Enforcement Management Review and numerous press 
accounts document the dual challenges faced by the Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance program to perform its traditional 
mission of criminal enforcement of environmental violations and 
new post-9/11 homeland security duties. Criminal violations of 
environmental statutes and regulations represent the most 
egregious offenses against the environment and human health. 
Similarly, defense of the homeland is the Nation's highest 
priority.
    To that end, the Committee has included $54,450,000 in 
funds for Criminal Enforcement and directs EPA to increase and 
maintain the number of special agents assigned to the Criminal 
Enforcement program as necessary to ensure that the total 
number of special agents assigned to the program is at least 
330 by September 30, 2005. The Committee expects that at least 
80 special agents are assigned to homeland security and 
protective service duties with the appropriate level of support 
staff. In achieving the increased staffing levels for the 
Criminal Enforcement program and to assure quality and cost-
effectiveness of hires, EPA is encouraged to utilize the 
programs, policies, and procedures adopted by the OECA Human 
Resources Council, including the use of student trainee 
programs.
    The Committee directs EPA to participate fully in joint 
homeland security efforts with DHS, DOJ and the FBI, with DHS 
as lead agency. While investigation of environmental crimes 
remains the EPA's core criminal enforcement mission and the 
Committee has provided additional special agents for those 
environmental functions, homeland security needs should receive 
no less attention from EPA. EPA is directed to give deference 
to requests for EPA personnel by justice and security related 
agencies for homeland security activities. EPA is directed to 
notify the Committee upon a finding that the 80 EPA special 
agents dedicated to homeland security are insufficient to meet 
the Nation's needs or where the EPA is considering reducing 
these security personnel.
    The Committee also has included $6,000,000 under 
Enforcement Training to increase training for Federal, State 
and local lawyers, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators 
and technical experts in the enforcement of environmental laws. 
The Committee has included $37,000,000 for the Compliance 
Assistance and Centers to provide information and technical 
assistance to help individuals and entities know and understand 
their environmental obligations. The sheer volume and 
complexity of environmental regulations and requirements 
continues to overwhelm the regulated community, especially new, 
unsophisticated or small businesses. Finally, the Committee has 
included $5,000,000 for Enforcement Targeting for EPA to expand 
its ability to track and analyze environmental violations and 
respond by strategically targeting enforcement and compliance 
assurance resources to address problems of particular risk to 
human health or threats to sensitive geographic areas. Since 
enforcement remains a high priority, EPA should not pay for 
these activities from other programs within the Enforcement 
Program area.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $37,336,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      37,997,000
Committee recommendation................................      38,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Inspector General [OIG] provides audit, 
evaluation, and investigation products and advisory services to 
improve the performance and integrity of EPA programs and 
operations. The IG also holds the position of Inspector General 
for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
    Trust fund resources are transferred to this account 
directly from the Hazardous Substance Superfund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $38,000,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General, which is $3,000 above the budget request and 
$664,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level. In addition, 
$13,139,000 will be available by transfer from the Superfund 
account, for a total of $51,139,000. The trust fund resources 
will be transferred to the inspector general ``General fund'' 
account with an expenditure transfer.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $39,764,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      42,918,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The appropriation for buildings and facilities at EPA 
provides for the design and construction of EPA-owned 
facilities as well as for the repair, extension, alteration, 
and improvement of facilities utilized by the Agency. These 
funds correct unsafe conditions, protect health and safety of 
employees and Agency visitors, and prevent deterioration of 
structures and equipment.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for buildings and 
facilities, $236,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level and 
$2,918,000 below the budget request.

                     HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $1,257,537,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   1,381,416,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,381,416,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    On October 17, 1986, Congress amended the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
[CERCLA] through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 
Act of 1986 [SARA]. SARA reauthorized and expanded the 
Hazardous Substance Superfund to address the problems of 
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spills. Specifically, 
the legislation mandates that EPA: (1) provide emergency 
response to hazardous waste spills; (2) take emergency action 
at hazardous waste sites that pose an imminent hazard to public 
health or environmentally sensitive ecosystems; (3) engage in 
long-term planning, remedial design, and construction to clean 
up hazardous waste sites where no financially viable 
responsible party can be found; (4) take enforcement actions to 
require responsible private and Federal parties to clean up 
hazardous waste sites; and (5) take enforcement actions to 
recover costs where the fund has been used for cleanup. Due to 
the site-specific nature of the Agency's Superfund program, 
site-specific travel is not considered part of the overall 
travel ceiling set for the Superfund account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,381,416,000 for Superfund, 
$123,879,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request. Of these funds, $998,931,000 is for 
Superfund response and cleanup activities; $146,526,000 is for 
enforcement activities; $148,850,000 for management and 
support; $13,139,000 for transfer to the Office of the 
Inspector General; $36,097,000 for transfer to the Science and 
Technology account for research and development activities; and 
up to $36,490,742 for reimbursable interagency activities. 
Changes to these funding levels shall be made pursuant to 
normal reprogramming requirements.
    The Committee remains concerns that the EPA has not done 
enough to ensure that funds are used efficiently with regard to 
its Superfund response and clean-up activities. These 
activities remain a priority and the Committee urges EPA to 
implement consistent standards and requirements at all 
superfund sites.

              LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $75,551,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      72,545,000
Committee recommendation................................      70,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations Act of 1986 
[SARA] established the leaking underground storage tank [LUST] 
trust fund to conduct corrective actions for releases from 
leaking underground storage tanks containing petroleum and 
other hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST program 
through State cooperative agreement grants which enable States 
to conduct corrective actions to protect human health and the 
environment, and through non-State entities including Indian 
tribes under section 8001 of RCRA. The trust fund is also used 
to enforce responsible parties to finance corrective actions 
and to recover expended funds used to clean up abandoned tanks.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $70,000,000 
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, a 
reduction of $5,551,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level and $2,545,000 below the budget request. The Committee 
directs that not less than 85 percent of these funds be 
provided to the States and tribal governments.

                           OIL SPILL RESPONSE

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $16,113,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      16,425,000
Committee recommendation................................      16,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act of 1987 and amended by the Oil Pollution 
Act of 1990, provides funds to prepare for and prevent releases 
of oil and other petroleum products in navigable waterways. 
Also EPA is reimbursed for incident specific response costs 
through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund managed by the 
United States Coast Guard. EPA is responsible for: directing 
all cleanup and removal activities posing a threat to public 
health and the environment; conducting site inspections, 
including compelling responsible parties to undertake cleanup 
actions; reviewing containment plans at facilities; reviewing 
area contingency plans; pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed 
cleanups; and conducting research of oil cleanup techniques. 
Funds for this appropriation are provided through the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund which is composed of fees and collections 
made through provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the 
Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act, the 
Deepwater Port Act of 1974, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act Amendments of 1978, and the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act as amended. Pursuant to law, the Trust Fund is managed by 
the United States Coast Guard.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for the oil spill 
response trust fund, $425,000 below the budget request and 
$113,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.

                   STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $3,877,387,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   3,231,800,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,886,550,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``State and tribal assistance grants'' account funds 
grants to support the State revolving fund programs; State, 
tribal, regional, and local environmental programs; and special 
projects to address critical water and waste water treatment 
needs.
    Included in this account are funds for the following 
infrastructure grant programs: Clean Water and Drinking Water 
State Revolving Funds; United States-Mexico Border Program; 
Alaska Native villages; Alaska Aboveground Storage Tanks; and 
Brownfield State and Tribal Response program grants authorized 
by CERCLA section 128(a).
    It also contains the following categorical environmental 
grants, State/tribal program grants, and assistance and 
capacity building grants: (1) air resource assistance to State, 
regional, local, and tribal governments (secs. 105 and 103 of 
the Clean Air Act); (2) radon State and Tribal grants; (3) 
water pollution control agency resource supplementation (sec. 
106 of the FWPCA); (4) BEACHS Protection grants (sec. 406 of 
FWPCA as amended); (5) nonpoint source (sec. 319 of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act); (6) wetlands State program 
development; (7) water quality cooperative agreements (sec. 
104(b)(3) of FWPCA; (8) targeted watershed grants; (9) 
wastewater operator training grants; (10) public water system 
supervision; (11) underground injection control; (12) drinking 
water program State homeland security coordination grants; (13) 
hazardous waste financial assistance; (14) Brownfields 
activities authorized by CERCLA section 104(k); (15) 
underground storage tanks; (16) pesticides program 
implementation; (17) lead grants; (18) toxic substances 
compliance; (19) pesticides enforcement; (20) the Environmental 
Information Exchange Network; (21) pollution prevention; (22) 
sector program; and (23) Indians general assistance grants.
    As with the case in past fiscal years, reprogramming 
requests associated with Performance Partnership Grants need 
not be submitted to the Committee for approval should such 
grants exceed the normal reprogramming limitations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,886,550,000 
for State and Tribal Assistance Grants, an increase of 
$654,750,000 above the budget request and $8,765,000 above the 
fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
    Bill language specifically provides funding levels for the 
following programs in this account:
      $1,350,000,000 for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan 
        Fund, which is the same as the 2004 level and an 
        increase of $500,000,000 above the budget request;
      $850,000,000 for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan 
        Fund, which is equal to the 2004 level and the budget 
        request;
      $50,000,000 for the United States-Mexico Border program, 
        which is equal to the budget request, and includes 
        $7,000,000 for the El Paso Public Utilities Board and 
        $2,000,000 for the City of Brownsville water supply 
        project;
      $50,000,000 for grants to address drinking water and 
        wastewater infrastructure needs in rural and native 
        Alaskan communities;
      $30,000,000 for competitive grants for planning, design, 
        engineering, and infrastructure improvements or 
        construction in order for drinking water facilities in 
        rural areas to meet the new EPA arsenic requirements;
      $4,000,000 for remediation of above ground leaking fuel 
        tanks in Alaska as authorized by Public Law 106-554; 
        and
      $90,000,000 for Brownfields infrastructure projects.
    Within the State and Tribal Categorical Grant program, the 
Committee recommends the following changes to the budget 
request:
      (1) $50,000,000 for Brownfields grants;
      (2) $20,000,000 for Environmental Information;
      (3) $215,000,000 for Non-point Source (Sec. 319) grants;
      (4) $210,000,000 for Pollution Control (Sec. 106) grants;
      (5) $5,000,000 for Pollution Prevention;
      (6) $102,500,000 for Public Water System Supervision 
        grants;
      (7) $7,000,000 for Radon grants;
      (8) $20,000,000 for making competitive Targeted 
        Watersheds grants. Within these funds, $10,000,000 is 
        for a regional pilot program for the Chesapeake Bay 
        that shall demonstrate effective non-point source 
        nutrient reduction approaches that target small 
        watersheds and accelerate nutrient reduction in 
        innovative, sustainable, and cost-effective ways. 
        Partners in the effort to protect the Bay include 
        Maryland; Pennsylvania; Virginia; the District of 
        Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state 
        legislative body; EPA, which represents the Federal 
        Government; and, participating citizen advisory groups;
      (9) $9,000,000 for Underground Injection Control grants;
      (10) $13,000,000 for Underground Storage Tanks;
      (11) $17,000,000 for Water Quality Cooperative 
        Agreements;
      (12) $15,000,000 for Wetlands Program Development; and
      (13) $11,000,000 for Tribal Air Quality Management.
    The Committee has not included funding for the following 
administration requests in this account: a special grant for 
drinking water improvements in Puerto Rico; the Clean School 
Bus Initiative; and, the State and Tribal Performance Fund.
    The Committee includes $117,000,000 for targeted project 
grants. These grants include a local match of 45 percent for 
all grants utilized unless a hardship waiver is provided by the 
EPA. The EPA is directed to expedite any request for a waiver 
and assist any communities that are likely to qualify for a 
waiver in processing such a request. The targeted project 
grants are as follows:
    $800,000 to the Coosa Valley Water Supply District for 
development of a surface water supply in St. Clair County, 
Alabama;
    $750,000 to the Utilities Board of the City of Helena for 
water and sewer upgrades and construction in Helena, Alabama;
    $600,000 to the Cleburne County Commission in Heflin, 
Alabama for county water expansion in Cleburne, County, 
Alabama;
    $600,000 to the Randolph County Commission in Wedowee, 
Alabama for county water expansion in Randolph County, Alabama;
    $450,000 to the Blount County Water Authority in Oneonta, 
Alabama for development of a county water supply line;
    $750,000 to the City of Fort Payne for water and sewer 
improvements in Fort Payne, Alabama;
    $250,000 to the West Morgan/East Lawrence Water and Sewer 
Authority in Decatur, Alabama for water and sewer improvements;
    $300,000 to the Lamar County Commission in Vernon, Alabama 
for the Lamar County Water Supply Project;
    $1,000,000 to Girdwood, Inc. for water and sewer expansion 
in Girdwood, Alaska;
    $1,300,000 to the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska for 
Sand Lake Water Extension;
    $300,000 for Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska for water 
wells for Gorsuch Lake;
    $1,100,000 for the City of Wasilla, Alaska for sewer 
expansion;
    $750,000 for the City of Valdez, Alaska to replace septic 
systems with sewers and wells with city water;
    $400,000 for the City of Ketchikan, Alaska for Mountain 
Point Sewer System;
    $250,000 for the City of Skagway, Alaska for water system 
upgrades;
    $425,000 for the City of Wrangell, Alaska for water and 
sewer upgrades;
    $800,000 for the City of Nome, Alaska for water and sewer 
upgrades for Old Federal Building;
    $600,000 for the City of Seldovia, Alaska for water and 
sewer upgrades;
    $600,000 for the Fort Chafee Redevelopment Authority in 
Barling/Fort Smith, Arkansas for water infrastructure 
improvements;
    $250,000 for City of Fayetteville, Arkansas for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $300,000 for the Santa Clara Valley Water District, 
California for perchlorate groundwater clean-up;
    $300,000 for the Inland Empire Perchlorate Task Force in 
California for the Wellhead Treatment of Perchlorate 
Contaminated Wells;
    $400,000 for the City Santa Ana, California for East and 
West Reservoir Upgrades;
    $500,000 for the City of San Jose, California for North San 
Pedro water and sewer infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Eureka, California for the Martin 
Slough Interceptor Project;
    $200,000 for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
California for the City of Ontario Final Design for Wellhead 
Treatment for Perchlorate and Nitrate;
    $400,000 for the City of Laguna Beach for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $700,000 for the City of Ouray, Colorado for water 
infrastructure improvement;
    $300,000 for the City of Trinidad, Colorado for the 
Trinidad Wastewater Improvement Project;
    $250,000 for the Town of Bayfield, Colorado for the 
construction of a water storage tank;
    $250,000 for the Mancos Water Conservancy District, Mancos, 
Colorado for water supply facility renovation;
    $250,000 for the Town of Idaho Springs, Colorado for water 
distribution facility renovation;
    $250,000 for the Town of Eldorado Springs, Colorado for 
improving wastewater treatment;
    $250,000 for the Town of Ouray, Colorado for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for Jefferson County, Colorado for stormwater 
collection system improvements;
    $300,000 for the City of Bristol, Connecticut for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $300,000 for the Town of East Hampton, Connecticut for 
drinking water infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for Stamford, Connecticut for a waste-to-energy 
project;
    $250,000 for the City of Wilmington, Delaware for 
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for the Town of Ocean View, Delaware for 
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $300,000 for Key West, Florida for stormwater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $300,000 for South Florida Management District for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for the Southwest Florida Water Management 
District in Tampa, Florida for the Tampa Bay Regional Reclaimed 
Water project;
    $250,000 to City of Atlanta, Georgia for the west area 
combined sewer project;
    $250,000 to City of Eatonton, Georgia for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 to City of Forsyth, Georgia for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for the State of Hawaii for upgrade and expansion 
of the Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant;
    $1,000,000 for the County of Maui, Hawaii for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $2,000,000 for the City of Burley, Idaho, to continue work 
on a Wastewater Treatment System Project;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Pocatello, Idaho, for Day Street 
Division Water System Improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Effingham, Illinois for drinking 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Monmouth, Illinois for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the Village of Olympia Fields, Illinois for 
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the Village of Franklin Park, Illinois for 
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $600,000 for the City of Marion, Indiana for the Marion 
Water Loop and Deer Creek Project;
    $400,000 for the City of Marion, Indiana, for the Marion 
Water Loop and Deer Creek Storm Water Project;
    $100,000 for the City of Southport, Southport/Marion 
County, Indiana for downtown infrastructure and drainage 
improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Fort Madison, Iowa for the Water 
Treatment Plant Improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of West Burlington for the Iowa Army 
Ammunition Plant Improvements;
    $1,500,000 for the City of Ottumwa, Iowa for the separation 
of combined sewers;
    $500,000 for the City of Davenport, Iowa for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Abilene, Kansas for construction 
of a wastewater treatment plant;
    $1,500,000 for the City of Hutchinson, Kansas for 
groundwater remediation and treatment projects;
    $1,750,000 for the City of Bowling Green, Kentucky, for the 
South Central Kentucky Water Infrastructure Project;
    $750,000 for the Hardin County Water District No. 2 in 
Hardin County, Kentucky for a Water Quality Assurance Plan and 
System Improvements Projects;
    $500,000 for the City of Elkton, Kentucky, for the City of 
Elkton Sewer Plant Expansion and Sewer Line Extension Project;
    $250,000 for Breckinridge County, Kentucky for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for Bullitt County, Kentucky for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for Calloway County, Kentucky for the City of 
Hazel Wastewater System;
    $250,000 for Cadiz-Trigg County, Kentucky for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for Marshall County, Kentucky for drinking water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for the City of Nicholasville, Kentucky for the 
Bluegrass Water Consortium Drinking Water Project;
    $600,000 for Rapides Parish, Louisiana for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $400,000 for St. Charles Parish, Louisiana for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $400,000 for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana for water and 
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $400,000 for the City of Bastrop, Louisiana for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $400,000 for the City of Hammond, Louisiana for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $400,000 for the City of Grand Isle, Louisiana for drinking 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $450,000 for the Greater Limestone Wastewater Treatment 
Facilities in Maine to consolidate and replace antiquated 
wastewater collection and treatment facilities at the Loring 
Development Authority [LDA] and Caribou Utilities District 
[CUD];
    $250,000 for the Indian Township Tribal Government in Maine 
for the first phase for expansion of current lagoon system to 
provide adequate capacity;
    $300,000 for the Town of Machias, Maine for replacement of 
sewers and completion of deficiencies at existing aging 
wastewater treatment plant;
    $250,000 for Chesapeake Beach, Maryland, for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for Indian Head, Maryland, for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for Elkton, Maryland, for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for Hurlock, Maryland, for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $750,000 for Kent Island, Maryland, for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for Easton, Maryland, for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $750,000 for Cumberland, Maryland, for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for Frostburg, Maryland, for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for Brunswick, Maryland, for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for the Bristol County, Massachusetts for the 
Bristol County Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Project;
    $250,000 for the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission in 
Massachusetts for combined sewer overflow abatement in the 
Connecticut River;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Benton Harbor, Michigan for 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for Seney Township, Michigan for sewer 
infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Saginaw, Michigan for sewer 
infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the Macomb County Department of Public 
Works, Michigan for sewer infrastructure improvements;
    $150,000 to Minnesota State University in Moorhead for 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $300,000 to the City of Duluth, Minnesota for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $300,000 to the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota for combined 
sewer overflow improvements;
    $250,000 for the City of Duluth and Western Lake Superior 
Sanitary District in Duluth, Minnesota for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for Tchula, Mississippi for water and sewer 
infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Brookhaven, Mississippi for 
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 to the City of Sherman, Mississippi for water and 
sewer infrastructure improvements;
    $1,300,000 to the City of Oxford, Mississippi for water and 
sewer infrastructure improvements;
    $750,000 to Forrest County, Mississippi for water and sewer 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 to the Town of French Camp, Mississippi for water 
and sewer infrastructure improvements;
    $1,500,000 to Swope Community Builders in Kansas City, 
Missouri for the Brush Creek Neighborhood Strategy Area 
Redevelopment Initiative in Missouri;
    $687,500 to the City of Joplin, Missouri for the final 
phase of the Crossroads Parallel Sewer project;
    $1,312,500 to the City of Milan, Missouri for the Milan 
Water Quality Treatment Project;
    $1,000,000 to the Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water 
Commission to expand the existing water treatment capacity from 
5 million gallons to 7.5 million gallons per day and to include 
connecting the Macon County PWSD #1 and the City of Wellsville, 
Missouri to the CCWWC transmission system;
    $1,000,000 to the Environmental Resources Coalition in 
Missouri to mitigate point source pollution issues in 
distressed communities that border Table Rock Lake;
    $1,000,000 to the City of Springfield, Missouri for 
wastewater treatment plant improvements including the design 
and construction of infrastructure for removal of nitrogen from 
the treated wastewater effluent and improved anaerobic digester 
facilities that treat solids from the wastewater;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Bozeman, Montana, for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the Missouri River Water Project, Helena, 
Montana for a water treatment project;
    $500,000 for the City of Glasgow, Montana for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the Town of Seeley Lake, Montana for 
wastewater system improvements;
    $250,000 for Seely Lake, Montana for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $650,000 for the City of Omaha, Nebraska for the 
construction of combined sewer separation systems;
    $350,000 for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska to upgrade the 
Theresa Street and Northeast Wastewater Treatment plants;
    $250,000 for the City of Omaha, Nebraska for combined sewer 
separation;
    $400,000 for Las Vegas Valley Water District/Searchlight, 
Nevada for water infrastructure improvements;
    $400,000 for Clark County Reclamation District/Searchlight, 
Nevada for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for the City of Reno, Nevada for sewer 
infrastructure improvements;
    $300,000 for the Spanish Springs Nitrate Removal Project in 
Nevada;
    $200,000 for the North Valley Lemmon Artificial Recharge 
Project in North Lemmon Valley, Nevada for water infrastructure 
improvements;
    $250,000 for the Virgin Valley Water District, Nevada for 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $200,000 for Carson City, Nevada for reservoir lining;
    $400,000 for the Berlin Waterworks in Berlin, New Hampshire 
for drinking water distribution system improvements;
    $400,000 for the Nashua Combined Sewer Overflow project in 
Nashua, New Hampshire for CSO treatment and abatement;
    $400,000 for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental 
Services to develop a septage treatment facility based at the 
wastewater treatment facility in Franklin, New Hampshire;
    $200,000 for Troy, New Hampshire for a wastewater and water 
improvement program;
    $400,000 for the Manchester Combined Sewer Overflow project 
in Manchester, New Hampshire;
    $200,000 for the Rochester, New Hampshire Route 108 sewer 
line extension;
    $150,000 for Somersworth, New Hampshire for the sewerage 
improvement program to provide upgrades to the wastewater 
treatment plant;
    $200,000 for Bristol, New Hampshire for wastewater system 
improvements;
    $150,000 for Milton, New Hampshire for a water storage tank 
replacement project;
    $600,000 for Town of Exeter, New Hampshire for water 
treatment plant replacement;
    $200,000 for City of Berlin, New Hampshire for water system 
distribution improvements;
    $500,000 for the Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills in New 
Jersey for water infrastructure improvements;
    $1,250,000 for the City of Bayonne, New Jersey for water 
and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $1,600,000 for the City of Albuquerque and County of 
Bernalillo, New Mexico, for the Valley Utilities Project;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Espanola, New Mexico, for water 
and wastewater treatment infrastructure;
    $900,000 for the City of Kirtland, New Mexico, for Phase 1 
of a sewer system project;
    $500,000 for the Village of Los Lunas, New Mexico, for the 
interceptor sewer line project;
    $250,000 for the City of Clovis, New Mexico for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $400,000 for the Town of Babylon, New York for the Oak 
Beach Park Stormwater Management Project;
    $300,000 for Orange County Water Authority, Goshen, New 
York for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $300,000 for the Town of Plattsburg, New York for 
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for Washington County North Carolina Sewer 
Improvements;
    $600,000 for the City of Mooresville, North Carolina for 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Grafton, North Dakota for the 
Grafton Water Treatment Plant;
    $500,000 for the City of Devils Lake, North Dakota for 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for the City of Riverdale, North Dakota for the 
Riverdale Regional Water Treatment Facility;
    $250,000 for Dickey Rural Water Users Association in 
Southeast, North Dakota for the Southeast Regional Expansion 
Project;
    $250,000 for the City of Mandan, North Dakota for drinking 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $300,000 for the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, 
Carroll County, Ohio for the Atwood Conference Center Water 
Treatment Plant Improvements;
    $500,000 for the Village of Racine, Meigs County, Ohio for 
water treatment plant improvements;
    $750,000 for the City of Celina, Ohio for the Water 
Treatment Plant Project;
    $400,000 for City of Akron, Ohio for Combined Sewer 
Overflow Improvements Project;
    $300,000 for City of Parma, Ohio for City Sewer Replacement 
Project;
    $200,000 for Defiance County Commissioners, Defiance and 
Paulding Counties, Ohio for Auglaize River Sewer Project;
    $175,000 for Jefferson County Water and Sewer District, 
Jefferson County, Ohio for Crestview/Belvedere Sewer Project;
    $175,000 for Tri-County Rural Water and Sewer District, 
Washington, Morgan and Noble Counties, Ohio for Tri-County/
Noble County Water Interconnect Project;
    $100,000 for City of Delphos, Allen, Putnam and Van Wert 
Counties, Ohio for Tri-County Regional Water System Project;
    $100,000 for Village of Corning, Ohio for Wastewater System 
Improvements Project;
    $250,000 for City of Warrenton, Oregon for continued work 
on the municipal water outfall;
    $250,000 for City of Rainier, Oregon for a wastewater 
treatment plant;
    $250,000 for City of Coquille, Oregon for a wastewater 
treatment plant;
    $250,000 for Klamath Falls, Oregon for preliminary work on 
wastewater treatment improvements;
    $300,000 for the City of Coburg, Oregon for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $300,000 for the City of Rainier, Oregon for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $200,000 for the Municipality of Penn Hills, Pennsylvania, 
for the Madison Avenue Storm Sewer Project;
    $200,000 for the Nesquehoning Borough Authority, Carbon 
County, Pennsylvania, for a water main replacement;
    $200,000 for the Mercer County Regional Council of 
Governments, Pennsylvania, for the Shenango Valley Sewer/Water 
Improvement Project;
    $200,000 for the Berwick Industrial Development 
Association, Berwick, Pennsylvania, for the sanitary storm 
water system;
    $200,000 for the City of Johnstown, Pennsylvania for water 
and sewer improvements at the Point Stadium multi-use facility;
    $1,500,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration 
program in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to develop 
innovative, cost-effective solutions to assist municipalities 
to eliminate sewer overflows;
    $250,000 for the Derry Township Municipal Authority in 
Hershey, Pennsylvania for wastewater treatment plant upgrades;
    $250,000 for the Mercer County Sanitary Sewer and Water 
Treatment project in the City of Hermitage, City of Sharon, and 
Borough of Sharpsville, Pennsylvania;
    $250,000 for the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for the Newport Borough Sewer Authority in 
Newport, Pennsylvania for storm and sewer water separation;
    $250,000 for the York City Sewer Authority in York, 
Pennsylvania for wastewater collection system improvements;
    $250,000 for Pocono Township in Tannersville, Pennsylvania 
for the Route 611 Corridor sewer line construction;
    $250,000 to the Shannock Water District, Rhode Island for 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 to the Lincoln Water Commission, Rhode Island for 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 to the Pawtucket Water Supply Board, Rhode Island 
for water infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 to the Town of North Kingstown, Rhode Island for 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the Narragansett Bay Commission, Rhode 
Island for combined sewer overflow infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Newport, Rhode Island for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the Town of Warren, Rhode Island for sewer 
infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for Charleston CPW, Charleston, South Carolina for 
a Wastewater Tunnel Replacement Project;
    $250,000 for Kershaw County, Kershaw, South Carolina for 
the I-20 Corridor Infrastructure Project-Waste Water Treatment 
Plant Expansion;
    $800,000 for the Chester Sewer District, South Carolina for 
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for Kershaw County, South Carolina for 
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $1,500,000 for the City of Huron, South Dakota for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $600,000 for the Green Valley Sanitary District, South 
Dakota for water infrastructure improvements;
    $400,000 for the City of Tyndal, South Dakota for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $300,000 for Milbank, South Dakota, for wastewater 
infrastructure improvements;
    $300,000 for Sisseton, South Dakota, for stormwater 
improvements;
    $750,000 for the City of Pikeville and Bledsoe County, 
Pikeville, Tennessee for water infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the Watauga River Regional Water Authority, 
Carter County, Tennessee for planning and construction of 
regional water infrastructure facilities;
    $750,000 for the Walden's Ridge Water System, Hamilton 
County, Tennessee for water infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the San Antonio Water System, Texas for water 
infrastructure improvements at KellyUSA;
    $650,000 for the Lower Rio Grande Morillo Drain 
Rehabilitation project in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas;
    $800,000 for the Canyon Lakes Water Reuse Project in 
Lubbock, Texas for construction related costs to with the water 
system infrastructure;
    $350,000 for the Abilene Brekenridge Reservoir project in 
Abilene, Texas for drinking water infrastructure;
    $400,000 for the Pharr Wastewater Collection System in 
Pharr, Texas to update the wastewater system infrastructure;
    $300,000 for the City of Brekenridge, Texas wastewater and 
sewer infrastructure project;
    $500,000 for the City of Hillsboro, Texas wastewater and 
sewer infrastructure project;
    $1,250,000 for the Town of Colchester, Vermont for 
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the Town of Waitsfield, Vermont for 
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $400,000 for the Fairfax County Water Authority, Virginia 
for the drinking water infrastructure improvements associated 
with the Electric Reliability project;
    $300,000 for Caroline County, Virginia for the Dawn 
Wastewater Treatment project;
    $400,000 for the City of Norfolk, Virginia for the Norfolk 
Sewer and Water Infrastructure Replacement;
    $300,000 for the City of Holladay, Utah, for water 
infrastructure improvements associated with the Wayman Storm 
Drain Project;
    $500,000 for the Magna Water Company an Improvement 
District, Magna, Utah, for water infrastructure improvements 
associated with the perchlorate & arsenic treatment plant;
    $400,000 for the City of Logan, Utah for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $400,000 for Park City, Utah for water infrastructure 
improvements associated with the Judge and Spiro Tunnel 
treatment plant;
    $400,000 for the City of Riverton, Utah for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $400,000 for the City of Orem, Utah for water 
infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for Sandy City, Utah for water infrastructure 
improvements;
    $100,000 for the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, 
Utah for the Groundwater Extraction and Treatment Remedial 
Project;
    $500,000 for Sandy City, Utah for drinking water and storm 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $400,000 for the City of Battle Ground, Washington for 
sewer infrastructure improvements;
    $750,000 for the Port of Walla Walla, Washington for the 
Burbank Water System improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Kennewick, Washington for drinking 
water infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for Skamania County Public Utilities District in 
Carson, Washington for water infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for Squaxin Island Tribe in Shelton, Washington 
for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 
in Wisconsin for sewer infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Racine, Wisconsin for water 
infrastructure improvements; and
    $600,000 for the City of Sun Prairie, Wisconsin for water 
and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
    The Committee includes a total of $140,000,000 for 
Brownfields activities within this account. These funds augment 
funding of $25,000,000 included in the Environmental Programs 
and Management account for fiscal year 2005, a total of 
$165,000,000 for EPA Brownfields program.
    The Committee has included bill language, as carried in 
previous appropriations acts, to clarify that drinking water 
health effects studies are to be funded through the science and 
technology account.
    The Committee has also included bill language, as requested 
by the administration and as carried in previous appropriations 
acts, to: (1) permanently extend the authority for States to 
transfer funds between the Clean Water SRF and the Drinking 
Water SRF; (2) waive the one-third of 1 percent cap on the 
Tribal set aside from non-point source grants; (3) increase to 
1.5 percent the cap on the Tribal set-aside for the Clean Water 
SRF; (4) require that any funds provided to address the water 
infrastructure needs of colonias within the United States along 
the United States-Mexico border be spent only in areas where 
the local governmental entity has established an enforceable 
ordinance or rule which prevents additional development within 
colonias that lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary 
infrastructure; and (5) change the limitation on the amounts of 
the SRF a state can use for administration.
    The Committee believes that public health officials, 
mosquito control districts, irrigation districts, farmers, 
ranchers, and foresters who lawfully apply herbicides, 
pesticides, insecticides, and fire retardants--to safeguard 
production of food and fiber, protect life, property and 
habitat, limit the spread of West Nile virus, and combat 
invasive weeds--should not be limited from conducting these 
essential activities by uncertain Federal regulation. The 
Committee urges EPA to finalize existing EPA guidance of July 
11 and September 3, 2003 on pesticide and fire retardant use, 
and further to maintain and clarify the long standing 
distinction between the many agriculture and silviculture 
activities that do or do not require permits. The Committee 
expects EPA to complete these actions by December 2004.
    In addition, the Committee directs the EPA not to use any 
of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this 
Act to make a direct assistance grant to a national association 
or group of associations whose membership includes State 
program administrators without such association or group of 
associations first obtaining written approval from each member 
State. If one or more member States do not give their advance 
approval, EPA may make the direct assistance grants to the 
association with an amount deducted from the total available 
direct assistance grant amount based on the States' population 
as a percentage of the total membership's population times the 
available amount and direct those deducted funds to the 
individual States.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    The Committee has included bill language, as proposed in 
the budget request and as carried in previous appropriations 
acts, permitting EPA, in carrying out environmental programs 
required or authorized by law in the absence of an acceptable 
tribal program, to use cooperative agreements with federally-
recognized tribes and inter-tribal consortia.
    The bill includes a provision to extend eligibility to 
Brownfields sites that were purchased prior to the enactment of 
the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfield 
Revitalization Act of 2001.
    The bill also includes a provision that allows EPA to 
permit the use of funds for reasonable administrative costs.
    The Committee has included bill language allowing personnel 
authority for the Office of Research and Development.
    The bill includes a provision instructing the EPA to submit 
clearer budget justifications.
    The Committee includes language authorizing the EPA to 
collect and obligate pesticide registration service fees in 
accordance with section 33 of the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended.
    The bill includes a provision that makes several technical 
corrections to a provision in the fiscal year 2004 bill 
regarding regulation of small engines under the Clean Air Act.

                   Executive Office of the President

                OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $6,986,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       7,081,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,081,000

                          program description

    The Office of Science and Technology Policy [OSTP] was 
created by the National Science and Technology Policy, 
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-282) 
and coordinates science and technology policy for the White 
House. OSTP provides authoritative scientific and technological 
information, analysis, and advice for the President, for the 
executive branch, and for Congress; participates in 
formulation, coordination, and implementation of national and 
international policies and programs that involve science and 
technology; maintains and promotes the health and vitality of 
the U.S. science and technology infrastructure; reviews and 
analyzes, with the Office of Management and Budget, the 
research and development budgets for all Federal agencies; and 
coordinates research and development efforts of the Federal 
Government to maximize the return on the public's investment in 
science and technology and to ensure Federal resources are used 
efficiently and appropriately.
    OSTP provides support for the National Science and 
Technology Council [NSTC].

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,081,000 for 
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This amount is the 
same as the budget request and $95,000 above the fiscal year 
2004 enacted level.
    The Committee believes the President's Science Advisor 
should continue to play an integral role in advising the 
President on the appropriate balance among and between 
disciplines and agencies in the Federal R&D portfolio. The 
Committee also expects the Science Advisor will conduct 
effective outreach to the science and engineering community and 
be an active and influential advisor to the President on 
important public policy issues grounded in science and 
technology.
    The Committee notes that the Government share for R&D 
funding has declined substantially over the last 15 years. 
However, industry's dependence on public R&D for innovation 
remains very high. Nearly three quarters of U.S. industry 
patents cite publicly funded science as the basis for the 
invention. The Committee is concerned that further reductions 
in public funding for science and engineering could result in a 
decrease in the private sector's capacity to innovate.
    The Committee is also concerned about the adequacy of this 
Nation's scientific and technical workforce, and the efforts 
needed to boost the participation of women and minorities in 
the science and engineering workforce. The Committee urges OSTP 
to work with the relevant agencies on the development of 
policies and in the allocation of resources to address these 
issues effectively.
    The Committee reiterates its long standing interest in 
improving coordination and cooperation among the various R&D 
agencies under the auspices of OSTP and the National Science 
and Technology Council [NSTC].
    The Committee directs OSTP to contract with the National 
Academy of Science to assess the cost and manner in which all 
Federally funded agencies and entities award and pay science 
grants and stipends. OSTP and the Academy are directed to 
consult with the Committee on this assessment.

  Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $3,219,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       3,284,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,284,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Council on Environmental Quality/Office of 
Environmental Quality was established by the National 
Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Quality 
Improvement Act of 1970. The Council serves as a source of 
environmental expertise and policy analysis for the White 
House, Executive Office of the President, and other Federal 
agencies. CEQ promulgates regulations binding on all Federal 
agencies to implement the procedural provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and resolves interagency environmental 
disputes informally and through issuance of findings and 
recommendations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $3,284,000 for the Council on 
Environmental Quality, an increase of $65,000 above the fiscal 
year 2004 enacted level and equal to the budget request. The 
Committee directs CEQ to provide quarterly reports on all 
ongoing activities, including use of detailees and agency 
representatives.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $30,125,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      30,125,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,625,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $30,625,000 for the FDIC inspector 
general, an increase of $500,000 over the budget request and 
the fiscal year 2004 level. Funds are to be derived by transfer 
from the bank insurance fund, the savings association insurance 
fund, and the FSLIC resolution fund.
    The Committee is concerned that the administration has not 
provided the necessary financial support that is needed to 
ensure that the FDIC IG can continue to meet the high standards 
that it has demonstrated in the past with regard to audits, 
investigations and oversight. These are valuable contributions 
that emphasize the integrity of the FDIC's efforts in 
maintaining stability and public confidence in the Nation's 
banking system. Without additional funds as provided by the 
Committee, this will be the ninth consecutive year that the 
FDIC IG budgets have decreased after adjusting for inflation. 
This means that the FDIC IG will be forced to downsize its 
staffing and lose valuable and needed expertise.

                    General Services Administration

                FEDERAL CITIZEN INFORMATION CENTER FUND

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $13,918,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      14,907,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,907,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $14,907,000 for the Federal 
Citizen Information Center, an increase of $990,000 above the 
fiscal year 2004 enacted level and equal to the budget request.
    The appropriation will be augmented by a projected $706,000 
reimbursements from Federal agencies for distribution of 
consumer publications, user fees from the public, and other 
income. FCIC's anticipated resources for fiscal year 2005 will 
total approximately $15,613,000.
    As FCIC responsibilities continue to expand to serve better 
the public within this recently established GSA organization, 
the Committee emphasizes that the funds appropriated from this 
account are solely available for FCIC staffing and activities 
to achieve its core mission as presented to and approved by the 
Committee.

           United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $1,491,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       1,500,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the United States 
Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH], the same level as 
the budget request and $9,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level. These funds are for carrying out the functions 
authorized under section 203 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act.
    The Committee fully supports the ongoing work of the ICH to 
develop a comprehensive and coordinated strategy for ending and 
preventing homelessness. To that end, the Committee supports 
the ICH's efforts to work with local and State governments in 
developing and implementing performance based, results oriented 
strategic plans to end chronic homelessness in 10 years. In 
developing the 10-year plans, the Committee strongly urges the 
ICH to assist the local and State governments in developing 
clear and detailed business plans that outline the sources of 
public and non-public sources to achieve the goal of ending 
chronic homelessness in 10 years.
    Further, while the administration has taken some positive 
steps towards ending chronic homelessness such as proposing a 
new Samaritan Initiative, the Committee needs a clear sense of 
how the administration intends to achieve its goal of ending 
chronic homelessness. Accordingly, the Committee directs the 
ICH to submit a plan on how the Federal Government will achieve 
the goal of ending chronic homelessness in 10 years. This plan 
should include details on the specific funding commitments, 
roles and responsibilities of all of the member agencies of the 
Council, and the incentives, requirements and resources needed 
to achieve its goal.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appropriations, 2004.................................... $15,378,248,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................  16,244,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  15,579,500,000

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 
was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 
1958 to conduct space and aeronautical research, development, 
and flight activities for peaceful purposes designed to 
maintain U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space. NASA's 
unique mission of exploration, discovery, and innovation is 
intended to preserve the United States' role as both a leader 
in world aviation and as the pre-eminent space-faring Nation. 
It is NASA's mission to: advance human exploration, use and 
development of space; advance and communicate scientific 
knowledge and understanding of the Earth, the Solar System and 
the Universe; and research, develop, verify and transfer 
advanced aeronautics and space technologies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $15,579,500,000 for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2005, an 
increase of $201,252,000 above fiscal year 2004, and a decrease 
of $664,500,000 below the President's request.
    Early this year the President announced a vision to return 
man to the Moon and eventually to Mars. This vision has 
provided an overall direction for NASA. Such a Presidential 
vision has been missing from NASA for many years. While many 
programs at NASA have been working, in some cases 
exceptionally, a comprehensive initiative to orient the mission 
of NASA has been lacking. The Committee is supportive of the 
vision, but has reservations about the low level of details 
provided in the fiscal year 2005 budget request on how this 
vision will be accomplished.
    The Committee has modified the account structure as 
proposed under the budget request of NASA. The Committee has 
transferred the appropriate activities to reflect the two newly 
created accounts of Exploration, Science and Aeronautics, and 
Exploration Capabilities. Exploration, Science and Aeronautics 
will contain the enterprises of Space Science, Earth Science, 
Biological and Physical Research, Aeronautics, and Education. 
The Exploration Capabilities account will contain the funding 
for the International Space Station [ISS], Space Shuttle, Human 
and Robotic Technology, Transportation Systems, and Space 
Flight Support. The account of the Office of the Inspector 
General will remain unchanged. These account revisions are 
being made to accommodate NASA's new vision.
    By providing a vision, the President has prompted a 
discussion about what NASA could do, or should be doing. The 
budget NASA has presented to the Committee outlines the plan 
for implementing the vision, yet does not provide sufficient 
details for the technical and scientific goals to be reached by 
embracing the vision. The Committee understands that as any 
plan moves forward, particularly in an area of high risk such 
as space, that adjustments in time and budget will be 
necessary. However, a sufficient framework must be established 
prior to embarking on a path that may ultimately cost hundreds 
of billions of dollars.
    NASA's new vision maps out an aggressive role for the 
United States in both manned and unmanned space exploration. 
However, the potential out-year costs are substantial and will 
likely be very difficult to sustain. In addition, the Committee 
believes that there must be a commitment to those activities at 
NASA that are already underway. The Shuttle program and the 
construction of the ISS continue to be the primary focus of the 
Nation's manned space flight activities. Nevertheless, the 
Committee believes that a replacement for the Space Shuttle's 
manned and heavy lift capabilities must be considered as part 
of any plan for continued human access to space.
    The Committee is concerned that the current implementation 
plans for the new vision do not properly address the 
requirements and development for the heavy lift capability that 
may be necessary to carry out the proposed vision. A complete 
review of such plans must be conducted prior to embarking fully 
upon the implementation of the proposed vision. In order to 
assess heavy lift capability needs, NASA shall report to the 
Committee, no later than 6 months from the enactment of the 
appropriations act which accompanies this report, regarding 
NASA's heavy lift capability needs and long-term plans. NASA is 
encouraged to look at concepts currently being developed in the 
Falcon program with DARPA that could have an impact on future 
heavy lift program development.
    NASA has the opportunity to lay the groundwork for a 
successful implementation of the proposed vision. The current 
budget justification does not provide the details the Committee 
expects to see for such a dramatic undertaking. The Committee 
expects NASA to take initial steps for implementing the vision 
in fiscal year 2005, and to provide year-by-year budgetary and 
developmental goals related to the vision for the next 5 years, 
along with 10-year summary budget totals, in the fiscal year 
2006 request.
    NASA has presented a timeframe for the retirement of the 
Shuttle program which assumes an end in the program around 
2010. This timeframe is essential if resources are to be 
available for the Crew Exploration Vehicle [CEV] in order to 
meet a potential Moon mission between 2015 and 2020. If there 
are delays in the Shuttle program that push retirement beyond 
2010, then funds for CEV development will also be delayed. At a 
time when the Shuttle fleet continues to be grounded, the 
Committee feels that the schedule NASA has presented is overly 
ambitious and optimistic.
    As part of the proposed exploration vision, NASA will begin 
to phase-out existing programs in order to accommodate the 
vision. These plans must be clearly identified in order for 
NASA to smoothly transition older programs to make way for 
missions associated with the vision. As part of this process, 
the Committee directs NASA to include in all future budget 
justifications the phase-out schedules and any out-year 
termination dates of its programs.
    The current Federal fiscal environment is not favorable to 
supporting completely the budget NASA has presented for fiscal 
year 2005. The out-year costs also seem overly optomistic at 
time when both the administration and Congress are committed to 
reducing the Federal budget deficit. However, steps toward 
laying the foundation of future NASA initiatives must be taken 
in order for there to be a future for many NASA activities once 
the Shuttle program is retired and the International Space 
Station is completed.
    The Committee is also concerned that NASA will neglect 
areas that will only tangentially benefit from, or that do not 
fit within, the proposed vision. Within the fiscal year 2005 
budget request, programs and infrastructure are proposed to be 
deferred, or cancelled, in such areas. These programs appear to 
be the sacrifices for the near-term budgetary resources needed 
to facilitate the implementation of the new Moon/Mars vision.
    The new national space policy to proceed with human and 
robotic exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond has profound 
implications for all of the science conducted by NASA. While 
the Committee applauds those goals, it is concerned that the 
strong, balanced science program that has served the Nation so 
successfully for many years should be nurtured and sustained as 
the new policy is implemented. That science program has been 
based on a set of carefully crafted scientific strategies that 
are founded on scientific and technical merit, relevance to 
overall national needs, and broad consultation with the 
scientific community via the National Academy of Sciences. 
Consequently, the Committee directs the National Academies' 
Space Studies Board to conduct a thorough review of the science 
that NASA is proposing to undertake under the new policy and to 
develop a strategy by which all of NASA's science disciplines, 
including Earth science, space science, and life and 
microgravity science, can make adequate progress towards their 
established goals, as well as providing scientific research in 
support of the new policy. Further, the Committee is troubled 
by the abrupt and seemingly unilateral decision to alter the 
science conducted aboard the ISS to focus solely on biological 
and physiological research without any consultation with or 
authorization by Congress. As part of the scientific review, 
the National Academy of Sciences shall also consider the new 
direction of research proposed by NASA on the ISS and whether 
it is compatible with the overall national research needs 
identified in past Academy reports. In addition, the Committee 
directs NASA to report to the Committee on Appropriations on 
whether this change in focus should require a change in the 
overall requirements for the completion of the ISS. An amount 
of $250,000 is appropriated for this purpose. The Space Studies 
Board report should be available in time for Congressional 
consideration of the fiscal year 2006 Appropriation for NASA. 
Prior to receipt and consideration of the report, NASA is 
directed to maintain a balanced science program that follows 
priorities that have been recommended by the National Academy 
of Sciences and agreed to by Congress.
    It has been over 1 year since the Columbia tragedy, which 
has led to adjustments to both the shuttle program and the 
International Space Station [ISS]. The current plan assumes 
that the shuttle program will resume flight operations in March 
2005 if all things go according to schedule. The Committee 
understands that these programs, as well as many others, pose 
very difficult and technological challenges for NASA and can 
become subject to delay. Nevertheless, where there are delays 
in programs and activities, NASA often ends up paying 
additional costs to maintain the skilled workforce to protect 
the institutional memory of the delayed program or activity, 
regardless of the reason for the delay. These costs associated 
with maintaining the workforce will continue to cut into the 
resources available for other programs at NASA and into program 
reserves. NASA should review these effects and determine if 
there is a more effective method for dealing with such 
circumstances in the future.
    Finally, for fiscal year 2005 and each year thereafter, the 
Committee directs NASA to include the out-year budget impacts 
on all reprogramming requests. The operating plan and all 
resubmissions also shall include a separate accounting of all 
program/mission reserves.
    The Committee remains concerned that NASA needs to reform 
its contracting process to ensure timely delivery of both 
services and hardware. The Committee directs the NASA Inspector 
General to issue a list of contracting ``trouble'' areas with 
recommendations to address these areas. The Committee 
understands that this is no easy project, but expects NASA and 
the NASA IG to respond to these concerns with a package of 
proposed contracting reforms that can begin to be implemented 
in fiscal year 2005. The Committee also is concerned that NASA 
does too much sole source contracting and that sole source 
contracting can stifle competition and discourage new 
investment in space-related activities. The Committee directs 
NASA to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations each intention by NASA to enter into a sole 
source contract no later than 10 days before a contract is let; 
this requirement shall apply to all contract modifications of 
more than $500,000 where a new contractor is involved or a new 
activity is added to an existing contract.

                        EXPLORATION CAPABILITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $7,467,884,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   8,526,400,000
Committee recommendation................................   7,811,100,000

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    NASA's ``Exploration Capabilities'' [EC] account provides 
for the full costs associated with the capabilities that 
support Agency research, which consist of the Exploration 
Systems and Space Flight Enterprises. The full costs include 
both the direct and the indirect costs supporting these 
programs, and provide for all of the research; development; 
operations; salaries and related expenses; design, repair, 
rehabilitation, and modification of facilities and construction 
of new facilities; maintenance and operation of existing 
facilities; and other general and administrative activities 
supporting Exploration Capabilities programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $7,811,100,000 for the Space 
Flight Capabilities account. This amount is $715,300,000 below 
the President's request for these activities in fiscal year 
2005 and $343,216,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
    The Committee has included an additional $500,000,000 in 
emergency funding for the Space Shuttle to implement the 
recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board 
and other costs associated with return to flight activities.
    Space Shuttle.--The Committee continues to believe that 
there is no higher priority than improving the safety and 
reliability of the remaining Shuttle orbiters. The Shuttle 
remains the cornerstone of our Nation's heavy launch capability 
and is critical to the future of the International Space 
Station [ISS] and scientific research. The future of the ISS, 
and other U.S. manned space flight missions for the rest of the 
decade are contingent upon having a working Shuttle fleet that 
is safe and reliable throughout the remaining years of the 
shuttle program. The Committee is concerned that as the Shuttle 
and the Shuttle infrastructure continue to age, further 
challenges in operating the fleet may arise.
    The Committee remains committed to the continued safety of 
the Shuttle program as its highest priority. It is of paramount 
importance that there be transparency in all documentation of 
shuttle safety provided to the Committee, and that this 
information contain details of NASA's current, and future, 
safety efforts.
    The Committee recommends that funding for the Shuttle be 
$4,319,200,000, the same as the level within the request of the 
administration. This will allow NASA to have funds readily 
available to make a return to flight as soon, and as safely as 
possible. More importantly, the shuttle funds that are provided 
within this account are dedicated solely to shuttle funding 
needs. If necessary, NASA may only seek additional funds by 
transfer from other activities within the Exploration 
Capabilities account.
    The Committee also directs NASA to keep the Committee 
informed, in writing, of any reprogramming of funds related to 
the shuttle program, as well as including the out-year impacts 
on all activities involved in the reprogramming.
    Finally, the Committee expects regular consultations by 
NASA on all proposed changes to investments in the Shuttle 
program. These consultations should occur before final 
decisions are made to the program.
    Space Station.--The Committee notes that the International 
Space Station [ISS] continues to operate at a reduced level 
with future construction not expected to begin until 2005. The 
current crew of two cannot fully utilize the capabilities of 
the ISS for the research it was intended to facilitate, and the 
caretaker role of the astronauts does not currently justify the 
funds requested for operations of the ISS. Despite the ability 
of the international partners to fill the gap created by the 
grounding of the shuttle fleet, the capabilities of the ISS 
have been dramatically diminished. Accordingly, the Committee 
has reduced funding for the ISS by $120,000,000.
    As soon as the Shuttle is available to provide access to 
the ISS, the Committee is adamant that NASA provide the 
Committee with a plan detailing the steps necessary to complete 
construction of the ISS. This plan may include completion of 
the ISS by only using the shuttle, or a combination of shuttle 
and unmanned flights for delivering components to the ISS. The 
cost implications associated with the revised schedule must be 
included in the plan that is submitted to the Committee no less 
than 30 days after the successful return-to-flight of the 
shuttle program. The report should also contain a timeline, in 
conjunction with the construction timetable for the ISS, for 
the eventual transition to a new manned launch vehicle.
    As construction of the ISS resumes, revised plans for the 
future of the ISS must also be set. If there is to be a 
redirection of the research to be conducted onboard the ISS, 
any revision shall be done in consultation with the ISS 
partners. These partners will be affected by such actions, and 
their participation to this point has been both crucial and 
beneficial. If NASA intends to have international partners for 
future space exploration, then NASA should be sure not to 
exclude its current partners in making decisions involving the 
research direction and construction schedule of the ISS.
    Finally, the Committee has chosen not to fund the proposed 
new project for ISS crew and cargo services. The current plan 
anticipates the need for such services from the time after the 
Shuttle fleet is retired until future capability to reach the 
ISS is available around 2014. The current ISS construction plan 
is contingent upon an aggressive launch schedule that has yet 
to begin. It is unclear what the requirements are for these 
services, that such a schedule can be achieved, that the 
potential gap in service to the ISS will even occur, or that 
the gap could be longer than anticipated. Until there is 
further clarity regarding when and to the extent such services 
will necessary, the Committee is not inclined to provide 
resources for such an effort.
    Crew Exploration Vehicle.--The Committee is prepared to 
commit funds to the Crew Exploration Vehicle [CEV], but is 
concerned that there has not been enough initial planning to 
determine what specific capabilities the CEV should have. The 
determination of the right capabilities should naturally come 
from a carefully thought-out plan and goals, which have yet to 
emerge from the implementation of the Moon/Mars vision. The 
current vehicle offered by NASA resembles a work-in-progress, 
rather than a firm definition of what is necessary to 
accomplish missions to the ISS, as well as future manned 
missions.
    While the Committee feels that a plan with sufficient 
details on cost and accountability for any subsequent budget 
overruns will eventually emerge, the time to lay the proper 
groundwork for such an ambitions vision is prior to heading 
down the path, not on the way.
    During the time that the Shuttle program has been working 
to complete the ISS, NASA has endeavored to develop a separate 
manned vehicle many times. NASA has invested hundreds of 
millions into these programs, yet there has been little 
progress toward having the manned vehicle that these programs 
have promised. While incremental advances in technology have 
been gained, a comparable amount of return for the funds 
invested has not been realized.
    In order to ensure that such a fate does not befall the 
CEV, the Committee expects NASA to provide a report to the 
Committee that details the criteria and developmental goals the 
CEV must meet to accomplish the missions envisioned by NASA 
within 60 days of enactment of this bill. The report shall also 
include the internal and independent procedures that will be in 
place to ensure that the CEV will stay within its budget 
throughout its development.
    As NASA begins to consider another manned vehicle program, 
the Committee does not want to repeat the mistakes of the Space 
Station, where poor management and lack of independent 
oversight resulted in major cost overruns, to occur with the 
CEV. At this early stage in the development of the CEV, it is 
essential that these mistakes not happen again. Therefore, the 
Committee directs the Administrator to identify an independent 
oversight committee to examine the design, technology readiness 
and cost estimates for the CEV. The Administrator shall use 
available funds within the Exploration Capabilities account to 
provide sufficient resources for this Committee. The chosen 
oversight committee shall report to the Administrator and the 
Committees on Appropriations annually on their findings and 
recommendations.
    In order to allow for the initiation of the CEV, the 
Committee recommends a funding level of $268,000,000. This will 
allow for a modest start for this ambitious program, and still 
allow NASA the time needed to refine its plans for the vehicle 
in time for a full start in the fiscal year 2006 budget 
request.
    It is not clear to the Committee that NASA has given 
appropriate consideration to the propulsion requirements of the 
President's space exploration initiative. Therefore, the 
Committee directs NASA to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, within 180 days of enactment of 
the Act accompanying this report, on the propulsion systems 
that will be required to implement Project Constellation. This 
report should include, but not be limited to, all elements of 
the Earth-to-Orbit propulsion systems, in-space propulsion 
systems and propulsion systems for landing/ascent craft.
    The Committee acknowledges the desire of NASA to attempt to 
replicate the efforts of the X-Prize in the proposed Centennial 
Challenges program. The Committee allocates $10,000,000 for the 
Centennial challenges in order for NASA to initiate what may be 
a useful tool for NASA. The Committee will not entertain 
further requests for funds to this program until a through 
review of program, and the results of any proposed 
competitions, is conducted on the effectiveness of the 
Centennial Challenges program.
    The Committee does not include the funding requested for 
the technology maturation program.
    Finally, the Committee funds the entire Prometheus program 
at $430,000,000. Although portions of Prometheus are found 
within other accounts at NASA, the Committee has chosen to 
reflect a total funding level for this program. Within the 
funds provided, the Committee provides $10,000,000 for nuclear 
thermal propulsion at the Marshall Space Flight Center. The 
Committee encourages NASA to do a study on the feasibility of 
non-nuclear energy and power in regards to the Prometheus 
program.
    The Committee recognizes that modeling and simulation will 
have an important role in assessing the overall system 
development and performance in the President's vision for space 
exploration. The Committee continues to believe that simulated 
integrated systems, including testing and evaluation, will 
substantially reduce the system's complexity as well as the 
total development costs of future space transportation systems 
by formulating and validating program requirements and by 
identifying and mitigating program risks as early as possible 
in the development process. The Committee has included 
$3,000,000 for NASA's Office of Exploration Systems to develop 
and implement an integrated system simulation strategy to take 
full advantage of modeling and simulation and evaluation tools.

                  EXPLORATION, SCIENCE AND AERONAUTICS

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $7,883,225,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   7,760,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   7,736,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    NASA's `Exploration, Science and Aeronautics' [ESA] account 
provides for the full costs associated with the Exploration, 
Science and Aeronautics [ESA] activities of the Agency, which 
consist of the Space Science, Earth Science, Biological and 
Physical Research, Aeronautics, and Education Programs. The 
full costs include both the direct and the indirect costs 
supporting these programs, and provide for all of the research; 
development; operations; salaries and related expenses; design, 
repair, rehabilitation, and modification of facilities and 
construction of new facilities; maintenance and operation of 
existing facilities; and other general and administrative 
activities supporting Exploration, Science and Aeronautics 
programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $7,736,500,000 for the Science, 
Aeronautics and Exploration account, a decrease of $23,500,000 
below the President's request and $146,725,000 below the fiscal 
year 2004 enacted level. Within this account, the Committee 
directs NASA not to charge any administrative expenses to 
congressionally directed spending on specific projects. These 
costs should be absorbed within the funding provided in this 
account.
    The Committee has included an additional $300,000,000 in 
emergency funding for a servicing mission to the Hubble Space 
Telescope.
    Space Science.--The activities of NASA's Space Science 
Enterprise seek to chart the evolution of the universe, from 
origins to destiny, and understand its galaxies, stars, 
planetary bodies, and life. The Enterprise asks basic questions 
that have perplexed human beings, such as how the universe 
began and evolved and whether there is other intelligent life 
in the universe.
    The quest for this information, and the answers themselves, 
are intended to maintain scientific leadership, excite and 
inspire our society, strengthen education and scientific 
literacy, develop and transfer technologies to promote U.S. 
competitiveness, foster international cooperation to enhance 
programs and share their benefits, and set the stage for future 
space ventures.
    The Committee anticipates that there will be a Hubble 
servicing mission which, at this time, is not a part of the 
fiscal year 2005 budget submission. Once the study being 
conducted by the National Academy of Sciences is completed, the 
Committee will consider any appropriate funding options 
presented by NASA. NASA should consider a servicing mission a 
priority.
    The Committee funds the Mars Programs and Architecture at 
$75,600,000, an increase of $8,900,000 over the fiscal year 
2004 enacted level.
    The Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Lunar 
Reconnaissance Orbiter [LRO], a reduction of $50,000,000 from 
the budget request reflecting the difficult spending allocation 
within which the subcommittee has been forced to operate. NASA 
should continue with its announcement of opportunity for 
scientific instruments with these funds. However, in 
establishing the criteria for instrument selection, not less 
than 25 percent of the LRO's scientific instrumentation funding 
should be explicitly dedicated to building instruments focused 
solely on answering basic science questions. The Committee is 
concerned that the lunar measurement investigations to be 
carried out by the LRO mission, intended to characterize future 
robotic and human lunar landing sites, will forgo the 
opportunity for research and focus only on applied engineering 
assessments. The current proposed AO focuses solely on the 
human exploration objectives of the potential mission. Since 
the LRO is allocated against NASA's space science budget, the 
Committee believes that fundamental lunar science questions 
should be addressed in a significant fashion through 
instruments on this spacecraft. The Committee encourages NASA, 
as part of the LRO development, to consider the research 
instrumentation opportunities as well as technology 
qualification, navigation and communications capabilities, and 
resource identification technologies to maximize the 
opportunities of this first lunar mission.
    The Committee is troubled by the proposed reductions to the 
Living With a Star [LWS] program. The Committee is also 
concerned about the growth of the Solar Dynamics Observatory 
[SDO] particularly under full cost accounting guidelines and is 
capping the mission at $646,100,000, included in the budget 
request. To meet the original goals of the LWS program, which 
this Committee has endorsed, the Committee is providing an 
additional $25,000,000 for the LWS theme in 2005 to be 
allocated as follows: $5,000,000 for the solar probe mission; 
$15,000,000 to begin implementation of Geospace and $5,000,000 
for preliminary studies of solar sentinels. Furthermore, the 
Committee directs NASA to develop a plan to guarantee launch of 
Geospace and SDO within 1 year of each other with solar 
sentinels to follow in a reasonable time thereafter.
    The Committee also provides $3,000,000 and up to eight 
FTE's to establish a NASA program office at the Applied Physics 
Laboratory [APL] for the purpose of administering all existing 
contracts between NASA and APL, including those under the LWS 
Program. The APL program office will report directly to the 
Associate Administrator for Science.
    The Committee expects NASA to provide the necessary funding 
for the Pluto-Kuiper Belt mission in 2005 to ensure the mission 
is launched on schedule. The Committee expects NASA to submit 
any request for additional funds through the operating plan.
    The Committee notes the progress made to successfully 
launch the New Horizons mission in 2006 and expects NASA to 
aggressively work to meet that schedule. The Committee is aware 
that recent problems with the Department of Energy's plutonium 
production will likely leave New Horizons with insufficient 
fuel to make its scheduled Kuiper Belt orbit after its Pluto 
mission. For this reason, the Committee has also allocated an 
additional $4,000,000 from the New Frontiers line to undertake 
a detailed study of the feasibility for a New Horizons II 
mission, to be launched within the near-term, if the study 
results can justify the scientific return for such a follow-on 
mission, at a price considerably less than the original New 
Horizons mission. Such a study should have its results 
submitted to the Committee on Appropriations by April 15, 2005.
    NASA is directed to consult with the Committee on program 
management for the Discovery and New Frontiers programs. The 
Committee notes that NASA has transferred management of the 
Discovery and New Frontiers programs out of headquarters. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that the Office of the 
Associate Administrator for Science shall be reduced by 10 
FTE's and transferred to the appropriate NASA Centers. 
Furthermore, the Committee prohibits the transfer of any FTE's 
or other personnel into the Office of the Associate 
Administrator for Science without the approval of the 
Committees on Appropriations.
    The Committee directs NASA to select competitively some of 
the scientific instruments for the Terrestrial Planet Finder 
mission. The Committee allocates $15,000,000 of the $52,900,000 
contained in the budget request to establish a competitive 
advanced technology development program among universities and 
non-profit organizations with experience in relevant fields to 
provide scientific instruments for the TPF mission. The TPF 
budget profile beyond 2005 should articulate a critical path-
with requisite financial resources-to down select from these 
teams, as well as any currently existing intramural teams, for 
flight instruments.
    The Committee has made the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    An increase of $1,000,000 for University of Idaho for RTULP 
Electronics for Space Applications.
    An increase of $1,000,000 for Utah State University in 
Logan, Utah for the Calibration Center.
    An increase of $300,000 to the University of Missouri at 
Rolla for the Advanced Millimeter Wave Inspection System 
program.
    An increase of $3,000,000 to New Mexico State University 
for the ultra-long balloon program to augment planned flights 
and technology development.
    An increase of $4,000,000 for the Stennis Space Center for 
the commercial technology program.
    An increase of $4,000,000 for the Marshall Space Flight 
Center for the commercial technology program.
    An increase of $1,500,000 to Montana State University to 
purchase clean room systems and basic process equipment related 
to the microdevice fabrication facility.
    An increase of $1,000,000 for Texas Tech University 
Experimental Sciences Initiative, Lubbock, Texas to promote 
advanced and interdisciplinary research.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the Southern Methodist 
University Multifab Facility in Dallas, Texas to develop 
multifabrication manufacturing technology.
    An increase of $2,000,000 to the University of North Dakota 
in Grand Forks for the Northern Great Plains Space Sciences and 
Technology Center.
    An increase of $4,000,000 to the University of Hawaii, Hilo 
for the Mauna Kea Astronomy Education Center.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the University of Arkansas, 
Fayetteville, Arkansas for the Arkansas-Oklahoma Center for 
Space and Planetary Sciences.
    Earth Science.--The activities of NASA's Earth Science 
Enterprise seek to understand the total Earth system and the 
effects of humans on the global environment. This pioneering 
program of studying global climate change is developing many of 
the capabilities that will be needed for long-term environment 
and climate monitoring and prediction. Governments around the 
world need information based on the strongest possible 
scientific understanding. The unique vantage-point of space 
provides information about the Earth's land, atmosphere, ice, 
oceans, and biota as a global system, which is available in no 
other way. In concert with the global research community, the 
Earth Science Enterprise is developing the understanding needed 
to support the complex environmental policy decisions that must 
be addressed.
    The Committee believes that Earth science has been a 
critical part of a balanced space program long advocated by 
this Committee. The Committee remains fully committed to a 
robust Earth science program at NASA notwithstanding the recent 
headquarters reorganization plan. The Committee expects NASA to 
remain fully committed to Earth science, with future missions 
identified with 5 year funding profiles that reflect a serious 
commitment to Earth science as a vital part of the Nation's 
space program.
    An increase of $15,000,000 above the President's request 
for fiscal year 2005 for the NASA Earth Science Applications 
Program. This funding increase will be used to support 
competitively-selected applications projects. These projects 
will integrate the results of NASA's earth observing systems 
and earth system models (using observations and predictions) 
into decision support tools to serve applications of national 
priority including, but not limited to, Homeland Security, 
Coastal Management, Agriculture Efficiency, Water Management 
and Disaster Management.
    The Committee is highly supportive of continuation of the 
ECS/EMD Synergy Program, reflecting the success of NASA's EOS 
Data Information System [EOSDIS] and its core system [ECS]. The 
Committee is providing $15,000,000 for Synergy in 2005 with 
$1,500,000 for the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory's 
Infomart; not more than $1,500,000 to support the transition of 
Synergy Infomart activities to the ESE Application Division to 
be administered through a Cooperative Agreement [CAN] that will 
focus these funds toward meeting the needs of State, local and 
tribal governments and $12,000,000 through the EOSDIS 
Maintenance and Development Contract to support an extension of 
the Synergy Data Pools to improve data distribution to climate 
change models, expansion of data distribution to the user 
community and development of a pilot project using grid 
computing technology.
    The Committee remains supportive of NASA's Columbia Project 
to upgrade its supercomputing capacity, but insists that NASA's 
total supercomputing capability should not reside at one 
location in order that the Agency avoids a potential single 
point of failure for mission critical and safety of flight 
analyses. Therefore, the Committee has provided $5,000,000 from 
within funds projected for the Columbia project to upgrade the 
Goddard Space Flight Center's Center for Computational Science 
[NCCS] to guarantee that it serves as NASA's backup 
supercomputing center with tier 1 system backup and disaster 
recovery functions, including full transfer capability in the 
event of a failure of the principal supercomputer facility.
    Finally, the Committee supports the full budget request for 
the GLORY Global Climate Change research program mission 
including the Aerosol Polarimeter Sensor.
    The Committee has made the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    An increase of $390,000 for Pearl River Community College 
in Mississippi for remote sensing, geographic information 
system and GPS training.
    An increase of $1,000,000 for Idaho State University for 
the Temporal Landscape Change Research program.
    An increase of $3,000,000 for the University of Alaska for 
weather and ocean research.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to Utah State University in 
Logan, Utah for the Intermountain region Digital Image Archive 
and Processing Center.
    An increase of $750,000 for the University of Northern Iowa 
for the GeoTREE project.
    An increase of $1,500,000 to Montana State University-
Bozeman for the Center for Studying Life in Extreme 
Environments.
    An increase of $1,000,000 for the University of Texas Mid-
American Geospatial Information Center at the UT Center for 
Space Research in Austin, Texas to continue information 
collection through satellite imaging.
    An increase of $500,000 to the Liberty Science Center, 
Jersey City, New Jersey for the Hudson Harbor and Estuary 
Ecological Learning Center.
    An increase of $750,000 to the University of Connecticut 
for the Center for Land Use and Education Research.
    An increase of $750,000 to the University of Vermont, 
Burlington for the Center for Advanced Computing.
    An increase of $5,400,000 for the Wallops Island Flight 
Facility to be used for developing a standard small launch 
vehicle, universal FTS, doppler radar and launch modeling 
laboratory.
    Biological and Physical Research.--NASA's Biological and 
Physical Research [BPR] Enterprise recognizes the essential 
role biology will play in the 21st century and pursues the core 
of biological and physical sciences research needed to support 
NASA's strategic objectives. BPR fosters and enhances rigorous 
interdisciplinary research, closely linking fundamental 
biological and physical sciences in order to develop leading-
edge, world-class research programs. BPR uses the unique 
characteristics of the space environment to understand 
biological, physical, and chemical processes, conducting 
science and technology research required to enable humans to 
safely and effectively live and work in space, and transferring 
knowledge and technologies for Earth benefits. BPR also fosters 
commercial space research by the private sector toward new or 
improved products and/or services on Earth, in support of the 
commercial use of space.
    The Committee has expressed its intent that scientific 
research remain one of NASA's top priorities. However, delays 
in the construction of the Station and the current stand down 
of the Shuttle fleet have significantly reduced the 
opportunities for life and microgravity research in the near 
term. In order to maximize what research can still be done on 
the ISS, the Committee funds Biological Sciences Research 
within Earth science at $368,000,000, the same as the funding 
level for fiscal year 2004.
    The Committee has made the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    An increase of $1,500,000 to the University of Missouri at 
Columbia for the National Center for Gender Physiology studies 
on basic biomedical knowledge for the improvement of life on 
earth and solution of problems in human space flight.
    An increase of $5,000,000 to the Marshall Space Flight 
Center for propulsion materials microgravity research [OBPR].
    An increase of $2,000,000 for the Alliance for Nanohealth, 
Houston, Texas to purchase equipment and conduct research on 
Nanotechnology and medicine.
    An increase of $2,000,000 for the University of Louisville 
Space Flight Exploration: The Impact on Perception, Cognition, 
Sleep and Brain Physiology Project at the University of 
Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the National Technology 
Transfer Center at Wheeling Jesuit University to transfer and 
adapt the Walter Reed Army Medical Center's HealthForces 
program, into medically underserved rural areas.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the State University of 
Buffalo Center for Bioinformatics, Erie, New York.
    Aero-Space Technology.--NASA's Aerospace Technology 
Enterprise works to maintain U.S. preeminence in aerospace 
research and technology. The Enterprise aims to radically 
improve air travel, making it safer, faster, and quieter as 
well as more affordable, accessible, and environmentally sound. 
The Enterprise is also working to develop more affordable, 
reliable, and safe access to space; improve the way in which 
air and space vehicles are designed and built; and ensure new 
aerospace technologies are available to benefit the public.
    NASA's Aeronautics program pioneers the identification, 
development, verification, transfer, application, and 
commercialization of high-payoff aeronautics technologies. NASA 
also supports the development of technologies to address 
airport crowding, aircraft engine emissions, aircraft noise, 
and other issues that could constrain future U.S. air system 
growth.
    The Committee is concerned with the steady decline in the 
aeronautics research and technology request. The current 
request in Aeronautics is a cut of $115,000,000. Even more 
alarming, NASA's budget projections indicate that this trend 
will continue. Further, the United States faces major foreign 
competition in the commercial aviation arena. The Europeans 
have stated in their ``Vision 2020,'' that they intend to 
dominate the commercial aviation global market by 2020 through 
their investment in aeronautics R&D. The Committee feels that 
the vitality of U.S. aviation should not be left behind. The 
Committee is committed to the research NASA conducts in 
aeronautics, and to the benefits, both in terms of safety and 
economics, that will be made available to the public through 
NASA led research.
    Based on the success of the X-43 program, the Committee is 
providing $25,000,000 to continue the research being conducted 
on hypersonic engine technologies. The Committee also continues 
to encourage joint NASA and Air Force cooperation and 
collaboration in advancement of aeronautics technologies in the 
National interest.
    The Committee also includes an increase of $4,000,000 for 
NASA Glenn Research Center for Intelligent Propulsion Systems 
(propulsion 21).
    The Committee has made the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    An increase of $2,300,000 to the University of Missouri at 
Rolla for Aerospace Propulsion Particulate Emissions Reduction 
Program.
    An increase of $1,000,000 for the National Institute of 
Aviation Research in Kansas for icing research.
    An increase of $2,000,000 to Wichita State University in 
Wichita, Kansas for the National Center for Advanced Materials 
Performance for composite materials research.
    An increase of $1,000,000 for the Glenn Research Center for 
the National Center for Communications, Navigation and 
Surveillance.
    An increase of $4,000,000 for the Glenn Research Center for 
the commercial technology program.
    An increase of $3,000,000 to the Inland Northwest Space 
Alliance in Montana for the FreeFlyer program.
    An increase of $750,000 to the University of Montana in 
Missoula, Montana for the National Space Privatization Program.
    An increase of $750,000 to Purdue University in West 
Lafayette, Indiana for the Advanced Manufacturing Institute.
    An increase of $2,000,000 to Wheeling Jesuit University, 
West Virginia for continued operation of the National 
Technology Transfer Center.
    An increase of $2,500,000 to Marshall University in 
Bridgeport, West Virginia for the continuation of NASA related 
composites workforce development training at the Composites 
Technology Institute.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to Iowa State University for the 
Center for Nondestructive Evaluation.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the University of New Orleans, 
Louisiana for the Composites Research Center of Excellence and 
for the development of advanced metallic joining technologies 
at Michoud Space Center.
    An increase of $1,750,000 to the University of Maryland, 
College Park for the nanotechnology institute.
    An increase of $1,750,000 to the University of Maryland, 
Baltimore County for photonics research.
    An increase of $3,000,000 to Chesapeake Information Based 
Aeronautics Consortium.
    An increase of $2,000,000 to upgrade the High End 
Production Capability at the Goddard Space Flight Center to 
improve climate and weather research capabilities.
    Academic Programs.--The objective of NASA's academic 
programs is to promote excellence in America's education system 
through enhancing and expanding scientific and technological 
competence. Activities conducted within academic programs 
capture the interest of students in science and technology, 
develop talented students at the undergraduate and graduate 
levels, provide research opportunities for students and faculty 
members at NASA centers, and strengthen and enhance the 
research capabilities of the Nation's colleges and 
universities. NASA's education programs span from the 
elementary through graduate levels, and are directed at 
students and faculty. Academic programs include the Minority 
University Research Program, which expands opportunities for 
talented students from underrepresented groups who are pursuing 
degrees in science and engineering, and to strengthen the 
research capabilities of minority universities and colleges.
    The Committee has made the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    An increase of $1,000,000 for National Center for Air and 
Space Law at the University of Mississippi.
    An increase of $1,000,000 for Tennessee Technological 
Institute for the development of a Challenger Learning Center.
    An increase of $500,000 for the Christa McAuliffe 
Planetarium in New Hampshire for the construction of the Alan 
Shepard Discovery Center.
    An increase of $500,000 to Southeast Missouri State 
University for the NASA-ERC Initiative.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the Texas A&M Space 
Engineering Institute in College Station, Texas to continue 
minority engineering outreach in conjunction with NASA.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to Northern Kentucky University/
University of Louisville for the Taking Astronomy to the 
Schools Project at Northern Kentucky University in Campbell 
County, Kentucky.
    An increase of $1,000,000 for the US Space and Rocket 
Center in Huntsville, Alabama for education training equipment 
and the museum exhibit improvement program.
    An increase of $2,000,000 to the SSME program office at 
Marshall for development of a knowledge management integrated 
data environment.
    An increase of $750,000 to the Delaware Aerospace Education 
Foundation in Kent County, Delaware.
    An increase of $750,000 to the Chabot Space and Science 
Center in Oakland, California for The Future for Humans in 
Space Education Program.
    An increase of $250,000 to Rowan University, Pomona, New 
Jersey for the Engineering and Technology Satellite Campus.
    An increase of $250,000 to the Museum of Science and 
Industry in Chicago, Illinois for the Henry Crown Space Center.
    An increase of $250,000 to Glendale Community College, 
California for the Cimmarusti Science Center's Teacher Training 
and Science Education Outreach Program.
    An increase of $500,000 to the Science Center of Iowa in 
Des Moines, Iowa.
    An increase of $2,000,000 for improvements to the Cooper 
Library at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, South 
Carolina.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the College of Charleston, 
South Carolina for the School of Science and Mathematics.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the Boston Museum of Science, 
Massachusetts for the National Center for Technology Literacy.
    An increase of $750,000 to Space Education Initiative, 
Wisconsin for the Wisconsin Aerospace Education Initiative.
    An increase of $1,750,000 to the Mitchell Institute, 
Portland, Maine for science and engineering education.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the Virginia Air and Space 
Museum, Norfolk, Virginia.
    An increase of $750,000 for the Griffith Observatory, Los 
Angeles, California.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $27,139,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      27,600,000
Committee recommendation................................      31,600,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978. The Office is responsible for 
providing agencywide audits and investigative functions to 
identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies 
which create conditions for existing or potential instances of 
fraud, waste, and mismanagement.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $31,600,000 for fiscal year 2005, 
the same as the budget request and $4,461,000 above the fiscal 
year 2004 enacted level. The Committee commends the NASA IG's 
diligence in addressing issues of fraud and abuse.
    The Committee also directs the NASA IG to review NASA's 
contract procedures and conventions to determine if there are 
ways to reform the process and reduce the costs of NASA 
programs and activities. In particular, many NASA contract 
provisions require NASA to pay for significant cost overruns 
and, in cases of program delays, significant costs associated 
with staffing that appear to be maintained solely to ensure the 
preservation of the institutional memory for the delayed 
program or activity. The Committee agrees that institutional 
memory is critical to the success of many, if not all, NASA 
programs which are in most cases exceedingly complex. 
Nevertheless, these costs are substantial and, in some cases, 
may be unwarranted or unnecessary. As a result, the Committee 
believes that contract reform should be considered a priority 
as part of any overall restructuring at NASA.
    Within the amount provided to the Office of the Inspector 
General, $3,847,000 is provided to conduct the annual audit of 
NASA's financial statements. This will consolidate 
responsibility for technical oversight and fiscal management of 
the contract into a single office.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes a series of 
provisions, proposed by the administration, which are largely 
technical in nature, concerning the availability of funds. 
These provisions have been carried largely, in prior-year 
appropriation acts.
    The Committee is concerned that NASA has not utilized 
independent cost verification early in the process of 
estimating costs for its programs and missions. By not using 
this tool, NASA cannot be certain that potential contract costs 
are accurately represented. In order to allocate resources for 
current and future needs, effective cost estimation is crucial. 
NASA is directed to incorporate independent cost verification 
as part of the process by which contracts are selected, to use 
them as a guide for assessing when costs have exceeded 
expectations, and to help identify projects for termination.
    The Committee notes the current difficulties that NASA is 
facing with is annual financial statement. The independent 
auditor involved with the annual audit included a disclaimer 
that NASA did not provide sufficient materials to support the 
financial statements in order to complete the audit within the 
guidelines provided by OMB. Further, four material weaknesses 
were identified. These weaknesses included NASA's the inability 
to provide an audit trail to support NASA's financial 
statements and the lack of controls over property and 
equipment. These weaknesses created a lack of documentation to 
support $565,000,000,000 in adjustments to NASA's financial 
statement accounts. As NASA prepares to embark on a significant 
mission of exploration, NASA must correct these issues 
immediately before entertaining significant movement on such 
major undertakings. A clean financial bill of health at NASA 
will bring clarity to NASA's internal accounting structure and 
confidence that funds are being used appropriately throughout 
the agency.
    The Committee is concerned about the cost and 
organizational implications of the recently announced 
transformation of NASA, and other recommendations proposed in 
the Aldridge report. Last year the Committee directed the 
National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] to conduct a 
complete review of NASA's organizational, programmatic, and 
personnel structures. As part of this review, the Committee 
asks NAPA to include a complete review of the new 
transformation proposal, as well as a thorough review of the 
proposal to convert NASA centers into Federally Funded Research 
and Development Centers. NASA shall provide appropriate funds 
for the completion of the current NAPA review, including funds 
to review the announced NASA organization transformation and 
the FFRDC recommendation proposed in the Aldridge report.

                  National Credit Union Administration

                       CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Direct loan       Administrative
                                        limitation          expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004..............     $1,500,000,000           $310,000
Budget estimate, 2005.............      1,500,000,000            310,000
Committee recommendation..........      1,500,000,000            310,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request of limiting 
administrative expenses for the Central Liquidity Fund [CLF] to 
$310,000 in fiscal year 2005. The Committee recommends a 
limitation of $1,500,000,000 for the principal amount of new 
direct loans to member credit unions. These amounts are the 
same as the budget request. Funds provided for administrative 
expenses are the same as the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
    The Committee directs the National Credit Union 
Administration [NCUA] to continue to provide reports on the 
lending activities under CLF. This information should be 
provided to the Committee on a quarterly basis through 
September 2005.

               COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $1,193,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for loans and technical 
assistance to community development credit unions. This funding 
level is equal to the budget request and $193,000 below the 
fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee has provided 
additional funds to provide additional technical assistance 
grants to low-income credit unions in rural areas.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $200,000 for loans 
to community development credit unions and $800,000 for 
technical assistance to low-income and community development 
credit unions. The Committee supports NCUA's outreach to low-
income, rural and underserved communities through the Technical 
Assistance Grants program. The Committee encourages NCUA to 
continue to develop technical assistance efforts in rural areas 
in order to assist in the further expansion of basic financial 
and related services to members which otherwise might not be 
available in the community. The Committee also supports NCUA's 
efforts in providing an alternative to predatory lenders by 
consistently reaching out to offer financial services, 
products, and education in the community.

                      National Science Foundation

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $5,578,323,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   5,744,690,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,744,690,000

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    The National Science Foundation was established as an 
independent agency by the National Science Foundation Act of 
1950 (Public Law 81-507) and is authorized to support research 
and education programs that promote the progress of science and 
engineering in the United States. The Foundation supports 
research and education in all major scientific and engineering 
disciplines through grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, 
and other forms of assistance awarded to more than 2,000 
colleges and universities, nonprofit organizations, small 
businesses, and other organizations in all parts of the United 
States. The Foundation also supports unique, large-scale 
research facilities and international facilities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $5,744,690,000 for the National 
Science Foundation for fiscal year 2005. This amount is 
$167,170,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
    The Committee continues to be supportive of the efforts 
achieved in the National Science Foundation Authorization Act 
of 2002 (Public Law 107-368) and the pursuit of a doubling path 
for NSF funding. However, due to funding constraints, the 
Committee is not able to provide such funding at this time, but 
will continue to pursue these efforts in the future.
    The Committee notes that productivity growth, powered by 
new knowledge and technological innovation, makes the economic 
benefits of a comprehensive, fundamental research and education 
enterprise abundantly clear. New products, processes, entire 
new industries, and the employment opportunities that result, 
depend upon rapid advances in research and their equally rapid 
movement into the marketplace. In today's global economy, 
continued progress in science and engineering and the transfer 
of the knowledge developed is vital if the United States is to 
maintain its competitiveness. NSF is at the leading edge of the 
research and discoveries that will create the jobs and 
technologies of the future.
    The Committee reiterates its long-standing requirement for 
reprogramming, initiation of new programs or activities, and 
reorganizations. The Committee directs the Foundation to notify 
the chairman and ranking minority member prior to each 
reprogramming of funds in excess of $250,000 between programs, 
activities, or elements unless an alternate amount is specified 
elsewhere by the Committee. The Committee expects to be 
notified of reprogramming actions which involve less than the 
above-mentioned amount if such actions would have the effect of 
changing the agency's funding requirements in future years or 
if programs or projects specifically cited in the Committee's 
reports are affected. Finally, the Committee wishes to be 
consulted regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, and 
activities prior to the planned implementation of such 
reorganizations.

                    RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2004....................................  $4,251,360,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................   4,452,310,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,402,320,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Research and Related Activities appropriation addresses 
the Foundation's three strategic goals: people--developing a 
diverse, internationally competitive and globally-engaged 
workforce of scientists, engineers, and well-prepared citizens; 
ideas--enabling discovery across the frontiers of science and 
engineering, connected to learning, innovation, and service to 
society; and tools--providing broadly accessible, state-of-the-
art science and engineering facilities and shared research and 
education tools. Research activities will contribute to the 
achieving of these outcomes through expansion of the knowledge 
base; integration of research and education; stimulation of 
knowledge transfer among academia and public and private 
sectors; international activities; and will bring the 
perspectives of many disciplines to bear on complex problems 
important to the Nation. The Foundation's discipline-oriented 
Research and Related Activities Account include: Biological 
Sciences; Computer and Information Science and Engineering; 
Engineering; Geosciences; Mathematical and Physical Sciences; 
Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences; U.S. Polar Research 
Programs; U.S. Antarctica Logistical Support Activities; and 
Integrative Activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,402,320,000 
for research and related activities. This amount is $49,990,000 
above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
    Within the amount for research and related activities, the 
following specific funding levels for each of NSF's research 
activities are as follows: $605,460,000 for Biological 
Sciences, $629,940,000 for Computer and Information Science, 
$575,900,000 for Engineering, $728,500,000 for Geosciences, 
$1,123,090,000 for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 
$224,710,000 for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, 
$281,660,000 for Polar Research Programs, $68,070,000 for 
Antarctic Logistical Support, and $164,990,000 for Integrative 
Activities.
    The Committee supports fully the Foundation's efforts to 
push the boundaries of science and technology issues, 
especially in the areas of information technology, 
biotechnology, and nanotechnology. The Committee also applauds 
the Foundation's efforts to address the problem of science and 
mathematics education among K-12, undergraduate, and graduate 
students. However, in order for the Foundation to reach 
successfully its research and education goals, it must reach 
out to individuals and schools that have not participated fully 
in NSF's programs. Accordingly, the Committee remains concerned 
about programs designed to assist minorities, women, and 
schools that have not received significant Federal support.
    To improve planning and priority-setting for the Foundation 
and improve the Committee's efforts to understand NSF's long-
term budgeting needs, the Committee directs NSF to continue to 
provide multi-year budgets for all of its multi-disciplinary 
activities. The Committee is concerned that NSF has taken on 
more significant initiatives that often require multi-year 
funding to meet its research goals. NSF shall continue to 
provide the Committee with documentation that identifies these 
types of initiatives and their long-range budget implications. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs NSF to continue to include 
the funding requirements of all major multi-disciplinary and 
mid-level activities, in future budget requests.
    The Committee recommends $95,000,000 for the Plant Genome 
Research Program. This amount is $5,530,000 above the budget 
request and the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee 
remains a strong supporter of this important program due to its 
potential impact on improving economically significant crops. 
The Committee also recognizes its vast potential in combating 
hunger in poorer countries and improving the environment 
throughout the world. Accordingly, the Committee directs the 
NSF to accelerate funding for this program as authorized under 
Section 8(3)(c) of the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368).
    NSF has completed the planned 5-year priority for 
Information Technology Research [ITR] within Computer and 
Information Science and Engineering [CISE], yet the ITR program 
has also increased our understanding of computing, 
communications, and information systems as well as the areas of 
large-scale networking, new high-end architectures, high-data-
volume instruments, and information management. To continue 
this fundamental research, the Committee has provided 
$190,000,000 to ITR within CISE.
    NSF has been the lead agency for the National 
Nanotechnology Initiative, and will continue to provide 
critical and fundamental understanding to this emerging 
technology. The Committee fully supports the funding level 
requested for nanotechnology within the fiscal year 2005 budget 
request. The Committee believes that the recommended level of 
funding will allow the Foundation to continue to be the leader 
for this initiative in a field that is still in its beginning 
stages. In the past, novel technologies have suffered because 
of misconceptions of the public. This has led to mistrust and 
confusion over the benefits that such research can provide. NSF 
is encouraged to make sure such difficulties are minimized so 
that this technology can continue to provide the potential 
breakthroughs needed by materials research and health 
researchers.
    The Committee recognizes the significant infrastructure 
needs of our Nation's research institutions, especially for 
smaller research and minority institutions that have not 
traditionally benefited from Federal programs. The Committee is 
especially concerned about the larger schools receiving a 
disproportionate share of scarce Federal resources from 
indirect cost reimbursements to fund infrastructure needs. As a 
result, the Committee recommends the Foundation's Major 
Research Instrumentation [MRI] account address the 
infrastructure needs of these research institutions. NSF is 
encouraged to continue to target funds to assist minority 
serving institutions, which tend to be underrepresented.
    The Partnerships for Innovation [PFI] program is expected 
to address the needs of smaller research institutions and other 
underfunded entities, as well as enhance infrastructure that is 
necessary to foster and sustain innovation for the long term. 
This is to be done through the transformation of knowledge 
created by these institutions into innovations that will build 
strong local, regional, and national economies. The Committee 
recommends $15,000,000 for the PFI program.
    The Committee is concerned that NSF continues to underfund 
the operations for radio astronomy. The operations, 
maintenance, and development of new instrumentation at the Very 
Large Array, the Very Long Baseline Array, and the Green Bank 
Telescope, allows these world-class facilities to provide 
valuable research into the origins of the universe. The 
Committee provides the National Radio Astronomy Observatories 
$55,000,000 for annual operations.
    Since 2001, when the National Science Board recommended 
that NSF take an international leadership role, the Office of 
International Science and Engineering [OISE] has worked to 
ensure that U.S. researchers are involved with leading research 
across the globe. As research becomes more collaborative with 
partnerships reaching across nations, this office will grow in 
importance for identifying research opportunities from around 
the globe. The Committee supports the fiscal year 2005 funding 
request for OISE in order to keep U.S. research at the 
forefront of global science.
    The Committee fully supports the Foundation's fiscal year 
2005 request for the U.S. Arctic Research Program within its 
Polar Programs activities. The Committee especially appreciates 
the Foundation's priority for funding Arctic research under its 
Study of Environmental Arctic Change [SEARCH] program. 
Nevertheless, the Committee remains concerned about the 
disparity in funding between the Foundation's Antarctica and 
Arctic programs and believe that the Foundation must invest 
more heavily in the U.S. Arctic Research Program. For example, 
the Committee believes that more investment should be made to 
address infrastructure needs under the SEARCH program, 
including support for research in the Barrow Arctic area. The 
Committee strongly urges the Foundation to address the Barrow 
infrastructure needs as identified in its July 15, 2002, report 
to the Committee.
    The Committee remains supportive of the International 
Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska, and strongly urges 
the Foundation to continue its support for the center.
    The Committee notes that NSF is investing in a multi-year 
priority area of research in Human and Social Dynamics, and 
recognizes that this research will play a role in understanding 
the complex problems facing our Nation. The Committee is also 
interested in SBE activities intended to raise the awareness of 
science in the public. As technology continues to permeate the 
workplace, the economic health and competitiveness of the 
Nation will rest upon having a scientifically literate society.
    The Committee supports the Foundation's request to boost 
spending for developing new science and technology [S&T] 
centers in fiscal year 2005. The Committee encourages the 
Foundation to fund new S&T centers at institutions that assist 
minorities, especially those serving Native Hawaiians and 
Alaskan Natives.

          MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $154,982,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     213,270,000
Committee recommendation................................     130,420,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The major research equipment and facilities construction 
appropriation supports the acquisition, procurement, 
construction, and commissioning of unique national research 
platforms and facilities as well as major research equipment. 
Projects supported by this appropriation will push the 
boundaries of technology and offer significant expansion of 
opportunities, often in new directions, for the science and 
engineering community. Preliminary design and development 
activities, on-going operations, and maintenance costs of the 
facilities are provided through the research and related 
activities appropriation account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $130,420,000 
for major research equipment and facilities construction. This 
amount is $24,550,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level and $82,850,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee has provided $49,670,000 for the Atacama 
Large Millimeter Array [ALMA], $47,350,000 for EarthScope, and 
$33,400,000 for the IceCube Neutrino Observatory. Due to 
budgetary constraints, no funding is provided for new starts 
within this account for fiscal year 2005.
    The Committee has received the results of the National 
Academy of Sciences work on developing a set of criteria that 
can be used to rank and prioritize the Foundation's large 
research facilities. The Committee commends the Academy for its 
work and expects this report will lead to a priority-setting 
process that is transparent, fair, and rational. The Committee 
expects NSF, the National Science Board and the Academy to work 
together to ensure that the recommendations of the Academy are 
fully implemented for the fiscal year 2006 budget submission.
    Consistent with the implementation of the recommendations 
from the National Research Council's January 14, 2004 report on 
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects 
Supported by the National Science Foundation, the Committee 
urges NSF to consider the inclusion of funding in its fiscal 
year 2006 budget request to begin construction of a new 
research vessel to replace the R/V Alpha Helix.

                     EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $938,990,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     771,360,000
Committee recommendation................................     929,150,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The education and human resources appropriation supports a 
comprehensive set of programs across all levels of education in 
science, technology, engineering and mathematics [STEM]. The 
appropriation supports activities that unite school districts 
with institutions of higher learning to improve precollege 
education. Other precollege activities include the development 
of the next generation of precollege STEM education leaders; 
instructional materials; and the STEM instructional workforce. 
Undergraduate activities support curriculum, laboratory, and 
instructional improvement; expand the STEM talent pool; attract 
STEM participants to teaching; augment advanced technological 
education at 2-year colleges; and develop dissemination tools. 
Graduate support is directed to research and teaching 
fellowships and traineeships and instructional workforce 
improvement by linking precollege systems with higher 
education. Programs also seek to broaden the participation of 
groups underrepresented in the STEM enterprise, build State and 
regional capacity to compete successfully for research funding, 
and promote informal science education. Ongoing evaluation 
efforts and research on learning strengthen the base for these 
programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $929,150,000 
for education and human resources [EHR]. This amount is 
$157,790,000 more than the budget request.
    The Committee is deeply disappointed by the 
administration's lack of support in its budget request for 
assisting smaller research institutions and minorities. The 
Committee is particularly troubled by the continued lack of 
support provided to the Experimental Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research [EPSCoR]. The Committee has provided 
$95,000,000 to EPSCoR, an increase of $11,000,000 over the 
budget request.
    The undergraduate ``tech talent'' expansion program is 
increased by $11,120,000 above the request of the 
administration for a total funding level of $26,120,000. The 
Committee strongly encourages NSF to continue support for this 
plan for undergraduate science and engineering education. This 
program will continue to help colleges and universities 
increase the number of U.S. citizens, and permanent residents, 
pursue degrees in STEM fields. At a time when enrollment in 
STEM fields of study continues to decline, it is important that 
NSF use its position to support students working towards 
degrees in these areas.
    The Committee is also providing an additional $7,840,000 
above the budget request to the Advanced Technological 
Education program. This program supports undergraduate science 
education activities at the Nation's community colleges by 
providing faculty and student development, education materials 
and laboratories at community and 2-year colleges.
    To address the importance of broadening science and 
technology participation to minorities, the Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $7,000,000 above the 
budget request for the Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities--Undergraduate Program [HBCU-UP]. The Committee 
also recommends $36,300,000 for the Louis Stokes Alliance for 
Minority Participation program.
    The Committee is recommending an increase above the request 
for the HBCU-Research University Science & Technology [THRUST] 
initiative within the Centers of Research Excellence in Science 
and Technology [CREST] program of $10,000,000. Eligibility for 
THRUST should not exclude CREST recipients, but funds provided 
in fiscal year 2005 should be used first to fund fully multi-
year awards to recipients of THRUST awards in the program's 
first year. The total level of funding for the CREST program is 
expected to be $20,000,000, an increase of $9,120,000 above the 
President's request.
    The Committee remains supportive of the tribal colleges 
program and is pleased with the Foundation's inclusion of 
Alaskan Native serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving 
institutions as eligible entities under this program. To that 
end, the Committee supports the Foundation's continued support 
of these institutions in the tribal colleges program.
    The Committee also continues its strong support for the 
Informal Science Education [ISE] program. The Committee 
especially values the ISE program in raising interest among 
children and young adults in science and technology. The 
Committee is disappointed in NSF's proposed funding decrease 
for fiscal year 2005 and provides an additional $15,000,000 
above the request for ISE. The ISE plays a role in the 
development of science teachers, as well as builds 
collaborations between informal and formal science 
institutions, provides opportunities for underrepresented 
groups, includes the involvement of parents, and enhances the 
public understanding of mathematics.
    The Committee recognizes and is supportive of the request 
by the administration for an additional 500 fellowships within 
the Foundation's graduate research education programs. The 
request will allow for 5,550 fellowships to be funded at 
$30,000 per award. The Committee believes that this funding 
will allow NSF to attract more of the best and brightest 
students into the science, mathematics, engineering, and 
technology fields. The Committee also urges NSF to work towards 
increasing the number of women, minorities, and other 
underrepresented groups within these programs to the greatest 
extent possible.
    Without prejudice, and reflecting the difficult funding 
constraints within which the Committee has been given to 
operate, the Committee has chosen to provide no funding for the 
new Workforce for the 21st Century program at NSF.
    Finally, the Committee rejects the administration's request 
to transfer the Math and Science Partnership [MSP] program to 
the Department of Education. Current activities initiated by 
MSP are only beginning to provide measurable results and have 
yet to be ready for implementation on a nationwide basis. The 
MSP program is an important asset in providing improved math 
and science education by partnering local school districts with 
faculty of colleges and universities. The Committee recommends 
that the MSP program be funded at $110,000,000, an increase of 
$30,000,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $218,705,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     294,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     269,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The salaries and expenses appropriation provides funds for 
staff salaries, benefits, travel, training, rent, advisory and 
assistance services, communications and utilities expenses, 
supplies, equipment, and other operating expenses necessary for 
management of the agency's research and education activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $269,000,000 
for salaries and expenses. This amount is $50,300,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
    The Committee is concerned that as NSF has grown in terms 
of agency funding in recent years, that staffing and structural 
needs have not been adequately addressed. The current request 
for additional NSF FTEs for fiscal year 2005 is 25 FTEs, for a 
total level of 1,225. The Committee is supportive of this 
request. As the workload at NSF has increased over time, the 
agency has struggled to keep up with the demands. Additionally, 
the increased demands have taken a toll on the infrastructure 
at NSF. The Committee has included additional funds in order to 
make improvements to its computer systems, particularly to 
FastLane.
    The Committee notes that NSF has created a senior level 
management position dedicated to assisting minority-serving 
institutions. It is expected that NSF will support this 
position in order to help minority-serving institutions improve 
the quality of STEM education, and the on campus incorporation 
of innovative technologies, as well as to increase 
participation in NSF activities by members of these 
institutions.
    The Committee remains concerned about the Foundation's 
management and oversight of its large research facilities. The 
Committee is especially troubled by the lack of staffing 
resources provided to the new Deputy Director of Large Facility 
Projects and accordingly, the Committee directs the Foundation 
to provide the staffing support necessary for the Deputy 
Director to perform his job effectively. The Committee directs 
the Foundation to detail in its fiscal year 2006 operating plan 
the steps taken to provide additional staffing resources.

                  OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $3,877,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................       3,950,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Science Board is the governing body of the 
National Science Foundation. The Board is composed of 24 
members, appointed by the President and confirmed by the 
Senate. The Board is also charged with serving as an 
independent adviser to the President and Congress on policy 
matters related to science and engineering research and 
education. By law, the Board establishes the policies of the 
National Science Foundation, provides oversight of its programs 
and activities, and approves of its strategic directions and 
budgets. The Board reviews and approves NSF awards at levels 
above its delegation of authority to the NSF Director.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,000,000 for 
the National Science Board. This amount is $120,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
    Given the increasing oversight responsibilities of the 
Board, driven by the growth of the Foundation, the Committee 
wants to ensure the Board continues to carryout effectively its 
policy-making and oversight responsibilities. The Committee is 
providing funding to support the operations, activities, 
training, expenses, and staffing of the Board.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2004....................................      $9,941,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      10,110,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,110,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Inspector General appropriation provides 
audit and investigation functions to identify and correct 
deficiencies that could create potential instances of fraud, 
waste, or mismanagement.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,110,000 
for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is the same as 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
    The funds provided will allow the OIG to further its 
efforts in several priority areas that pose the greatest risk 
to the agency: financial management, acquisition, information 
technology, human capital, award administration, awardee 
financial accountability and compliance, and the management of 
agency programs and projects. With the funds provided, the OIG 
will have the capability to provide proactive prevention and 
detection efforts to determine if violations identified during 
individual investigations are widespread or whether they 
undermine the integrity of the data upon which NSF relies.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2004....................................    $114,323,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     115,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     115,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by 
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the 
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public 
Law 95-557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment helps 
local communities establish working partnerships between 
residents and representatives of the public and private 
sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent, 
tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and are often known as 
Neighborhood Housing Services [NHS] or mutual housing 
associations. Collectively, these organizations are known as 
the NeighborWorks network.
    Nationally, 228 NeighborWorks organizations serve over 
2,500 urban, suburban and rural communities in 49 States, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In fiscal year 2003, the 
NeighborWorks network assisted nearly 84,000 families to 
obtain and maintain safe and affordable rental and 
homeownership units, where 70 percent of the people served are 
in the very low and low-income brackets.
    Neighborhood Reinvestment also provides grants to 
Neighborhood Housing Services of America [NHSA], the 
NeighborWorks network's national secondary market. The mission 
of NHSA is to utilize private sector support to replenish local 
NeighborWorks organizations' revolving loan funds. These loans 
are used to back securities that are placed with private sector 
social investors.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $115,000,000 for the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation, the same level as the budget request 
and $677,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
    The Committee has included a set-aside of $5,000,000 for 
the multifamily rental housing initiative. This program has 
been successful in producing mixed-income affordable housing in 
communities with affordable housing shortages.
    The Committee commends Neighborhood Reinvestment for their 
capacity building support of rural organizations. Funding 
support for rural NeighborWorks organizations has increased 
significantly over the past several years and for fiscal year 
2005, NRC expect direct investments by NeighborWorks 
organizations serving rural communities across the Nation to 
reach $500,000,000. The Committee strongly supports these 
investments and urges the Corporation to develop a long-range 
plan in addressing the needs of rural communities.
    The Committee continues to support the work being done by 
NeighborWorks members to combat predatory lending practices. 
The Committee recognizes the importance that financial literacy 
and homeownership counseling have in preventing people from 
becoming victims of predatory schemes. The Committee also 
recognizes that NeighborWorks members have successfully 
counseled tens of thousands of people who went on to become 
homeowners and encourages the Neighborhood Reinvestment 
Corporation and its network to expand its education and 
counseling programs.

                        Selective Service System

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2004....................................     $26,308,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      26,300,000
Committee recommendation................................      26,300,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,300,000 
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as 
the budget request and $147,000 below the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level. The Committee also prohibits the use of any 
funds to support the Corporation for National and Community 
Service.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends inclusion of 26 general 
provisions. They are largely standard provisions which have 
been carried in the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 
appropriations bill in the past or technical corrections.
    In addition, the Committee has concerns regarding the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Administrative Law Judge's 
decision in Docket Nos. OR89-2-017; Docket No. OR96-14-006; 
Docket No. OR98-24-002; Docket No. IS03-137-001; Docket No. 
IS03-141-001; Docket No. IS03-142-001; Docket No. IS03-143-001; 
Docket No. IS03-144-001. Given the importance of continued 
domestic refinery activity in order to protect national fuel 
supplies, the Committee expects FERC to evaluate carefully the 
disputed Resid valuation and retroactive refund matter 
affecting the TAPS Quality Bank Adjustments. The Committee is 
particularly concerned about the equity of assigning 
retroactive refunds beyond a term of 15 months. The Committee 
may address this issue in more detail at conference.
    For purposes of this section, the term ``TAPS Quality Bank 
Adjustments'' means monetary adjustments paid by or to shippers 
of oil on the Trans Alaska Pipeline System through the 
operation of a quality bank to compensate for the value of the 
shippers' oil commingled in the pipeline.

  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.''

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    Rural housing and economic development: $25,000,000.
    Brownfields: $25,000,000.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 21, 
2004, the Committee ordered reported S. 2825, an original bill 
making appropriations the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, subject to amendment 
and 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
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.''
    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.

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount of    Committee    Amount of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
 for 2005: Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and
 Urban Development, and Independent Agencies:
    Discretionary...........................................       92,930       92,930      101,732  \1\ 101,100
    Mandatory...............................................       38,912       35,107       38,535   \1\ 34,688
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2005....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 87,773
    2006....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       24,596
    2007....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        8,994
    2008....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,293
    2009 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,687
Financial assistance to State and local governments for                NA       31,046           NA       11,075
 2005.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

  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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                             compared with (+ or -)
                                Item                                       2004       Budget estimate     Committee    ---------------------------------
                                                                      appropriation                     recommendation        2004
                                                                                                                         appropriation   Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              TITLE I

                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                  Veterans Benefits Administration

Compensation and pensions..........................................      29,845,127       32,607,688       32,607,688       +2,762,561   ...............
Readjustment benefits..............................................       2,529,734        2,556,232        2,556,232          +26,498   ...............
Veterans insurance and indemnities.................................          29,017           44,380           44,380          +15,363   ...............
Veterans housing benefit program fund program account (indefinite).         305,834           43,784           43,784         -262,050   ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................            (300)  ...............            (500)           (+200)           (+500)
    Credit subsidy.................................................  ...............        -144,000         -144,000         -144,000   ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................         153,936          154,075          154,075             +139   ...............
Education loan fund program account................................               1   ...............  ...............              -1   ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................              (3)  ...............  ...............             (-3)  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................              70   ...............  ...............             -70   ...............
Vocational rehabilitation loans program account....................              52               47               47               -5   ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................          (3,938)          (4,108)          (4,108)           (+170)  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................             298              311              311              +13   ...............
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account...............             568              571              571               +3   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Veterans Benefits Administration......................      32,864,637       35,263,088       35,263,088       +2,398,451   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   Veterans Health Administration

Medical services...................................................      16,662,054   ...............      17,198,600         +536,546      +17,198,600
    Two year funding...............................................       1,100,000   ...............       1,100,000   ...............      +1,100,000
    (Emergency appropriations).....................................  ...............  ...............       1,200,000       +1,200,000       +1,200,000
Medical administration.............................................       4,970,500   ...............       4,705,000         -265,500       +4,705,000
Medical facilities.................................................       3,976,400   ...............       3,745,000         -231,400       +3,745,000
Medical and prosthetic research....................................         405,593          384,770          405,593   ...............         +20,823
Medical care.......................................................  ...............      25,352,600   ...............  ...............     -25,352,600
    Two-year funding...............................................  ...............       1,396,000   ...............  ...............      -1,396,000
    Rescission.....................................................        -270,000   ...............  ...............        +270,000   ...............
Medical care cost recovery collections:
    Offsetting collections.........................................      -1,554,772       -2,002,000       -2,002,000         -447,228   ...............
    Appropriations (indefinite)....................................       1,554,772        2,002,000        2,002,000         +447,228   ...............
Accelerated spending of balances (Sec. 114b).......................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Veterans Health Administration........................      26,844,547       27,133,370       28,354,193       +1,509,646       +1,220,823
          Offsetting collections...................................     (-1,554,772)     (-2,002,000)     (-2,002,000)       (-447,228)  ...............
          Total available to VHA...................................     (28,399,319)     (29,135,370)     (30,356,193)     (+1,956,874)     (+1,220,823)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                    Departmental Administration

General operating expenses.........................................       1,275,701        1,324,753        1,399,753         +124,052          +75,000
National Cemetery Administration...................................         143,352          148,925          148,925           +5,573   ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................          61,634           64,711           64,711           +3,077   ...............
Construction, major projects.......................................         271,081          458,800          458,800         +187,719   ...............
    Omnibus Appropriations (Public Law 108-199) Sec. 167...........             497   ...............  ...............            -497   ...............
Construction, minor projects.......................................         250,656          230,799          230,799          -19,857   ...............
Grants for construction of State extended care facilities..........         101,498          105,163          105,163           +3,665   ...............
Grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries...........          31,811           32,000           32,000             +189   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental Administration...........................       2,136,230        2,365,151        2,440,151         +303,921          +75,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, title I, Department of Veterans Affairs...............      61,845,414       64,761,609       66,057,432       +4,212,018       +1,295,823
                                                                    ====================================================================================
          Appropriations...........................................     (63,670,186)     (65,367,609)     (66,859,432)     (+3,189,246)     (+1,491,823)
          Rescissions..............................................       (-270,000)  ...............  ...............       (+270,000)  ...............
          (Emergency appropriations)...............................  ...............  ...............       1,200,000       +1,200,000       +1,200,000
          Offsetting collections...................................     (-1,554,772)     (-2,002,000)     (-2,002,000)       (-447,228)  ...............

      (Limitation on direct loans).................................          (4,241)          (4,108)          (4,608)           (+367)           (+500)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
          Mandatory................................................     (32,709,712)     (35,108,084)     (35,108,084)     (+2,398,372)  ...............
          Net discretionary........................................     (29,135,702)     (29,653,525)     (30,949,348)     (+1,813,646)     (+1,295,823)
              Medical care collection fund.........................      (1,554,772)      (2,002,000)      (2,002,000)       (+447,228)  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Total discretionary available......................     (30,690,474)     (31,655,525)     (32,951,348)     (+2,260,874)     (+1,295,823)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                              TITLE II

            DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                     Public and Indian Housing

Housing Certificate Fund:
    Direct appropriation...........................................      15,081,970       14,265,800       16,507,804       +1,425,834       +2,242,004
    Advance appropriations provided in previous acts...............       4,175,220        4,200,000        4,200,000          +24,780   ...............
    Rescission.....................................................      -2,844,000       -1,557,000       -2,588,172         +255,828       -1,031,172
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Housing certificate fund...........................      16,413,190       16,908,800       18,119,632       +1,706,442       +1,210,832

    Advance appropriations provided in current year................       4,200,000        4,200,000        4,200,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, Housing certificate fund..............................      20,613,190       21,108,800       22,319,632       +1,706,442       +1,210,832

Public housing capital fund........................................       2,696,253        2,674,100        2,700,000           +3,747          +25,900
Public housing operating fund......................................       3,578,760        3,573,000        2,610,000         -968,760         -963,000
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing...............         149,115   ...............         150,000             +885         +150,000
Public housing elimination grants (rescission).....................  ...............          -5,000           -5,000           -5,000   ...............
Native American housing block grants...............................         650,241          647,000          650,241   ...............          +3,241
Title VI credit subsidy (rescission)...............................  ...............         -21,000          -21,000          -21,000   ...............
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account.................           5,269            1,000            1,000           -4,269   ...............
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................        (197,243)         (29,070)         (29,070)       (-168,173)  ...............
Indian housing credit subsidy (rescission).........................  ...............         -33,000          -33,000          -33,000   ...............
Native Hawaiian housing block grant................................  ...............           9,500   ...............  ...............          -9,500
Native Hawaiian housing loan guarantee fund........................           1,029            1,000            1,000              -29   ...............
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................         (39,712)         (37,403)         (37,403)         (-2,309)  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Public and Indian Housing.............................      27,693,857       27,955,400       28,372,873         +679,016         +417,473
          Current year advance appropriations......................       4,200,000        4,200,000        4,200,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Net total (excluding current year advances)..................      23,493,857       23,755,400       24,172,873         +679,016         +417,473
          Appropriations...........................................     (26,337,857)     (25,371,400)     (26,820,045)       (+482,188)     (+1,448,645)
          Rescissions..............................................     (-2,844,000)     (-1,616,000)     (-2,647,172)       (+196,828)     (-1,031,172)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                 Community Planning and Development

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS........................         294,751          294,800          294,800              +49   ...............
Rural housing and economic development.............................          24,853   ...............          25,000             +147          +25,000
Empowerment zones/enterprise communities...........................          14,912   ...............  ...............         -14,912   ...............
Community development fund.........................................       4,920,795        4,618,094        4,950,000          +29,205         +331,906
    Omnibus Appropriations (Public Law 108-199) Sec. 165...........           9,941   ...............  ...............          -9,941   ...............
    Omnibus Appropriations (Public Law 108-199) Sec. 167...........           2,992   ...............  ...............          -2,992   ...............
Urban development action grant (rescission)........................         -30,000   ...............  ...............         +30,000   ...............
Section 108 loan guarantees:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................        (275,000)  ...............        (275,000)  ...............       (+275,000)
    Credit subsidy.................................................           6,288   ...............           6,325              +37           +6,325
    Administrative expenses........................................             994   ...............           1,000               +6           +1,000
Brownfields redevelopment..........................................          24,853   ...............          25,000             +147          +25,000
HOME investment partnerships program...............................       2,005,597        2,084,200        2,050,000          +44,403          -34,200
Homeless assistance grants.........................................       1,259,525        1,282,400        1,260,000             +475          -22,400
Samaritan housing initiative (legislative proposal)................  ...............          50,000   ...............  ...............         -50,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Community planning and development....................       8,535,501        8,329,494        8,612,125          +76,624         +282,631
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                          Housing Programs

Housing for the elderly............................................         773,728          773,300          773,800              +72             +500
Housing for persons with disabilities..............................         249,092          248,700          250,000             +908           +1,300
Housing counseling assistance......................................  ...............          45,000   ...............  ...............         -45,000
Rental housing assistance (rescission).............................        -303,000         -675,000         -675,000         -372,000   ...............
Manufactured housing fees trust fund...............................          12,923           13,000           13,000              +77   ...............
    Offsetting collections.........................................         -12,923          -13,000          -13,000              -77   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, housing programs......................................         719,820          392,000          348,800         -371,020          -43,200
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   Federal Housing Administration

FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................    (185,000,000)    (185,000,000)    (185,000,000)  ...............  ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................         (50,000)         (50,000)         (50,000)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................         356,882          366,000          366,000           +9,118   ...............
    Offsetting receipts............................................      -2,921,000       -2,206,000       -2,206,000         +715,000   ...............
    Offsetting receipts (legislative proposal).....................  ...............         -28,000          -28,000          -28,000   ...............
    Administrative contract expenses...............................          84,499           70,900           70,900          -13,599   ...............
    Additional contract expenses...................................           1,000            1,000            1,000   ...............  ...............

FHA--General and special risk program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................     (25,000,000)     (35,000,000)     (35,000,000)    (+10,000,000)  ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................         (50,000)         (50,000)         (50,000)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................         227,649          234,000          234,000           +6,351   ...............
    Offsetting receipts............................................        -225,000         -240,000         -240,000          -15,000   ...............
    Credit subsidy.................................................          14,912           10,000           10,000           -4,912   ...............
    GI/SRI credit subsidy (rescission).............................  ...............         -30,000          -30,000          -30,000   ...............
    Non-overhead administrative expenses...........................          93,227           81,600           81,600          -11,627   ...............
    Additional contract expenses...................................           4,000            4,000            4,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Housing Administration........................      -2,363,831       -1,736,500       -1,736,500         +627,331   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
          Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program
 account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................    (200,000,000)    (200,000,000)    (200,000,000)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................          10,695           10,986           10,986             +291   ...............
    Offsetting receipts............................................        -316,124         -368,000         -368,000          -51,876   ...............

                  Policy Development and Research

Research and technology............................................          46,723           46,700           46,700              -23   ...............

                 Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair housing activities............................................          47,717           47,700           47,700              -17   ...............

                   Office of Lead Hazard Control

Lead hazard reduction..............................................         173,968          139,000          175,000           +1,032          +36,000

                   Management and Administration

Salaries and expenses..............................................         543,773          591,579          590,579          +46,806           -1,000
    Transfer from:
        Limitation on FHA corporate funds..........................        (564,000)        (576,000)        (576,000)        (+12,000)  ...............
        GNMA.......................................................         (10,695)         (10,986)         (10,986)           (+291)  ...............
        Community Development Loan Guarantees Program..............          (1,000)  ...............          (1,000)  ...............         (+1,000)
        Native American Housing Block Grants.......................            (150)            (150)            (150)  ...............  ...............
        Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program.................            (250)            (250)            (250)  ...............  ...............
        Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantees....................             (35)             (35)             (35)  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Salaries and expenses.............................      (1,119,903)      (1,179,000)      (1,179,000)        (+59,097)  ...............

Working capital fund...............................................         233,614          234,000          234,000             +386   ...............

Office of Inspector General........................................          76,546           77,000           83,500           +6,954           +6,500
    (By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds)...............         (24,000)         (24,000)         (24,000)  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of Inspector General...........................        (100,546)        (101,000)        (107,500)         (+6,954)         (+6,500)

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.....................          39,680           44,259           59,209          +19,529          +14,950
    Offsetting receipts............................................         -39,680          -44,259          -59,209          -19,529          -14,950
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development.      35,402,259       35,719,359       36,417,763       +1,015,504         +698,404
          Current year advance appropriations......................       4,200,000        4,200,000        4,200,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Net total (excluding current year advances)..................      31,202,259       31,519,359       32,217,763       +1,015,504         +698,404
          Appropriations...........................................     (37,893,986)     (36,739,618)     (38,484,144)       (+590,158)     (+1,744,526)
          Rescissions..............................................     (-3,177,000)     (-2,321,000)     (-3,352,172)       (-175,172)     (-1,031,172)
          Offsetting receipts......................................     (-3,462,124)     (-2,842,000)     (-2,842,000)       (+620,124)  ...............
          Offsetting collections...................................        (-52,603)        (-57,259)        (-72,209)        (-19,606)        (-14,950)

      (Limitation on direct loans).................................        (100,000)        (100,000)        (100,000)  ...............  ...............
      (Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................    (410,511,955)    (420,066,473)    (420,341,473)     (+9,829,518)       (+275,000)
      (Limitation on corporate funds)..............................        (600,130)        (611,421)        (612,421)        (+12,291)         (+1,000)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                             TITLE III

                        INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                American Battle Monuments Commission

Salaries and expenses..............................................          41,056           41,100           46,100           +5,044           +5,000

           Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

Salaries and expenses..............................................           8,201            8,566            9,000             +799             +434
Emergency fund.....................................................             447              450   ...............            -447             -450
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................           8,648            9,016            9,000             +352              -16

                     Department of the Treasury

            Community Development Financial Institutions

Community development financial institutions fund program account..          60,640           48,403           55,000           -5,640           +6,597

                 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Salaries and expenses..............................................          59,646           62,650           62,650           +3,004   ...............

           Corporation for National and Community Service

National and community service programs operating expenses.........         549,961          636,232          558,311           +8,350          -77,921
National Service Trust.............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Salaries and expenses..............................................          24,853   ...............          25,500             +647          +25,500
Office of Inspector General........................................           6,213            6,000            6,250              +37             +250
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................         581,027          642,232          590,061           +9,034          -52,171

             U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Salaries and expenses..............................................          15,844           17,623           17,623           +1,779   ...............

                    Department of Defense--Civil

                     Cemeterial Expenses, Army

Salaries and expenses..............................................          28,829           29,600           29,600             +771   ...............

              Department of Health and Human Services

                    National Institute of Health

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences................          78,309           80,486           80,486           +2,177   ...............

             Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

          Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Toxic substances and environmental public health...................          73,034           76,654           76,654           +3,620   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Department of Health and Human Services...............         151,343          157,140          157,140           +5,797   ...............

                  Environmental Protection Agency

Science and Technology.............................................         781,685          689,185          758,179          -23,506          +68,994
    Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund....................          44,433           36,097           36,097           -8,336   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science and Technology.............................         826,118          725,282          794,276          -31,842          +68,994

Environmental Programs and Management..............................       2,280,046        2,316,959        2,310,263          +30,217           -6,696

Office of Inspector General........................................          37,336           37,997           38,000             +664               +3
    Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund....................          13,136           13,214           13,214              +78   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, OIG................................................          50,472           51,211           51,214             +742               +3

Buildings and facilities...........................................          39,764           42,918           40,000             +236           -2,918

Hazardous Substance Superfund......................................       1,257,537        1,381,416        1,381,416         +123,879   ...............
    Transfer to Office of Inspector General........................         -13,136          -13,214          -13,214              -78   ...............
    Transfer to Science and Technology.............................         -44,434          -36,097          -36,097           +8,337   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Hazardous Substance Superfund......................       1,199,967        1,332,105        1,332,105         +132,138   ...............

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program...........................          75,552           72,545           70,000           -5,552           -2,545
Oil spill response.................................................          16,113           16,425           16,000             -113             -425
Pesticide registration fund........................................  ...............          19,400           19,400          +19,400   ...............
Pesticide registration fees........................................  ...............         -19,400          -19,400          -19,400   ...............

State and Tribal Assistance Grants.................................       2,705,543        1,979,500        2,724,000          +18,457         +744,500
    Omnibus Appropriations (Public Law 108-199) Sec. 167...........           3,976   ...............  ...............          -3,976   ...............
    Categorical grants.............................................       1,168,266        1,252,300        1,162,550           -5,716          -89,750
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, STAG...............................................       3,877,785        3,231,800        3,886,550           +8,765         +654,750
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, EPA...................................................       8,365,817        7,789,245        8,500,408         +134,591         +711,163
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                 Executive Office of the President

Office of Science and Technology Policy............................           6,986            7,081            7,081              +95   ...............
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental                  3,219            3,284            3,284              +65   ...............
 Quality...........................................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................          10,205           10,365           10,365             +160   ...............

               Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Office of Inspector General (transfer).............................         (30,125)         (30,125)         (30,625)           (+500)           (+500)

                  General Services Administration

Federal Citizen Information Center Fund............................          13,917           14,907           14,907             +990   ...............

              U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness

Operating expenses.................................................           1,491            1,500            1,500               +9   ...............

           National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Space flight capabilities..........................................       7,467,779        8,456,400        7,811,100         +343,321         -645,300
    (Emergency appropriations).....................................  ...............  ...............         600,000         +600,000         +600,000
Science, aeronautics and exploration...............................       7,883,114        7,760,000        7,736,500         -146,614          -23,500
    (Emergency appropriations).....................................  ...............  ...............         200,000         +200,000         +200,000
Office of Inspector General........................................          27,139           27,600           31,600           +4,461           +4,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NASA..................................................      15,378,032       16,244,000       16,379,200       +1,001,168         +135,200

                National Credit Union Administration

Central liquidity facility:
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................      (1,500,000)      (1,500,000)      (1,500,000)  ...............  ...............
    (Limitation on administrative expenses, corporate funds).......            (310)            (310)            (310)  ...............  ...............
Community Development Revolving Loan Fund..........................           1,193            1,000            1,000             -193   ...............

                    National Science Foundation

Research and related activities....................................       4,183,769        4,384,000        4,336,320         +152,551          -47,680
    Defense function...............................................          67,599           68,000           68,000             +401   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................       4,251,368        4,452,000        4,404,320         +152,952          -47,680

Major research equipment and facilities construction...............         154,980          213,270          130,420          -24,560          -82,850
Education and human resources......................................         938,977          771,360          929,150           -9,827         +157,790
Salaries and expenses..............................................         218,702          294,000          269,000          +50,298          -25,000
National Science Board.............................................           3,877            3,950            4,000             +123              +50
Office of Inspector General........................................           9,941           10,110           10,110             +169   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NSF...................................................       5,577,845        5,744,690        5,747,000         +169,155           +2,310

               Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation...............         114,322          115,000          115,000             +678   ...............

                      Selective Service System

Salaries and expenses..............................................          26,153           26,300           26,300             +147   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title III, Independent agencies.......................      30,436,008       30,954,771       31,762,854       +1,326,846         +808,083
          Appropriations...........................................     (30,436,008)     (30,954,771)     (30,962,854)       (+526,846)         (+8,083)
          (Emergency appropriations)...............................  ...............  ...............        (800,000)       (+800,000)       (+800,000)
      (By transfer)................................................         (30,125)         (30,125)         (30,625)           (+500)           (+500)
      (Limitation on direct loans).................................      (1,500,000)      (1,500,000)      (1,500,000)  ...............  ...............
      (Limitation on corporate funds)..............................            (310)            (310)            (310)  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Grand total..................................................     127,683,681      131,435,739      134,238,049       +6,554,368       +2,802,310
          Current year advances (housing cert. fund)...............       4,200,000        4,200,000        4,200,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Net grand total..............................................     123,483,681      127,235,739      130,038,049       +6,554,368       +2,802,310
          Appropriations...........................................    (132,000,180)    (133,061,998)    (136,306,430)     (+4,306,250)     (+3,244,432)
          Rescissions..............................................     (-3,447,000)     (-2,321,000)     (-3,352,172)        (+94,828)     (-1,031,172)
          (Emergency appropriations)...............................  ...............  ...............      (2,000,000)     (+2,000,000)     (+2,000,000)
          Offsetting receipts......................................     (-3,462,124)     (-2,842,000)     (-2,842,000)       (+620,124)  ...............
          Offsetting collections...................................     (-1,607,375)     (-2,059,259)     (-2,074,209)       (-466,834)        (-14,950)
    (By transfer)..................................................         (30,125)         (30,125)         (30,625)           (+500)           (+500)
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................      (1,604,241)      (1,604,108)      (1,604,608)           (+367)           (+500)
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................    (410,511,955)    (420,066,473)    (420,341,473)     (+9,829,518)       (+275,000)
    (Limitation on corporate funds)................................        (600,440)        (611,731)        (612,731)        (+12,291)         (+1,000)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
              TITLE I--Department of Veterans Affairs

Veterans Benefits Administration...................................      32,864,637       35,263,088       35,263,088       +2,398,451   ...............
Veterans Health Administration.....................................      26,844,547       27,133,370       28,354,193       +1,509,646       +1,220,823
Departmental administration........................................       2,136,230        2,365,151        2,440,151         +303,921          +75,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs...............      61,845,414       64,761,609       66,057,432       +4,212,018       +1,295,823
                                                                    ====================================================================================
              TITLE II--Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev

Public and Indian housing (excluding CY advances)..................      23,493,857       23,755,400       24,172,873         +679,016         +417,473
Community and planning development.................................       8,535,501        8,329,494        8,612,125          +76,624         +282,631
Housing programs...................................................         719,820          392,000          348,800         -371,020          -43,200
Federal Housing Administration.....................................      -2,363,831       -1,736,500       -1,736,500         +627,331   ...............
Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)....................        -305,429         -357,014         -357,014          -51,585   ...............
Policy development and research....................................          46,723           46,700           46,700              -23   ...............
Fair housing and equal opportunity activities......................          47,717           47,700           47,700              -17   ...............
Office of Lead Hazard Control......................................         173,968          139,000          175,000           +1,032          +36,000
Management and administration......................................       1,119,903        1,179,000        1,179,000          +59,097   ...............
Working capital fund...............................................         233,614          234,000          234,000             +386   ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................         100,546          101,000          107,500           +6,954           +6,500
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Title II--Dept. of Housing and Urban Development            31,202,259       31,519,359       32,217,763       +1,015,504         +698,404
       (excluding CY advances).....................................
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  TITLE III--Independent Agencies

American Battle Monuments Commission...............................          41,056           41,100           46,100           +5,044           +5,000
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.....................           8,201            8,566            9,000             +799             +434
Community development financial institutions fund (Department of             60,640           48,403           55,000           -5,640           +6,597
 Treasury).........................................................
Interagency Council on the Homeless................................           1,491            1,500            1,500               +9   ...............
Consumer Product Safety Commission.................................          59,646           62,650           62,650           +3,004   ...............
Corporation for National and Community Service.....................         581,027          642,232          590,061           +9,034          -52,171
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims..........................          15,844           17,623           17,623           +1,779   ...............
Cemeterial expenses, Army..........................................          28,829           29,600           29,600             +771   ...............
HHS/(NIH-Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) and (CDC-Toxic         151,343          157,140          157,140           +5,797   ...............
 Substances and Disease Registry)..................................
Environmental Protection Agency....................................       8,365,817        7,789,245        8,500,408         +134,591         +711,163
EOP/Office of Science and Technology Policy, Council Environmental           10,205           10,365           10,365             +160   ...............
 Qual, and Office of Environmental Qual............................
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.....................................          30,125           30,125           30,625             +500             +500
GSA/Federal Consumer Information Center............................          13,917           14,907           14,907             +990   ...............
National Aeronautics and Space Administration......................      15,378,032       16,244,000       16,379,200       +1,001,168         +135,200
National Credit Union Administration...............................           1,193            1,000            1,000             -193   ...............
National Science Foundation........................................       5,577,845        5,744,690        5,747,000         +169,155           +2,310
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation..............................         114,322          115,000          115,000             +678   ...............
Selective Service System...........................................          26,153           26,300           26,300             +147   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Title III--Independent Agencies........................      30,436,008       30,954,771       31,762,854       +1,326,846         +808,083
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Net grand total..............................................     123,483,681      127,235,739      130,038,049       +6,554,368       +2,802,310
          Mandatory................................................     (32,709,712)     (35,108,084)     (35,108,084)     (+2,398,372)  ...............
          Discretionary............................................     (90,773,969)     (92,127,655)     (94,929,965)     (+4,155,996)     (+2,802,310)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


```