95–744 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–674 

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING 

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2005 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2004.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. WALSH, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5041] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill 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. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Title I—Department of Veterans Affairs .................................................. 2 3 

Title II—Department of Housing and Urban Development ................... 23 19 

Title III—Independent Agencies ............................................................... 72 82 

American Battle Monuments Commission ........................................ 72 82 

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board ........................... 73 83 

Community Development Financial Institutions ............................. 74 84 

Consumer Product Safety Commission ............................................. 75 84 

Corporation for National and Community Service ........................... 76 85 

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ...................................... 81 87 

Department of Defense—Civil, Cemeterial Expenses, Army .......... 81 88 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ..................... 82 89 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ......................... 82 89 

Environmental Protection Agency ..................................................... 83 90 

Office of Science and Technology Policy ............................................ 83 125 

2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental 

Quality .............................................................................................. 93 126 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ............................................ 94 126 

Federal Citizen Information Center .................................................. 94 127 

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ...................... 95 128 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ............................. 95 128 

National Credit Union Administration ............................................. 99 137 

National Science Foundation ............................................................. 99 138 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ......................................... 102 145 

Selective Service System .................................................................... 102 145 

White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance ............................................................................................... 103 146 

Title IV—General Provisions .................................................................... 103 146 

Summary of the Bill ................................................................................... ........ ...........

The Committee recommends $128,037,084,000 in new budget 

(obligational) authority for the Departments of Veterans Affairs 

and Housing and Urban Development, and 21 independent agencies and offices. 

The following table summarizes the amounts recommended in 

the bill in comparison with the appropriations for fiscal year 2004 

and budget estimates for fiscal year 2005. 

OPERATING PLAN AND REPROGRAMMING PROCEDURES

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, the basis of this appropriations Act. 

Consequently, the Committee directs the Departments, agencies, 

boards, commissions, corporations and offices funded at or in excess 

of $100,000,000 in this bill, to consult with the Committee prior to 

each change from the approved budget levels in excess of $500,000 

between programs, activities, object classifications or elements unless otherwise provided for in the Committee report accompanying 

this bill. For agencies, boards, commissions, corporations and offices funded at less than $100,000,000 in this bill, the reprogramming threshold shall be $250,000 between programs, activities, object classifications or elements unless otherwise provided for in the 

Committee report accompanying this bill. Additionally, the Committee expects to be promptly notified of all reprogramming actions 

which involve less than the above-mentioned amounts. If such actions would have the effect of significantly changing an agency’s 

funding requirements in future years, or if programs or projects 

specifically cited in the Committee’s reports are affected by the reprogramming, the reprogramming must be approved by the Committee regardless of the amount proposed to be moved. Furthermore, the Committee wishes to be consulted regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, and activities prior to the planned implementation of such reorganizations. 

The Committee also directs that the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Environmental ProVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
3 

tection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 

Board shall submit operating plans, signed by the respective secretary, administrator, or agency head, for the Committee’s review 

within 120 days of the bill’s enactment. 

RELATIONSHIP WITH BUDGET OFFICES

Through the years, the Committee has channeled most of its inquiries and requests for information and assistance through the 

budget offices of the various departments, agencies, and commissions. The Committee has often pointed to the natural affinity and 

relationship between these organizations and the Committee which 

makes such a relationship workable. The Committee reiterates its 

longstanding position that while the Committee reserves the right 

to call upon all offices in the departments, agencies, and commissions, the primary conjunction between the Committee and these 

entities must normally be through the budget offices. The Committee appreciates all the assistance received from each of the departments, agencies, and commissions during the past year. The 

workload generated by the budget process is large and growing, 

and therefore, a positive, responsive relationship between the Committee and the budget offices is absolutely essential to the appropriations process. 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ......................................... 1 $65,961,609,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .............................................. 1,2 61,845,163,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................................... 1 64,761,609,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ................. +4,116,446,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ............... +1,200,000,000 

1 Excludes MCCF collections. 

2FY 2004 discretionary programs include the impact of the rescissions imposed under PL 108–199. Includes $270,000,000 rescission of Medical Care prior year funds. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the largest Federal 

agencies in terms of employment with an average employment of 

approximately 219,671. It administers benefits for more than 

25,200,000 veterans, and 38,400,000 family members of living veterans and survivors of deceased veterans. Thus, close to 64,000,000 

people, comprising about 21.7 percent of the total population of the 

United States, are potential recipients of veterans benefits provided 

by the Federal Government. A total of $65,961,609,000 in new budget authority is recommended by the Committee for the Department of Veterans Affairs programs in fiscal year 2005. The funds recommended provide 

for compensation payments to 2,935,586 veterans and survivors of 

deceased veterans with service-connected disabilities; pension payment for 550,856 non-service-connected disabled veterans, widows 

and children in need of financial assistance; education training, tuition assistance, and vocational assistance of 536,012 veterans, servicepersons, and reservists, and 73,352 eligible dependents of deceased veterans or seriously disabled veterans; housing credit assistance in the form of 300,000 guaranteed loans provided to veterans and servicepersons; administration or supervision of life inVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
4 

surance programs with 7,439,095 policies for veterans and active 

duty servicepersons providing coverage of $747,636,000,000; inpatient care and treatment of beneficiaries in 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 involving 57,481,000 visits; and the administration 

of the National Cemetery Administration for burial of eligible veterans, servicepersons and their survivors. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs submitted the 2005 budget 

in an alternative appropriations structure for consideration. The 

Committee has not adopted this new structure because it does not 

address the needs of the Congress in its role of reviewing and allocating federal budgetary resources. While the Committee recognizes the right of the executive branch to propose whatever structure it deems necessary, budget execution must ultimately follow 

the guidelines laid out in appropriations bills. The Committee must 

be convinced that the proposed changes are necessary and serve 

the needs of all participants in the federal budget process before 

any changes are adopted, and that has not been the case with the 

proposed restructuring. If the Department wishes to continue the 

wasteful practice of submitting a budget structure that will not 

serve the needs of the Congress, the Congress has little choice but 

to reject that structure and continue providing appropriations that 

serve its purposes as it has done for the past two years. 

The Committee recognizes that a large number of active and reservist personnel returning from extended deployments in Iraq and 

Afghanistan will require essential supportive social services such 

as emergency shelter, childcare services, and drug treatment programs after discharge from the military. Since enrollment in services provided by the Department is voluntary, the Committee is 

concerned that many former service members are not aware of 

available services, or the actual number of former service members 

that require supportive services. The Committee applauds the efforts being undertaken by the Department as it attempts to deal 

with these issues and requests the Department report to Congress 

the best method of assessing the number of veterans and the services they may require. 

The Committee has been following the testing and implementation process of the CoreFLS program at the Bay Pines VA Medical 

Center for a number of months and continues to be concerned that 

CoreFLS may not be salvageable. The Committee has found that 

the procurement strategy selected for such an ambitious project 

was most probably inappropriate. Further, the Committee is concerned that there appears to have been less than an arms-length 

relationship between VA personnel and the contractor selected for 

this project. Finally, the Committee is appalled that contract tasks 

in many cases did not make the contractor responsible for measurable deliverables tied to total system performance, but instead the 

contractor was primarily responsible only for technical advice and 

assistance. While the Committee considered the option of denying 

any funds for further development or implementation of this 

project, that option may be more costly and riskier than continuing 

with the current project. 

5 

The Committee’s concerns are rooted in the fact that with a total 

estimated cost of $499.3 million, of which over 50% has been expended thus far, CoreFLS may not address the fundamental need 

to ensure VA compliance with the Federal Financial Management 

Improvement Act or respond adequately to long-standing material 

weaknesses in VA’s existing financial processes. Upon completion 

of the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute evaluation 

of CoreFLS implementation, the Committee will work with senior 

management of the VA to ensure that further decisions about the 

future of CoreFLS are in the best interest of the government and 

the veterans. 

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

COMPENSATION, PENSION AND BURIAL BENEFITS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $32,607,688,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 29,845,127,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 32,607,688,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +2,762,561,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

This appropriation provides funds for service-connected compensation payments to an estimated 2,935,586 beneficiaries and 

pension payments to another 550,856 beneficiaries with non-service-connected disabilities. The average cost per compensation case 

in 2005 is estimated at $9,963, and pension payments are projected 

at a unit cost of $6,058. The estimated caseload and cost by program for 2004 and 2005 are included in the budget justification 

materials. 

For fiscal year 2005, the Committee is recommending the budget estimate of $32,607,688,000 for compensation, pension and burial 

benefits. The bill also includes requested language not to exceed 

$20,703,000 of reimbursements of which $9,500,000 goes to the 

general operating expenses account and $11,203,000 to the medical 

services account for administrative expenses of implementing cost 

saving provisions required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 

Act of 1990, Public Law 101–508, the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 

1992, Public Law 102–568, and the Veterans’ Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Public Law 103–446. These cost savings provisions include verifying pension income against Internal Revenue 

Service and Social Security Administration (SSA) data; establishing 

a match with the SSA to obtain verification of Social Security numbers; and the $90 monthly VA pension cap for Medicaid-eligible single veterans and surviving spouses alone in Medicaid-covered nursing homes. The bill includes requested language permitting this appropriation to reimburse such sums as may be earned to the medical facilities revolving fund to help defray the operating expenses 

of individual medical facilities for nursing home care provided to 

pensioners. 

The Administration has proposed to provide a cost-of-living adjustment, based on the change in the Consumer Price Index, to all 

compensation beneficiaries, including dependency and indemnity 

compensation (DIC) for spouses and children. It is currently estimated at 1.3 percent. This is the same as the COLA that will be 

provided, under current law, to veterans pension and Social SecuVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
6 

rity recipients. The increase would be effective December 1, 2004, 

and would cost an estimated $242,391,000 during 2005. Funding 

for this COLA is reflected in the Compensation, Pensions and Burial Benefits obligations in the 2005 budget. 

The Administration has proposed language that would provide 

indefinite 2005 supplemental appropriations for compensation and 

pension payments. The Committee believes current procedures are 

adequate and has not included the requested language in the bill. 

READJUSTMENT BENEFITS

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $2,556,232,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 2,529,734,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 2,556,232,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +26,498,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

This 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. 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 through education assistance to certain members of the Selected Reserve and 

are funded through transfers from the Departments of Defense and 

Homeland Security. In addition, certain disabled veterans are provided with vocational rehabilitation, specially adapted housing 

grants, and automobile grants with approved adaptive equipment. 

This account also finances educational assistance allowances for 

eligible dependents of those veterans who died from service-connected causes or have a total and permanent service-connected disability as well as dependents of servicepersons who were captured 

or missing-in-action. 

The Committee recommends the budget estimates of 

$2,556,232,000 for readjustment benefits in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $26,498,000 over the current year funding level. 

The Administration has proposed language that would provide 

indefinite 2005 supplemental appropriations for readjustment benefits because of legislative changes or year-end funding shortages. 

The Committee believes current procedures are adequate and has 

not included the requested language in the bill. 

VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $44,380,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 29,017,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 44,380,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +15,363,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

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 

(NSLI), applicable to certain World War II veterans; servicemen’s 

indemnities, applicable to Korean conflict veterans; and the veterans mortgage life insurance, applicable to individuals who have 

received a grant for specially adapted housing. 

7 

The budget estimate of $44,380,000 for veterans insurance and 

indemnities in fiscal year 2005 is included in the bill, an increase 

of $15,363,000 over the current year funding level. The amount 

provided will enable VA to transfer funding to the service-disabled 

veterans insurance fund and transfer additional amounts for payments for the 2,620 policies under the veterans mortgage life insurance program. These policies are identified under the veterans’ insurance and indemnity appropriation since they provide insurance 

to service-disabled veterans unable to qualify under basic NSLI. 

The Administration has proposed language that would provide 

indefinite 2005 supplemental appropriations for the insurance program. The Committee believes current procedures are adequate 

and has not included the requested language in the bill. 

VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account 

Limitation on direct 

loans for specially 

adapted housing loans 

Administrative 

expenses 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ................................................. $43,784,000 $500,000 $154,075,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ...................................................... 1 305,834,000 300,000 153,936,385 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ................................................... 43,784,000 500,000 154,075,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................... ¥262,050,000 +200,000 +138,615 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................... 0 0 0 

1 Reflects subsidy estimate from last year’s report. The new estimate for 2004 is $278,215,000. 

The purpose of the VA home loan guaranty program is to facilitate the extension of mortgage credit on favorable terms by private 

lenders to eligible veterans. This appropriation provides for all 

costs, with the exception of the native American veterans housing 

loan program, of the Department’s direct and guaranteed loans programs. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires budgetary resources to be available prior to incurring a direct loan obligation 

or a loan guarantee commitment. In addition, the Act requires all 

administrative expenses of a direct or guaranteed loan program to 

be funded through a program account. VA loan guaranties are 

made to servicemembers, veterans, reservists and unremarried surviving spouses for the purchase of homes, condominiums, manufactured homes and for refinancing loans. The Department guarantees 

part of the total loan, permitting the purchaser to obtain a mortgage with a competitive interest rate, even without a down payment if the lender agrees. The Department requires that a down 

payment be made for a manufactured home. With a Department 

guaranty, the lender is protected against loss up to the amount of 

the guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the loan. 

The Committee recommends such sums as may be necessary (estimated to total $43,784,000) for funding subsidy payments, 

$500,000 for the limitation on direct loans for specially adapted 

housing loans, and $154,075,000 for administrative expenses which 

is the budget request. The appropriation for administrative expenses may be transferred to and merged with the General Operating Expenses account. 

8 

EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account Limitation on direct loans 

Administrative 

expenses 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ................................................. 0 0 0 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ...................................................... $994 $3,400 $69,587 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ................................................... 0 0 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................... ¥994 ¥3,400 ¥69,587 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................... 0 0 0 

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 account Limitation on direct 

loans 

Administrative 

expenses 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ................................................. $47,000 $4,108,000 $311,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ...................................................... 51,693 3,938,000 298,230 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ................................................... 47,000 4,108,000 311,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................... ¥4,693 +170,000 +12,770 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................... 0 0 0 

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 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. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires 

budgetary resources to be available prior to incurring a direct loan 

obligation. In addition, the Act requires all administrative expenses 

of a direct loan program to be funded through a program account. 

The bill includes the budget requests of $47,000 for funding subsidy program costs and $311,000 for administrative expenses. The 

administrative expenses may be transferred to and merged with 

the General Operating Expenses account. 

In addition, the bill includes requested language limiting pro- gram 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. 

NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Administrative expenses: $571,000 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ................................................................................ 571,000 

9 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriations .................................................................................... 567,631 

Fiscal year 2005 budget recommendation .................................................................... 571,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ......................................................... +3,369 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ...................................................... 0 

This program tests the feasibility of authorizing VA to make direct home loans to Native American veterans who live on U.S. trust 

land. This is a pilot program which began in 1993 and expires on 

December 31, 2005. The bill includes the budget request of 

$571,000 for administration expenses, which may be transferred to 

and merged with the General Operating Expenses account. 

GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS

VETERANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Public Law 105–368, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 

1998, established this program. All funds authorized for this program were appropriated in fiscal year 2000. Therefore, no appropriation request has been included for fiscal year 2005. Bill language is included allowing the use of funds in Medical Services and 

General Operating Expenses to administer this program. 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

The Department of Veterans Affairs 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, Congress agreed to fund 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 receive a more accurate accounting of 

funds. Under this new structure, the Administration has requested 

total resources of $29,135,370,000 to fund the various operating 

programs of the VHA, an increase of $736,051,000 over the 2004 

enacted level. The Committee recommendation of $30,335,370,000 

is an increase of $1,200,000,000 to the budget request and 

$1,936,051,000 when compared to fiscal year 2004. 

MEDICAL SERVICES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $19,498,600,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 1 17,762,054,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 18,298,600,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +1,735,204,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +1,200,000,000 

1 Includes $1,100,000,000 of two year funding and includes $270,000,000 provided by an offset of prior year 

funds. 

This Medical Services appropriation provides for medical services 

of eligible veterans and beneficiaries [except non service-connected 

veterans and veterans exceeding the income threshold] in VA medical centers, outpatient clinic facilities, contract hospitals, State 

homes, and outpatient programs on a fee basis. Hospital and outVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
10 

patient care is also provided by the private sector for certain dependents and survivors of veterans under the civilian health and 

medical programs for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Committee recommendation includes $19,498,600,000 for 

medical services in fiscal year 2005. 

The bill includes requested language in the Compensation and Pension 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 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. 

The bill also includes requested language for the DoD VA Health 

Care Sharing Incentive Fund, as authorized by section 721 of the 

FY 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 Committee is concerned that psychiatric hospitals may be 

underfunded within current reimbursement models. The VA is directed to report back to the Committee by January 15, 2005 on the 

Bed Day of Care costs incurred for acute psychiatric patients. 

The Committee recognizes the VA for its initial efforts to screen, 

diagnose and treat Veterans at risk for or infected with hepatitis 

C (HCV). However, the Committee is concerned that many Veterans who have been screened are not aware of and/or are not receiving available HCV treatment through the VA, especially Vietnam-era veterans and minority veterans. The Committee urges the 

VA to allocate funding for HCV based on local need, not on VERA 

allocation. The Committee urges the VA to continue and to expand 

broad HCV screening and diagnosis programs for Veterans with 

any risk factors for HCV, and to provide the appropriate treatment, 

outreach, education and patient support in order to increase the 

number of successfully treated Veterans. 

The Committee urges that the VA Toledo Outpatient Clinic be 

established as a freestanding clinic and not a satellite of a VA hospital. 

The Committee urges an expanded affiliation between Medical 

College of Ohio and the VA Outpatient Clinic in Toledo, Ohio. 

The Committee directs the continuation of the long-employed 

Joslin Vision Network at no less than the current level. 

The Committee notes with concern the growing incidence of 

chronic disease within the veteran population. Specifically, the 

Committee is aware of the high incidence of diabetes among veterans and believes that multiple vendors for diabetes monitoring 

systems, including blood glucose monitors, test strips, lancing devices, and other related equipment provide the best opportunity for 

improving patient care, competition, and management of chronic 

conditions. With this in mind, the Committee urges the Secretary 

11 

to withhold implementation of national standardized contracts for 

diabetes monitoring systems used to manage and control diabetes. 

The Committee urges the VA fund a pilot program at the VAMC 

in Syracuse modeled on technology developed for patient health 

monitoring currently being used at the New York Presbyterian 

Hospital. 

The Committee supports an initiative to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of the nation’s first system-wide magnet nursing 

pilot program for benefit of VA nursing care. The Committee envisions the implementation of this VA magnet nursing demonstration 

to be achieved through the initiation of three additional pilot units 

through a partnership of New Jersey Meridian Health system and 

New Jersey-based VA medical care facilities, including local VA 

clinics, providing training, mentoring, and developing patient outcome and satisfaction data. 

MEDICAL CARE COLLECTIONS FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER 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, P.L. 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. Bill language is included transferring the receipts and 

the unobligated balances in these accounts in fiscal year 2005 and 

subsequent years to the Medical Services appropriation to remain 

available until expended for the purposes of the Medical Services 

appropriation. 

MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $4,705,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 4,970,500,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 4,705,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥265,500,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Medical Administration appropriation provides funds for the 

expenses of management and administration of VA health care system. Included under this heading are provisions for costs associated 

with operation of VA medical centers, other facilities, and VHA 

headquarters, 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, security, 

billing and coding activities, and procurement. 

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 $150,000,000 of the Medical AdVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
12 

ministration appropriation. This provides flexibility to the Department as it continues to implement significant program changes. The Committee recommends $4,705,000,000 for medical administration in fiscal year 2005. The Committee directs that $2,000,000 be provided for a pilot 

program at the Louis A. Johnson VA Medical Center demonstrating an integrated medical asset tracking program, utilizing 

Ultra Wideband Radio Frequency Identification and enhanced business intelligence software. The Committee directs that $3,000,000 be provided for a pilot 

program at the Louis A. Johnson VA Medical Center to develop a 

VA Emergency Response Management web portal to support medical care surge needs during national emergencies utilizing a regional integrated digital environment. 

MEDICAL FACILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $3,745,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 3,976,400,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 3,745,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥231,400,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Medical Facilities appropriation provides funds for the operation and maintenance of the VA health care system’s vast capital 

infrastructure. Included under this heading are provisions for costs 

associated with utilities, engineering, capital planning, leases, 

laundry and food services, groundskeeping, garbage, housekeeping, 

facility repair, and property disposition and acquisition. 

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 $150,000,000 of the Medical Facilities appropriation. This provides flexibility to the Department as 

it continues to implement significant program changes. 

The Committee recommendation provides $3,745,000,000 for 

medical facilities in fiscal year 2005. 

MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $384,770,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 405,592,800 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 1 384,770,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥20,822,800 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

1 Excludes VA overhead costs funded under ‘‘Medical Services’’. 

This account includes medical, rehabilitative and health services 

research. Medical research is an important aspect of the Department’s programs, providing complete medical and hospital services 

for veterans. The prosthetic research program is also essential in 

the development and testing of prosthetic, orthopedic and sensory 

aids for the purpose of improving the care and rehabilitation of eliVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
13 

gible disabled veterans, including amputees, paraplegics and the 

blind. The health service research program provides unique opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health 

care delivery system. In addition, budgetary resources from a number of areas including appropriations from the medical care account; reimbursements from the Department of Defense; and 

grants from the National Institutes of Health, private proprietary 

sources, and voluntary agencies provide support for the Department’s researchers. 

The Committee recommends $384,770,000 for medical and prosthetic research in fiscal year 2005. This funding level is the same 

as proposed in the budget request when put into the Congressional 

account structure and represents a decrease of $20,823,000 from 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

The Committee is aware of new treatments for non-Hodgkins 

lymphoma which have proven to be more effective than conventional treatments. The Committee urges the VHA to explore the 

use of new treatments for veterans that suffer from non-Hodgkin’s 

lymphoma. The Committee directs $1,000,000 to the West Virginia High 

Technology Consortium Foundation for the continuation of VA’s 

technology transfer activities. 

The Committee believes funding should be allocated towards diabetic foot complications in the African-American community. 

The Committee urges the VA to undertake a wireless pilot 

project at the Dublin VA Medical Center to enhance the service of 

the Valdosta and Albany VA clinics. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $1,319,753,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 1,275,700,695 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 1,324,753,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +44,052,305 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥5,000,000 

The General Operating Expenses appropriation provides for the 

administration of non-medical veterans benefits through the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and top management direction and support. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 changed 

the accounting of Federal credit programs and required that all administrative costs associated with such programs be included within the respective credit accounts. Beginning in fiscal year 1992, 

costs incurred by housing, education, and vocational rehabilitation 

programs for administration of these credit programs are reimbursed by those accounts. The bill includes the budget requests totaling $154,957,000 in other accounts for these credit programs. In 

addition, $9,500,000 is transferred from the compensation and pensions account for administrative costs of implementing cost saving 

provisions required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 

1990 and the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1992. Section 107 of the administrative provisions provides requested language which permits 

excess revenues in three insurance funds to be used for administrative expenses. The VA estimates that $40,215,000 will be utilized 

for such purposes in fiscal year 2005. Prior to fiscal year 1996, such 

14 

costs were included in the general operating expenses appropriation. Thus, in total, $1,937,803,000 is requested in fiscal year 2005 

for administrative costs of non-medical benefits. 

The Committee recommends $1,319,753,000 for General Oper- ating Expenses. This amount represents an increase of $44,052,305 

when compared to fiscal year 2004 and a decrease of $5,000,000 

from the budget request. The bill includes requested language allowing $66,000,000 of the funds appropriated to be available for obligation for two years and limits funding for the purchase of not 

more than two motor vehicles for the VBA office in Manila, Philippines. The bill also includes language directing the VBA to be 

funded at not less than $1,027,193,000. 

The Committee strongly urges the Department to retain consolidation of the Department’s information technology initiatives in the 

Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO). The Committee directs that all cyber-security and enterprise architecture activities 

continue to be centrally managed by the CIO. 

The Committee is pleased with the Department’s efforts to modernize its computing infrastructure and supports the continued implementation of the One-VA Enterprise Architecture Plan. Similar 

models used by the commercial sector have resulted in significantly 

reduced operating costs and improved overall performance. The 

Committee urges the Department to focus on four critical priorities: 

cybersecurity; information technology infrastructure consolidation; 

VA Web Operations; and continuity of operations. Further, the 

Committee directs the Department to provide a full description of 

each of these initiatives and to report to the Committee on a quarterly basis to ensure that key information technology objectives are 

being met on a timely basis. 

The Committee directs the VA to proceed with information technology initiatives, including the acquisition of data replication technologies, to provide continuity of operations capability for corporate 

and regional data centers through the Corporate Data Center Infrastructure initiative. The Committee also directs the VA to proceed with the acquisition of data replication technologies in order 

to provide continuity of operations for messaging consolidation, office automation, and other necessary applications at the VA’s regional computing centers. The Committee has allocated 

$25,000,000 Department-wide for these activities and directs that 

these funds be made available to, and administered by, the Office 

of the Chief Information Officer. 

NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $148,925,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 143,352,202 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 148,925,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +5,572,798 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +0 

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 

with available grave space the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons and discharged veterans, together with their spouses and 

certain dependents, and to permanently maintain their graves; to 

mark graves of eligible persons in national and private cemeteries; 

15 

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. This appropriation provides for the operation and maintenance of 158 

cemeterial installations in 39 States, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico. 

The Committee recommends $148,925,000 for the National Cemetery Administration in fiscal year 2005. This funding level is 

$5,572,798 over the 2004 level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee is providing funds to meet needs associated with 

new cemeteries and the increased workload projected by the Department. 

Due to Hawaii’s geographic isolation, veterans living in this state 

must use VA and state cemeteries located in Hawaii and cannot 

rely on VA cemeteries located in other states. Unfortunately, Hawaii is one of six states in the nation that has a VA cemetery that 

can no longer accept new burials unless space is made available in 

gravesites of previously interred family members. Because of the 

unique circumstances in this situation, the Committee requests 

that VA undertake a study to review alternatives available to veterans, including the feasibility of a new VA cemetery. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $69,711,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 61,634,200 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 64,711,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +8,076,800 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +5,000,000 

The Office of Inspector General was established by the Inspector 

General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit, investigation 

and inspection of all Department of Veterans Affairs programs and 

operations. The overall operational objective is to focus available 

resources on areas which would help improve services to veterans 

and their beneficiaries, assist managers of Department programs to 

operate economically in accomplishing program goals, and prevent 

and deter recurring and potential fraud, waste and inefficiencies. The Committee has provided $69,711,000 for the Office of Inspec- tor General in fiscal year 2005. This amount is $8,076,800 over the 

fiscal year 2004 appropriation and $5,000,000 above the budget request. The increase provided is to be used to establish a new office 

in Florida at the Bay Pines Medical Center. 

CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $458,800,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 271,578,179 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 458,800,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. 187,221,821 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The construction, major projects appropriation provides for constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the facilities 

under the jurisdiction or for the use of the VA, including planning, 

architectural and engineering services, Capital Asset Realignment 

Enhanced Services (CARES) activities, assessments and site acquisition where the estimated cost of a project is $7,000,000 or more. 

Emphasis is placed on correction of life/safety code deficiencies in 

existing Department medical facilities. 

16 

The bill provides $458,800,000 the same as the budget request 

and an increase of $187,221,821 from the direct appropriation for 

fiscal year 2004. Of the amount provided, the bill specifies 

$361,800,000 for CARES and $10,000,000 for the Judgment Fund. 

The Committee has reviewed the VA’s recently released list of 

proposed construction projects and reminds the VA that some of 

these proposed projects will prematurely impact facilities that the 

Department is still studying. In an effort to avoid possible duplication of effort and to avoid the expenditure of funds unnecessarily, 

the VA should defer any action on the design or construction of 

projects until the aforementioned studies are complete. Further, 

the Committee is aware of statements recently made by the Secretary indicating that VA would not commence with construction 

until final decisions are made. The Committee appreciates the Secretary’s commitment to take this approach. 

The Committee urges the Secretary to re-visit the decision to not 

establish a Community-Based Outpatient Clinic in the Elkhart 

County area of Indiana. 

The Committee notes the clear direction given to the VA and the 

Department of the Navy in the VISN–12 CARES study and previous legislation by Congress to combine the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center with Naval Hospital Great Lakes. 

The Committee is pleased that renovation of the North Chicago 

surgical suites are imminent and that the two departments are 

concluding the site selection process for the Joint Ambulatory Care 

Center. The Committee directs the Secretary to work with the Secretary of the Navy to report on the design, construction schedule, 

funding, and operating plan for the new Joint Ambulatory Care 

Center by March 1, 2005. 

The Committee is concerned by limited consultation by the Department with local communities during some aspects of the recent 

Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services process. In some 

instances, direct Congressional involvement was required to encourage belated outreach to affected communities. 

The Secretary’s final decision on the CARES Commission Report 

deferred action on 8 facilities, pending completion of feasibility 

studies. Further study was directed to enable more specific conclusions about the regional health care requirements associated with 

each facility. The Secretary’s statement on the CARES decision 

noted ‘‘Where further study is recommended, VA will continue to 

include stakeholders as part of the study process.’’ 

The Committee expects the agency to improve consultation with 

Members of Congress and affected communities. The mission of the 

VA is too important for decisions to be made without the input of 

all stakeholders. Accordingly, the Committee directs the agency to 

defer final action on any facility undergoing a feasibility study 

until affected stakeholders have been given adequate opportunity 

to consult with Task Forces and the agency about the future of 

these facilities. Further, the agency is directed to conduct needs assessment studies to be completed as part of all major or basic feasibility studies. 

The specific amounts recommended by the Committee are as follows: 

17 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location and description Available through 

2004 2005 request House 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, CARES1 ............................................................... ............................ 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) ......................................... ............................ 0 0 

National Cemetery Administration (NCA): 2

Sacramento, CA Phase I Development .................................. ............................ 21,600 21,600 

Florida Gravesite Expansion and Cemetery Improvements ... ............................ 20,000 20,000 

Rock Island, IL Gravesite Expansion and Cemetery Improvements ................................................................................. ............................ 10,200 10,200

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 Projects selected after the completion of the CARES studies for authorization and approval. 

2 National Cemetery Administration major project requests do not include the purchase of pre-placed crypts, which are funded by the Com- pensation and Pensions appropriation. 

CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $230,799,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 250,656,350 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 230,799,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥19,857,350 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the facilities 

under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department, including 

planning, CARES activities, assessment of needs, architectural and 

engineering services, and site acquisition, where the estimated cost 

of a project is less than $7,000,000. 

18 

The Committee recommends $230,799,000 for the construction, 

minor projects appropriation in fiscal year 2005, an increase of 

$19,857,350 to the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and the same as 

the budget request. Of the amount provided, $40,000,000 shall be 

for CARES activities. 

GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... 105,163,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 101,497,610 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 105,163,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +3,665,390 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

This program provides grants to assist States to construct 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. A grant may not exceed 65 percent of the total cost 

of the project. 

The Committee recommends $105,163,000 for grants for construction of State extended care facilities in fiscal year 2005, the 

same as the budget request. The amount provided is an increase 

of $3,665,390 to the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $32,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 31,811,200 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 32,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +188,800 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

This program provides grants to assist States with the establishment, expansion, and improvement of State veterans’ cemeteries 

which are operated and permanently maintained by the States. 

Grants under this program fund up to 100 percent of 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. The Committee recommends $32,000,000 for grants for the 

construction of State veterans cemeteries in fiscal year 2005, the 

same as the budget request and $188,800 above the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The bill continues the first twenty administrative provisions from 

title I contained in Public Law 108–199, the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill, with revised dollar figures, and other conforming 

modifications. Two new provisions are included. The first new provision earmarks in appropriations the property management contract and the authority to transfer funds from GOE to the Housing 

Program appropriation, if actual contract costs are higher than 

$8,800,000. The second new provision provides access to unobligated balances of funds appropriated to the Medical Services account for emergency expenses from the January 1994 earthquake 

in Southern California. 

19 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation: 

Program Level ................................................................................. $37,786,258,000 

Fee Receipts .................................................................................... ¥2,814,000,000 

Rescissions ...................................................................................... ¥2,321,000,000 

Offsetting Collections ..................................................................... ¥72,209,000 

Net Appropriation 1 ..................................................................... 32,579,049,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation: 

Program Level ................................................................................. 37,893,986,000 

Fee Receipts .................................................................................... ¥3,462,124,000 

Rescissions ...................................................................................... ¥3,177,000,000 

Offsetting Collections ..................................................................... ¥52,603,000 

Net Appropriation ....................................................................... 31,202,259,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request: 

Program Level ................................................................................. 36,754,568,000 

Fee Receipts .................................................................................... ¥2,842,000,000 

Rescissions ...................................................................................... ¥2,321,000,000 

Offsetting Collections ..................................................................... ¥72,209,000 

Net Appropriation 1 ..................................................................... 31,519,359,000 

Comparison with Fiscal year 2004 appropriation: 

Program Level ................................................................................. ¥107,728,000 

Fee Receipts .................................................................................... +648,124,000 

Rescissions ...................................................................................... +856,000,000 

Offsetting Collections ..................................................................... ¥19,606,000 

Net Appropriation 1 ..................................................................... +1,376,790,000 

Comparison with Fiscal year 2005 budget request: 

Program Level ................................................................................. +1,031,690,000 

Fee Receipts .................................................................................... +28,000,000 

Rescissions ...................................................................................... 0 

Offsetting Collections ..................................................................... 0 

Net Appropriation 1 ..................................................................... +1,059,690,000 

1The fiscal year 2005 totals do not reflect a legislative proposal assumed in the budget transferring the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Emergency Food and Shelter Program to the Department. 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was 

established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Act of 1965 (Public Law 89Y09174). HUD is the principal Federal 

agency responsible for administering and regulating programs and 

industries concerned with the Nation’s housing needs, economic 

and community development, and fair housing opportunities. 

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, 

rental and homeownership subsidy programs for low-income families, neighborhood rehabilitation programs, and community development programs. 

The Committee recommends a total program level of 

$37,786,258,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a reduction of $107,728,000 below the fiscal year 2004 

level, and $1,031,690,000 above the request. 

Over the past four years, the Committee has demonstrated the 

high priority it places on housing and community development proVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
20 

grams by providing significant additional resources to the Department at a time of fiscal constraint. Total funding provided for HUD 

programs has increased from $33,098,735,000 in fiscal year 2001 to 

$37,786,258,000 proposed for fiscal year 2005, a $4,687,523,000 or 

14 percent increase in four years. However, despite this large increase, funding for most HUD programs has remained flat, or been 

reduced, because Section 8 funding has grown by 44 percent during 

that time, a rate of growth unmatched by any other program funded in this bill. Most of the growth has occurred in Section 8 voucher renewals, which has increased by almost 30 percent since fiscal 

year 2001 including a 14.5% increase in fiscal year 2004 alone. 

Consequently, Section 8 funding now consumes over 53 percent of 

HUD’s entire budget, up from 41 percent four years ago. Such 

growth is not sustainable and reform is imperative to ensure that 

the nation’s housing and community development needs are served. 

The Committee has not included authorization legislation proposed by the Administration which would provide public housing 

authorities greater flexibility in administering their programs by 

eliminating mandatory income targeting, mandatory tenant rent 

caps, and other requirements. The Committee has taken this action 

without prejudice toward the merits of the individual proposal but 

strictly because such changes fall outside the Committee’s jurisdiction. However, the Committee strongly urges the authorization 

committees to take the actions necessary to reform the program. 

The Committee is concerned that absent such reform, the viability 

of all HUD programs, including the Section 8 program, will be compromised. 

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ............................................. 1 0 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .................................................. $19,257,190,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ............................................... 1 18,465,800,000 

Comparison with Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .................... 1¥19,257,190,000 

Comparison with Fiscal year 2005 budget request ................. 1¥18,465,800,000 1The Committee recommendation does not provide funding for this account, but instead funds activities 

previously included in the account under the new Tenant-based Rental Assistance and Project-Based Rental 

Assistance accounts. 

The Committee does not propose funding all section 8 rental assistance programs in one account, the Housing Certificate Fund, as 

provided for in fiscal year 2004. Section 8 rental assistance now 

constitutes 53 percent of the entire budget for the Department. In 

order to provide the Congress with a more complete accounting of 

the funds appropriated for these programs, the Committee recommends a new account structure to fund tenant-based rental assistance programs, including Section 8 vouchers, through the new 

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance account, and project-based rental 

assistance through the new Project-Based Rental Assistance account. The Committee believes this new account structure will provide better transparency and strengthen oversight of the expenditures in these programs. 

21 

TENANT BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ............................................. $14,677,055,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .................................................. 1 0 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ............................................... 1 0 

Comparison with Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .................... 1+14,677,055,000 

Comparison with Fiscal year 2005 budget request ................. 1+14,677,055,000 

1Funding for tenant-based rental assistance activities was requested under the Housing Certificate Fund 

account as provided for in fiscal year 2004. 

The Tenant-Based Rental Assistance account (TBRA) funds the 

Section 8 voucher program and other tenant-based rental assistance programs and activities. Tenant-based rental assistance 

(vouchers) provides a rental subsidy on behalf of a low-income individual or family to allow the participant to rent privately owned 

housing rather than limiting participants to subsidized housing 

programs. Section 8 rental vouchers are administered locally by the 

public housing agencies. Amounts provided in this account include 

funding for the renewal of expiring section 8 vouchers including enhanced vouchers, new tenant-protection vouchers including enhanced vouchers, relocation assistance, and payment of fees to public housing agencies administering Section 8 voucher programs. 

The Committee recommends a total of $14,677,055,000 for this 

account, an increase of $490,825,000 above the comparable levels 

provided for these activities in fiscal year 2004 and $1,561,998,000 

above the budget request. Consistent with the budget request, the 

Committee recommends continuation of the $4,200,000,000 advance 

appropriation for tenant-based rental assistance. 

The recommendation reflects a 3.5 percent increase for voucher 

renewals and associated administrative costs above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2004. The amounts provided represent the 

total funding available to the Department for Section 8 voucher renewals and administrative costs and the Department is prohibited 

from augmenting these funds from any other source. The Committee has taken this action to eliminate any confusion over the 

amount of funding available to the program in fiscal year 2005 and 

to ensure that the Department and the public housing authorities 

manage the program within the resources provided. The Committee 

reiterates that the Section 8 voucher program is funded as a discretionary program, not a mandatory program. Consequently, the Department and the public housing authorities must manage the program within a budget. Therefore, the Department is directed to 

continue to renew annual contributions contracts under the voucher program on a budget-basis. 

The following table provides the comparable funding levels requested in the budget and funded in previous years in the Housing 

Certificate Fund for activities funded in this new account: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Activity 2003 enacted 2004 enacted 2005 request 2005 recommended 

Voucher Renewals .................................................. $11,106,701 $12,721,335 $11,793,177 $13,303,177 

Tenant Protection Vouchers ................................... 234,017 205,277 163,000 163,000 

Administrative Costs: 1,100,980 1,259,618 1,158,880 1,210,878 

(Administrative Fees) .................................... (1,051,191 ) (1,210,107 ) (1,155,938 ) (1,161,938 ) 

(FSS Coordinators) ........................................ (48,000 ) (47,716 ) (0 ) (46,000 ) 

22 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Activity 2003 enacted 2004 enacted 2005 request 2005 recommended 

(Working Capital Fund) ................................. (1,789 ) (1,795 ) (2,942 ) (2,940 ) 

Total, Tenant-Based Assistance ............... 12,441,698 14,186,230 13,115,057 14,677,055 

The recommendation includes the following: 

—Renewal of expiring Section 8 vouchers: $13,303,177,000 for renewals of Section 8 vouchers, an increase of $581,842,000 over the 

fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and $1,510,000,000 above the request. This represents an increase of a 4.6 percent increase over 

the 2004 appropriation and 13 percent over the budget request. 

The Committee remains concerned about the spiraling increase 

in the costs of the voucher program. The vast majority of the cost 

increase has occurred because the amount public housing authorities are spending for each voucher rose by almost 29 percent between 2001 and 2004, at a time when the national rental market 

has softened significantly. Both HUD and the public housing authorities have a responsibility to ensure that resources are efficiently and effectively used and that such programs are managed 

within the budgets provided. 

The Committee reiterates that the Department is to continue the 

practice of renewing annual contributions contracts on a ‘‘budget’’, 

or ‘‘dollar’’, basis. Language is not included to set forth a formula 

for determining the allocation of funds for each public housing authority. Instead, the Committee directs the Department to use its 

discretionary authority to determine the budget for each public 

housing authority. In determining such budgets, the Committee believes that such determinations should be based only upon verified 

data to ensure data integrity and quality. 

No funds have been provided separately in a central fund. Instead funding has been provided only for the budget-based renewal 

of expiring annual contributions contracts. No funding or authority 

is provided to allow amendments to such contracts. Public housing 

authorities are required to manage their programs within the 

budget provided in their annual contributions contract renewal. 

The Committee is aware that public housing authorities are required to ensure that their programs are managed in a cost-effective and efficient manner. These requirements include setting appropriate payment standards, verifying that rents are reasonable, 

verifying tenant income. The Committee directs the Department to 

increase its oversight and monitoring of public housing authoritie’s 

compliance with these requirements, and report its finding to the 

Committee not later than November 15, 2004. 

Language is continued, carried in previous years, prohibiting 

public housing authorities from over-leasing. The Committee is 

very concerned that, despite the specific statutory prohibitions in 

the fiscal years 2003 and 2004 appropriations Acts, some public 

housing authorities continued to engage in this prohibited practice. 

The Committee directs the Department to provide a report to the 

Committee not later than November 15, 2004 of all public housing 

authorities that violated the statutory prohibitions, the sources of 

funds used to support such over-leasing, and the sanctions levied 

against such authorities by the Department. 

23 

—Tenant Protection: $163,000,000 for tenant protection activities 

to provide Section 8 vouchers to individuals and families living in 

public and assisted housing affected by demolition or disposition of 

the units or owners opting-out of the Section 8 project-based program; for conversion of section 202 and section 23 projects to section 8 vouchers; for the family unification program; and for the witness protection program. Again this year, funding for new vouchers 

under the HOPE VI program is to be provided within the Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI) account. 

Funding included for tenant protection is only to be used for rental 

subsidies. Funding for associated administrative expenses is provided separately within this account. 

—Administrative Costs: The Committee recommends a total of 

$1,210,878,000 for administrative costs and other expenses associated with the Section 8 voucher program. Of this amount 

$1,161,938,000 is for payments to public housing authorities for administrative fees, an increase of $6,000,000 above the request and 

$48,169,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level. Language is included 

allocating these funds on a pro-rata basis to public housing agencies based on the amount they received for such purpose in fiscal 

year 2004 and requiring such funds to be used only for activities 

related to Section 8 voucher program. 

In addition, $46,000,000 is for Family Self-Sufficiency service coordinator staff in each eligible public housing agency, a decrease of 

$2,000,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level. The budget did not propose funding for this purpose. And, not less than $2,940,000 is for 

transfer to the Working Capital Fund for the development of and 

modifications to information technology systems. 

Language is continued in the bill under Administrative Provisions, requiring public housing authorities to continue to reserve 

incremental vouchers funded in previous year for persons with disabilities upon turnover. 

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $5,340,745,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 1 0 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 1 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. 1 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +5,340,745,000 

1Funding for project-based rental assistance activities was requested under the Housing Certificate Fund 

account as provided for in fiscal year 2004. 

The Project-Based Rental Assistance account (PBRA) funds 

project-based rental assistance program and activities. Projectbased rental assistance provides a rental subsidy to a private landlord tied to a specific housing unit so that the properties themselves, rather than the individual living in the unit, remains subsidized. Amounts provided in this account include funding for the 

renewal of expiring project-based contracts, including Section 8, 

moderate rehabilitation, and single room occupancy (SRO) contracts, amendments to section 8 project-based contracts, and administrative costs for performance-based project-based Section 8 

contract administrators and costs associated with administering 

moderate rehabilitation and single room occupancy contracts. 

24 

The Committee recommends a total of $5,340,745,000 for this account, an increase of $269,786,000 above the comparable levels provided for these activities in fiscal year 2004 and $10,002,000 below 

the budget request. 

The following table provides the comparable funding levels requested in the budget and funded in previous years in the Housing 

Certificate Fund for activities funded in this new account: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Activity 2003 enacted 2004 enacted 2005 request 2005 recommended 

Contract Renewals ................................................. $4,452,932 $4,945,787 $5,226,823 $5,216,823 

Administrative Costs .............................................. 216,984 125,172 123,924 123,922 

(Sec. 8 Contract Administrators) .................. (194,726 ) (99,410 ) (101,900 ) (101,900 ) 

(Mod. Rehab. Administrative Fees) .............. (21,066 ) (24,565 ) (20,062 ) (20,062 ) 

(Working Capital Fund) ................................. (1,192 ) (1,197 ) (1,962 ) (1,960 ) 

Total, Project-Based Assistance ............... 4,669,916 5,070,959 5,350,747 5,340,745 

The Committee recommends $5,196,823,000 for renewals of expiring project-based rental assistance contracts, an increase of 

$204,413,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level and $10,000,000 

below the request. Of this amount, $4,990,000,000 is for section 8 

project-based subsidy contracts, an increase of $320,832,000 above 

fiscal year 2004; $206,823,000 is for moderate rehabilitation contracts, a decrease of $46,419,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level; 

and $20,000,000 is provided for Single Room Occupancy contracts 

(associated administrative costs) as requested, a decrease of 

$3,192,000 below fiscal year 2004. 

For administrative costs associated with project-based rental assistance, the recommendation includes $101,900,000 for performance-based contract administrators for section 8 project-based assistance and $20,062,000 for moderate rehabilitation administrative costs. 

The Committee also recommends no less than $1,960,000 be 

transferred to the Working Capital Fund for development of and 

modifications to information technology systems which serve 

project-based rental assistance programs. 

Pursuant to the budget request, no new funding is provided for 

project-based Section 8 contract amendments for fiscal year 2005, 

and instead the Committee assumes that amendment requirements 

will be met through unobligated balances and recaptures available 

in the Housing Certificate Fund. 

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $2,580,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 2,696,253,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 2,674,100,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥116,253,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥94,100,000 

The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for public 

housing capital programs, including public housing development, 

modernization, and amendments. Examples of capital modernization projects include replacing roofs and windows, improving common spaces, upgrading electrical and plumbing systems, and renovating the interior of an apartment. 

25 

The Committee recommendation includes $2,580,000,000 for this 

program, a decrease of $116,253,000 below the fiscal year 2004 

level and $94,100,000 below the request. 

Within the amounts provided, the Committee recommends the 

following: 

—Up to $37,850,000 is for technical assistance activities, including up to $12,440,000 for remediation services to troubled public 

housing agencies and for Fair Market Rent (FMR) surveys, an increase of $2,850,000 above the request and $11,855,000 below the 

2004 level. The increase above the request has been provided for 

FMR surveys. The Committee expects not less than $4,750,000 for 

activities related to FMR surveys. 

—Up to $5,000,000 for costs associated with administrative and 

judicial receiverships, as requested. The Committee recognizes that 

receiverships may result in some extraordinary costs not normally 

a part of a PHA’s normal operational and capital budget. However, 

these funds are expected to be used for such costs rather than to 

fund activities normally covered from within a PHA’s operating 

subsidy, capital fund, and section 8 administrative fees allocations. 

The Committee request the Department to provide a proposed 

spending plan for the use of these funds prior to expenditure during fiscal year 2005. 

—$53,200,000 the Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency program, a decrease of $1,500,000 below the request and the 2004 

level. 

—Up to $38,000,000 may be used for emergency capital needs resulting from emergency and natural disasters that occur in fiscal 

year 2005, a decrease of $1,976,400 below the 2004 level and 

$12,000,000 below the request. Language requested in the budget 

is not included to broaden the use of these funds. Instead, the Committee recommends language, modified from previous years to ensure funds are used only for repairs needed due to an unforeseen 

and unanticipated emergency event or natural disaster event that 

occurred during fiscal year 2005. 

—No less than $10,150,000 for transfer to the Working Capital 

Fund to support the development, of and modifications to, information technology systems which support Public and Indian Housing 

(PIH) programs, a decrease of $397,000 below fiscal year 2004 and 

$5,650,000 above the request. This reflects the Committee’s continued believe that investments must be made to correct deficiencies 

in PIH information technology systems to improve PIH’s ability to 

conduct appropriate financial and management oversight of its programs. 

The recommendation does not designate $30,000,000 for costs associated with the demolition of severely distressed public housing 

and instead includes $143,000,000 under the HOPE VI program for 

these activities. 

The recommendation does not include funding and the ‘‘Freedom 

to House’’ Public Housing Demonstration Initiative without prejudice to the merits of the proposal. The Committee understands that 

this proposal is intended to build upon and make improvements to 

the Moving to Work Demonstration. The Committee strongly encourages the authorization committee of jurisdiction to consider 

this proposal. 

26 

As requested, the recommendation does not designate a separate 

set-aside for the Neighborhood Networks grants because such activities are already an eligible use of capital funds. 

The Committee appreciates the detailed quarterly reports on the 

obligation and expenditure of capital funds provided by HUD during fiscal year 2004. Due to improvements in the timely expenditure of these funds, the Committee no longer requires the detailed 

status report for all open and closed capital grants, but instead 

only requires the summary information quarterly. However, the 

Department is requested to continue to provide the quarterly detailed reports on those PHA with obligation rates of less than 90 

percent. 

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $3,425,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 3,578,760,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 3,573,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥153,760,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥148,000,000 

The Public Housing Operating Fund (PHOF) subsidizes the costs 

associated with operating and maintaining public housing. This 

subsidy supplements funding received by public housing authorities 

(PHA) from tenant rent contributions and other income. In accordance with section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 

amended, funds are allocated by formula to public housing authorities for the following purposes: utility costs; anticrime and antidrug activities, including the costs of providing adequate security; 

routine maintenance cost; administrative costs; and general operating expenses. The Committee recommends $3,425,000,000 to subsidize PHAs’ 

fiscal year 2005 operating costs, a decrease of $153,760,000 below 

the PHAs’ fiscal year 2004 payment level, and $148,000,000 below 

the request. Language is continued, proposed for deletion, designating $10,000,000 for transfer to the Department of Justice to be 

allocated by the Attorney General through existing programs, such 

as Weed and Seed, to those areas where additional assistance is 

needed to augment Federal, State and local efforts to effectively 

fight crime and drugs in public housing. In addition, the Committee notes that PHAs are authorized to use their operating and 

capital funds for anti-crime and anti-drug activities. All activities 

previously authorized under the public housing drug elimination 

program (PHDEP) are permissible activities under the operating 

and capital fund accounts. 

Includes language, as proposed in the budget, restating fundamental principles of appropriations law which prohibits funds appropriated in this Act for fiscal year 2005 payments from being 

used to supplement a prior year appropriation for prior year payments. 

Continues language, carried in prior years, prohibiting funds 

from being used for section 9(k) activities. Proposed language is not 

included making funds available for two years. The Committee has not recommended a set-aside of $5,000,000 

for a proposed new voluntary graduation incentive program without prejudice to the merits of the proposal. The Committee strongly 

27 

encourages the authorization committee of jurisdiction to examine 

this proposal. 

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING (HOPE VI)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $143,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 149,115,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥6,115,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +143,000,000 

The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing program, also known as HOPE VI, provides competitive grants to public housing authorities to revitalize entire neighborhoods adversely 

impacted by the presence of badly deteriorated public housing 

projects. In addition to developing and constructing new affordable 

housing, the program provides PHAs with the authority to demolish obsolete projects and to provide self-sufficiency services for families who reside in and around the facility. 

The Committee recommends funding HOPE VI at $143,000,000, 

a decrease of $6,115,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level. Of this 

amount up to $4,000,000 is for technical assistance. The budget did 

not request any funding for this program. 

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $622,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 650,241,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 647,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥28,241,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥25,000,000 

The Native American Housing Block Grants program provides 

funds to Indian tribes and their tribally-designated housing entities 

(TDHEs) to address housing needs within their communities. The 

block grant is designed to fund a TDHE’s operating requirements 

and capital needs. 

The Committee recommends $622,000,000 for this account, a decrease of $28,241,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level and 

$25,000,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation includes the following: $1,914,000 for the 

section 601 Loan Guarantee program to guarantee a total loan volume of $17,155,000; $4,300,000 for inspections, training, travel 

costs, and technical assistance; $2,100,000 for the National American Indian Housing Council to conduct training programs and to 

provide technical assistance; no less than $2,600,000 for transfer to 

the Working Capital Fund for information technology systems development and modifications; and $150,000 for transfer to the HUD 

salaries and expenses account for administrative expenses. 

Language is included elsewhere in this title rescinding excess 

prior year funds from the title VI loan guarantee program as proposed in the budget. 

28 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account Limitation on direct 

loans 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation .................................................................................. $5,000,000 $145,345,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ....................................................................................... 5,269,000 197,243,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request .................................................................................... 1,000,000 29,070,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ........................................................... ¥269,000 ¥51,898,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................................................ +4,000,000 +116,275,000 

Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native Americans 

to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides 

access to sources of private financing for Indian families and Indian housing authorities that otherwise cannot acquire financing 

because of the unique legal status of Indian trust land. This financing vehicle enables families to construct new homes or to purchase 

existing properties on reservations. 

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the section 184 Loan 

Guarantee program to guarantee a total loan volume of 

$145,345,000, a decrease of $269,000 and $51,898,000 in total loan 

commitment authority from the 2004 level. Language is included 

transferring $250,000 to the HUD salaries and expenses account 

for administrative expenses. 

Language is included elsewhere in this title rescinding excess 

prior year funds from this program as proposed in the budget. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... 1 0 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 1 0 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... $9,500,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 1¥9,500,000 

1 In fiscal year 2004, funding for this program was provided under the Community Development Fund. 

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide 

grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands (DHHL) for housing and housing related assistance to develop, maintain and operate affordable housing for eligible low-income Native Hawaiian families. 

The Committee does not recommend funding this program as a 

separate account as proposed in the budget, but instead continues 

funding for this program under the Community Development Fund 

as provided in fiscal year 2004. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account Limitation on direct 

loans 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation .................................................................................. $1,000,000 $37,403,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ....................................................................................... 1,029,000 39,712,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request .................................................................................... 1,000,000 37,403,000 

Comparison with Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ........................................................... ¥29,000 ¥2,309,000 

29 

Program account Limitation on direct 

loans 

Comparison with Fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................................................ 0 0 

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund program to 

provide loan guarantees for native Hawaiian individuals and their 

families, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of 

Hawaiian Affairs, and private nonprofit organizations experienced 

in the planning and development of affordable housing for Native 

Hawaiians for the purchase, construction, and/or rehabilitation of 

single-family homes on Hawaiian Home Lands. This program provides access to private sources of financing that would otherwise 

not be available because of the unique legal status of Hawaiian 

Home Lands. 

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for this program to guarantee a total loan volume of $37,403,000, the full amount requested. Language is included transferring $35,000 to the HUD 

salaries and expenses account for administrative expenses. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $282,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 294,751,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 294,800,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥12,751,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥12,800,000 

The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons with 

AIDS Act. This program provides States and localities with resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive strategies to meet the housing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their 

families. Ninety percent of funding is distributed by formula to 

qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the basis of the cumulative number and incidences of AIDS reported to the Centers for 

Disease Control. The remaining 10 percent of funding is distributed 

through a national competition. Government recipients are required to have a HUD-approved Comprehensive Plan/Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). 

For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends $282,000,000, 

a decrease of $12,751,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level, and a 

decrease of $12,800,000 below the budget request. Within the total 

amount provided, $2,000,000 is for technical assistance, training 

and oversight as requested. The Committee continues to believe 

that creating new housing opportunities for persons with AIDS 

should be the priority for HOPWA funding. 

Bill language is included, carried in previous years, which requires the Secretary to renew expiring permanent supportive housing contracts previously funded under the national competition 

which meet all program requirements before awarding new competitive grants. 

30 

RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $24,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 24,853,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥853,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +24,000,000 

This account provides funding to rural non-profit organizations, 

community development corporations, Indian tribes, State housing 

finance agencies, State economic development and/or Federally recognized community development agencies. 

The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for the Rural Housing 

and Economic Development program, a decrease of $853,000 below 

the level provided in fiscal year 2004. The budget request had proposed to eliminate funding for this program. 

Modified language is included, similar to language carried in previous years, requiring the Department to award funds for this program no later than September 1, 2005. 

EMPOWERMENT ZONES/ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $14,250,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 14,912,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥662,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +14,250,000 

This account provides discretionary grant funding to 15 urban 

Enterprise Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/ECs) designated 

in Round II. 

The statute that created Round II EZ/ECs did not authorize discretionary grant funding for these communities, but instead authorized tax incentives to stimulate revitalization efforts in these 

communities. However, since fiscal year 1999, discretionary grant 

funds have been provided under this account. Therefore, the Committee recommends $14,250,000 in continued grant funding for the 

15 urban Round II EZ/ECs. 

Language is included making these funds available for obligation 

for three years, consistent with the funds availability provided for 

other community development activities funded within the Department. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $4,711,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 4,920,795,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 4,618,094,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥209,795,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +92,906,000 

The Community Development Fund provides funding to State 

and local governments, and to other entities that carry out community and economic development activities under various programs. 

The Committee recommends a total of $4,711,000,000 for the 

Community Development Fund account, a decrease of $209,795,000 

from the amount provided in fiscal year 2004 and an increase of 

$92,906,000 to the fiscal year budget request. Funding under this 

account is allocated as follows: 

31 

—$4,304,900,000 for Community Development Block Grant formula grants, including funding for insular areas; 

—$69,000,000 for Native American Community Development 

Block Grants, of which up to $4,000,000 may be used for emergency grants; 

—$33,500,000 for the National Community Development Initiative (NCDI), as follows: 

$4,700,000 for Habitat for Humanity capacity building activities, of which $750,000 is to be used to expand the ability of 

Indian tribes to participate in the Self-Help Homeownership 

Opportunity program and other Habitat for Humanity efforts; 

and 

$28,800,000 for the Enterprise Foundation and LISC capacity building activities, including $4,800,000 for activities in 

rural areas; 

—$36,700,000 for section 107 activities, as follows: 

$10,000,000 for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 

of which up to $2,000,000 may be used for technical assistance; 

$1,400,000 for technical assistance; 

$2,900,000 for Community Development Work Study; 

$6,700,000 for Hispanic Serving Institutions; 

$6,700,000 for Community Outreach Partnerships; and 

$9,000,000 for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant 

program 

—$3,200,000 for the Housing Assistance Council; 

—$2,400,000 for the National American Indian Housing Council; 

—$4,800,000 for the National Housing Development Corporation 

(NHDC), for continuation of its program of acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation of at-risk affordable housing; 

—$4,800,000 for the National Council of La Raza, for its national 

HOPE Fund to leverage additional investments in affordable housing and community development projects; 

—$26,000,000 for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity 

(SHOP) program; 

—$62,000,000 for Youthbuild, including $2,000,000 for capacity 

building; 

—$2,000,000 for a grant for the 2006 Special Olympics in Ames, 

Iowa; 

—$136,500,000 for economic development initiatives. Language is 

again included in the bill prohibiting funds from being used for operating expenses of a facility, program or organization, and limiting 

costs associated with grant and project administration to no more 

than 20 percent of the total grant award. The Committee notes 

projects receiving funding must comply with the environmental review requirements set forth in section 305(c) of the Multifamily 

Housing Property Disposition Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 3547); the 

Committee will not entertain waivers of this requirement. In addition, funds may not be used for reimbursement of expenses incurred prior to the enactment of the Act providing funding for an 

economic development initiative. 

Targeted grants shall be provided as follows: 

1. $605,000 for Covenant House in Anchorage, Alaska for 

capital improvement needs; 

32 

2. $100,000 to the City of Gadsden, Alabama for construction 

of the facility for the New Centurions Substance Abuse Program for Women; 3. $200,000 to the City of Hanceville, Alabama for construction of the Wallace State Center for Automotive Manufacturing 

and Plastics; 

4. $200,000 to the City of Rainsville, Alabama for construction of the Rainsville Agricenter; 5. $150,000 to the City of Guntersville, Alabama for renovation of the Old Rock School Whole Backstage Theater; 6. $100,000 to the City of Hokes Bluff, Alabama for construction of a Senior Center; 

7. $60,000 to the City of Arab, Alabama for construction of 

the Lola Boyd Outdoor Education and Wildlife Area facility; 8. $50,000 to the City of Gordo, Alabama for construction of 

a public library; 9. $50,000 to the City of Fayette, Alabama for renovation of 

the historic old Post Office; 

10. $20,000 to Winston County, Alabama for facilities construction and renovation of the Historic Houston Jail; 

11. $20,000 to Winston County, Alabama for facilities construction and renovation of the Winston County Local Government Record Depository; 12. $250,000 for the City of Birmingham, Alabama for renovations to the Birmingham Zoo; 13. $200,000 to the City of Mobile, Alabama for renovations 

to the Saenger Theater; 14. $200,000 to Wallace Community College for construction 

for the Southeast Alabama Nursing Initiative in Dothan, Alabama; 

15. $150,000 to the Chris Hammond Youth Foundation for 

construction of a youth sports complex in Wedowee, Alabama; 16. $150,000 to the City of Tuskgee, Alabama for park renovations; 

17. $50,000 to the City of Decatur, Alabama for improvements to Delano Park; 

18. $100,000 to the Madison County Commission in Alabama 

for countywide planning; 

19. $100,000 to Athens State University for facilities renovation of McCandless Hall; 

20. $125,000 to the Huntsville-Madison County Botanical 

Gardens in Alabama for improvements to facilities; 

21. $50,000 to the Muscle Shoals Regional Center at the University of North Alabama for a feasibility study; 

22. $125,000 to the Helen Keller Birthplace Foundation for 

restoration of Ivy Green in Tuscumbia, Alabama; 

23. $100,000 to the Huntsville Museum of Art in Alabama 

for facilities upgrades; 

24. $50,000 to the Morgan County Child Advocacy Center in 

Decatur, Alabama for facilities construction and renovation; 

25. $100,000 to the Northwest Alabama Children’s Advocacy 

Center for facilities improvements, expansions, and upgrades; 

26. $75,000 to Parents and Children Together in Decatur, 

Alabama for facilities construction, renovation, and upgrades 

to its center; 

33 

27. $75,000 to the Princess Theatre Center for Performing 

Arts in Decatur, Alabama for facilities renovations; 

28. $50,000 to the Bankhead Educational Foundation, Inc. 

for facilities planning and construction in Lawrence County, 

Alabama; 

29. $100,000 to the 1856 Memphis and Charleston Railroad 

Freight Depot in Huntsville, Alabama, for repairs and renovations; 

30. $75,000 to the City of Hueytown, Alabama for construction of the Hueytown Community Center; 31. $150,000 to North Arkansas College in Harrison, Arkansas for facilities construction of the North Arkansas College 

Health Sciences Education Center; 

32. $150,000 to the City of Phoenix, Arizona for construction 

of the Bob Stump Veteran’s Museum; 33. $200,000 to the Arkansas State University for facilities 

construction and renovation of the Vada Sheid Community Development Center in Mountain Home, Arkansas; 34. $100,000 to the Old Independence Regional Museum in 

Arkansas for facilities renovation; 

35. $75,000 to the City of Prescott, Arkansas for construction 

of a public swimming pool; 36. $125,000 to the City of Conway, Arkansas for sidewalks, 

street furniture, and fac ̨ade improvements to the Conway Redevelopment project; 37. $150,000 for the Marc Center in Mesa, Arizona for construction of the Marc Day Treatment and Training Center; 38. $250,000 to Patronato Sax Xavier for facilities renovation 

at Mission San Xavier del Bac in Tucson, Arizona; 

39. $450,000 to the Fox Tucson Theatre Foundation for the 

preservation of the Fox Tucson Theatre in Tucson, Arizona; 40. $100,000 to the Town of Springerville, Arizona for renovations to the historic Old Springerville Elementary School; 41. $75,000 to the Dunbar Coalition for the Dunbar Project 

in Tucson, Arizona for playground equipment, restoration of 

the school ramada, and renovation of the auditorium; 

42. $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro Phoenix 

for a new facility for the Glendale Boys & Girls Club in Phoenix, Arizona; 

43. $250,000 to Chicanos Por La Causa for land acquisition 

at the Buckeye Road Site Development in Phoenix, Arizona; 

44. $250,000 to the Riverside Community College in Riverside, California for facilities construction and renovation improvements; 

45. $200,000 to the Riverside Community College for construction of the School of Nursing in Riverside, California; 

46. $400,000 to HomeAid America for the construction of 

HomeAid America Temporary homeless shelters in Costa 

Mesa, California; 

47. $250,000 to the San Diego Food Bank in San Diego, California for facilities improvements; 

48. $1,000,000 to the City of Lincoln, California for construction and renovation of a Cultural and Business Center; 

49. $600,000 to the City of Sierra Madre, California for the 

construction of the Sierra Madre Youth Activity Center; 

34 

50. $100,000 to the Lompoc Boys & Girls Club for facilities 

renovation of the Lompoc Boys & Girls Clubhouse; 

51. $150,000 to the Thousand Oaks Boys & Girls Club for 

construction of a new clubhouse on the campus of Colina Middle School in Thousand Oaks, California; 

52. $200,000 to the City of Redding, California for industrial 

park development at the Stillwater Business Park; 

53. $375,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of East San Diego 

County for construction of a new clubhouse in Santee, California; 

54. $250,000 to the City of Oceanside, California for construction of a new Senior Center; 

55. $100,000 to the town of Yucca Valley, California for the 

Civic Center Park; 

56. $150,000 to the City of Twentynine Palms, California for 

facilities and land acquisition for the Joshua Tree National 

Park Visitors Center; 

57. $250,000 for the City of Desert Hot Springs, California 

for the development and construction of the Civic and Community Center; 

58. $250,000 to the City of Banning, California for construction and renovation of the city pool; 

59. $300,000 to the National Orange Show in San 

Bernardino, California for facilities construction and renovation of the stadium; 

60. $650,000 to the City of Apple Valley, California for construction of the Civic Center Park project; 

61. $250,000 to the City of Lancaster, California for land acquisition for the North Downtown Transit Village Project; 

62. $200,000 to the City of Whittier, California for the expansion and remodeling of the Whittwood Branch Library; 

63. $200,000 to the International Agri-Center in Tulane, 

California for facilities construction; 

64. $200,000 to the City of Citrus Heights, California for the 

Auburn Boulevard Commercial Corridor Enhancements; 

65. $225,000 to the City of Livermore, California for facilities 

construction and renovations for the Tri-Valley Homeownership Clearinghouse; 

66. $250,000 to the North Fork Community Development 

Council for industrial park development in North Fork, California; 

67. $200,000 to the City of Westminster, California for construction of the Community Cultural and Education Center; 

68. $200,000 to Kern County, California for infrastructure 

improvements of the Imperial Way Industrial Park; 

69. $300,000 to the City of Bakersfield, California for sidewalks, street furniture and fac ̧ade improvements; 

70. $500,000 to the University of California for facilities construction and renovation to the Shafter Cotton Research and 

Extension Center in Shafter, California; 

71. $75,000 to the City of San Bernardino, California for expansion of its senior center; 

72. $175,000 to the City of Los Angeles, California for rehabilitation of the Echo Park Boathouse; 

35 

73. $100,000 to the Sylmar Recreation and Park Center in 

Sylmar, California for facilities construction and renovation; 

74. $100,000 to the Valley Economic Development Center in 

Pacoima, California for facilities construction of the Pacoima 

Community Development Federal Credit Union; 

75. $125,000 to the City of Santa Barbara, California for construction and restoration associated with the Arroyo Burro 

Beach Park; 

76. $75,000 to the City of Stockton, California for renovation 

of the El Dorado Teen Center; 

77. $75,000 to the Vietnam Veterans of San Diego for the 

construction of a new homeless shelter in San Diego, California; 

78. $75,000 to the City of Fresno, California for improvements in the Southern Fresno Industrial Park; 

79. $175,000 to the City of Palo Alto, California for restoration of the Palo Alto Children’s Library; 

80. $300,000 to the Second Harvest Food Bank in Santa 

Cruz and San Benito Counties, California for facilities construction and renovations; 

81. $100,000 to the County of Imperial, California for project 

planning of the Imperial County Eco Park; 

82. $75,000 to the City of Los Angeles, California for land acquisition and development of the East Wilmington Park; 

83. $75,000 to the City of San Jose, California for renovations and upgrades to a shopping district; 

84. $125,000 to the County of Alameda Public Works Agency 

for sidewalks improvements in Cherryland and Ashland, California; 

85. $100,000 to the City of San Jose, California for construction of a multipurpose community center; 

86. $300,000 to the Sacramento Area Regional Technology 

Alliance for an economic development planning study; 

87. $125,000 to the City of Long Beach, California for renovation and expansion of the Museum of Latin American Art; 

88. $75,000 to the City of Montebello, California for renovations to the George Hensel Aquatic Center; 

89. $300,000 to the International Museum of Women in San 

Francisco, California for rehabilitation and buildout; 

90. $400,000 to the Filipino Cultural Center in San Francisco, California for construction and buildout; 

91. $125,000 to the East Los Angeles Community Corporation for renovation of office space in Boyle Heights, Los Angeles, California; 

92. $75,000 to the El Proyecto Pastoral for construction of a 

pre-school center in Los Angeles, California; 

93. $125,000 to the El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historic Park 

for restoration of a mural in Los Angeles, California; 

94. $100,000 to the City of Anaheim, California for the reconstruction and lighting of the Magnolia High School athletic 

fields; 

95. $75,000 to the City of Burbank, California for construction of the Ovrom Recreation Center and Community Day 

School; 

36 

96. $75,000 to the City of Porter Ranch, California for facility 

expansion of the North Valley YMCA; 97. $100,000 to the City of Azusa, California for construction 

of a health care clinic; 

98. $100,000 to the City of Duarte, California for construction of a new library; 99. $100,000 to the City of Fremont, California for facilities 

renovations to the Kidango Rix Child Care Center; 100. $100,000 to the City of San Leandro, California for the 

construction of the San Leandro Senior Citizens Center; 

101. $125,000 to the City of Lafayette, California for the construction of a veterans memorial building; 102. $75,000 to the City of American Canyon, California for 

construction of the Veterans Memorial Park; 

103. $75,000 to the City of Windsor, California for the rehabilitation of Keiser Park; 

104. $175,000 to the City of Inglewood, California for construction of the Inglewood Senior Center; 105. $100,000 to the City of Lawndale, California for construction of the Lawndale Senior Center; 

106. $75,000 to the City of Los Angeles, California for renovation of the Barnsdall House and Park; 

107. $275,000 to the City of Santa Monica, California for facilities construction and renovation of the Santa Monica National Mountains Gateway Visitors Center; 108. $100,000 to the Valley of the Moon Children’s Home for 

construction in Santa Rosa, California; 

109. $100,000 to Center Point, Inc. in Marin County, California for renovation of a treatment facility for youth; 110. $100,000 to the City of Aurora, Colorado for facilities 

construction and renovation of the Fitzsimmons Redevelopment Authority; 111. $100,000 to Jefferson County, Colorado for facilities and 

construction of an early childhood development center; 

112. $150,000 for the City of Arvada, Colorado for the design 

phase of the community’s arts and humanities center; 

113. $75,000 to the Denver Department of Human Services 

for renovations and buildout of a homeless shelter in Denver, 

Colorado; 

114. $100,000 to the Bent of the River Audubon Center for 

facilities renovation of the Visitor’s Center; 

115. $150,000 for Trinity-On-Main in New Britain, Connecticut for the Trinity-On Main Arts Education and Community Center for property acquisition and renovation; 

116. $100,000 to Progressive Training Associates in Bridgeport, Connecticut for facilities construction; 

117. $100,000 to the Stamford Center for the Arts for facilities construction of Little Theater & Arts Education Center; 

118. $200,000 to the Stamford Yerwood Center in Stamford, 

Connecticut for facilities renovation; 

119. $300,000 to the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut for facilities construction and renovation of the Music and Arts Center for Humanity; 

120. $100,000 to the Town of Willington, Connecticut for construction of the Willington Senior Center; 

37 

121. $150,000 to the City of Norwich, Connecticut for the development of Harbor Park; 

122. $200,000 to the Main Street Development Corporation 

for land acquisition, planning and facilities construction associated with the Nangatuck Valley Economic Growth Initiative in 

Naugatuck Valley, Connecticut; 

123. $150,000 to the City of Derby, Connecticut for the Sterling Opera House renovation; 

124. $125,000 to the Greater Dwight Development Corporation for construction of the Dwight Community Child Care 

Center in New Haven, Connecticut; 

125. $125,000 to the University of Hartford, Connecticut for 

renovations to the Hartt Performing Arts Center; 

126. $100,000 for the Beebe School of Nursing in Lewes, 

Delaware for facilities construction and renovation; 

127. $250,000 for the City of Clearwater, Florida for facilities 

construction and renovation improvements for the Clearwater 

Homeless Intervention Project; 

128. $500,000 for Volunteer Jacksonville for the construction 

of the Volunteer Jacksonville Facility in Jacksonville, Florida; 

129. $300,000 for the South Florida Goodwill for facility renovations in Miami, Florida; 

130. $500,000 to the Centro Mater Head Start Facilities for 

construction of a new facility in Hialeah, Florida; 

131. $100,000 to Orange County, Florida for expansion of the 

Marks Street Senior Center; 

132. $650,000 to the Office of Farmworker Ministries in 

Apopka, Florida for facilities construction; 

133. $150,000 to the Sebring Airport Authority for industrial 

park development in Sebring, Florida; 

134. $500,000 to the City of Fort Myers, Florida for the restoration of Edison & Ford Winter Estates; 

135. $200,000 to the City of Sarasota, Florida for the Fredd 

‘‘Glossie’’ Atkins park expansion; 

136. $150,000 to the City of Ocoee, Florida for facilities construction for a senior citizen veterans services center; 

137. $200,000 to the City of Palatka, Florida for the Palatka 

Riverfront improvements; 

138. $100,000 to the City of Miami, Florida for the Elderly 

Assistance Program for facilities construction; 

139. $250,000 to the City of Boca Raton, Florida for sidewalks, street furniture, and fac ̨ade improvements; 

140. $150,000 to the City of Gainesville, Florida for facilities 

improvements and upgrades of the Depot Regional Stormwater 

Park; 

141. $150,000 for Alachua County, Florida for streetscape 

improvements for the Partners for a Productive Community 

Enhancement Initiative; 

142. $634,000 to Hubbs/Sea World for facilities construction 

of a marine and coastal research center in Brevard County, 

Florida; 

143. $633,000 to Shands/Jacksonville for facilities construction and renovation of an emergency room/trauma center in 

Jacksonville, Florida; 

38 

144. $633,000 to the Orlando Regional Medical Center for facilities construction and renovation of the Pediatric Trauma 

Center in Orlando, Florida; 

145. $50,000 to Crosswinds Youth Services for facilities construction of a youth center in Brevard County, Florida; 146. $200,000 to the City of Largo, Florida for Central Park 

facilities improvements; 147. $900,000 to the City of Clearwater, Florida for 

streetscape improvements for the Beachwalk project; 148. $250,000 to Pinellas County, Florida for facilities construction and renovation of the Urban League community Center; 

149. $900,000 to the Salvador Dali Museum in St. Petersburg, Florida for planning, design, and construction of facilities; 

150. $900,000 to the City of Dunedin, Florida for facilities 

construction and renovation of the city community center; 151. $100,000 to the National Armed Services and Law Enforcement Memorial Museum, in Dunedin, Florida for facilities 

construction and renovation; 

152. $900,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida for facilities renovation and expansion of the Florida Museum of Fine 

Arts; 

153. $400,000 to the City of Palm Harbor, Florida for the 

downtown revitalization project; 154. $400,000 to the City of Treasure Island, Florida for the 

community development project; 155. $900,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida for restoration of the Jordan School; 

156. $300,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida for the 

Tangerine Avenue community development project; 157. $300,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida for Dome 

Industrial Park facilities renovation and construction; 

158. $300,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida for facilities construction and improvements at Bartlett Park; 

159. $250,000 to the City of Tampa, Florida for facilities construction and renovation for the Bay History Center; 

160. $675,000 to Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Florida 

for construction of the Youth Opportunity Center; 

161. $200,000 to the City of Clearwater, Florida for construction and renovation for the Homeless Intervention Project; 

162. $300,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida for facilities construction and renovation for the Mid-Pinellas Science 

Center; 

163. $380,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida for construction and renovation for the Catholic Charities Mercy 

House; 

164. $150,000 to the Tri-County Ag Complex in Altha, Florida for construction of a multipurpose center; 

165. $150,000 to the City of Carrabelle, Florida for construction of a recreation park; 

166. $200,000 to the City of Orlando, Florida for land acquisition in the Parramore Neighborhood; 

167. $75,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida to rehabilitate the Jordan School; 

39 

168. $75,000 to the Urban League of Broward County, Florida for construction of a community building resource center; 

169. $75,000 to Hendry County, Florida for sidewalks, street 

furniture, and fac ̧ade improvements at Hendry LaBelle Community Civic Park; 

170. $75,000 to the Miami-Dade County Empowerment Zone 

Trust for facility construction of the Poinciana Biopharmaceutical Park; 

171. $75,000 for Antioch Micro-Enterprise Network in Augusta, Georgia for the Antioch Micro-Enterprise Network’s Entrepreneur Training Program; 

172. $200,000 to Mercer University for facilities construction 

for the Mercer University Critical Personnel Development Program; 

173. $100,000 to Cobb County, Georgia for construction of 

the Marietta, Georgia Senior Center; 

174. $100,000 to the City of Marietta, Georgia for capitalization of the Marietta Growth Fund; 

175. $100,000 to the City of Marietta, Georgia for capitalization of the Marietta Growth Fund; 

176. $75,000 to the Joint Development Authority of Ben Hill 

and Irvin Counties, Georgia for industrial park development; 

177. $500,000 to the Coastal Heritage Society for construction of the Savannah Battlefield Interpretive Center in Savannah, Georgia; 

178. $250,000 to Cherokee County, Georgia for construction 

of the Cherokee County Emergency Children’s Shelter in Canton; 

179. $100,000 to the City of Plains, Georgia for construction 

and facilities buildout of a history resource center; 

180. $75,000 to the SOWEGA Council on Aging for construction of a senior center in Albany, Georgia; 

181. $100,000 to Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital in 

Dougherty County, Georgia for building renovation; 

182. $100,000 to the National Infantry Foundation in Columbus, Georgia for construction of a museum and park; 

183. $100,000 to Morris Brown College in Atlanta, Georgia 

for renovation of a building; 

184. $75,000 to America’s Second Harvest of Georgia for facility buildout in centers; 

185. $75,000 to Lowndes Association Ministries to People for 

renovation of a multipurpose center in Valdosta, Georgia; 

186. $75,000 to the East Baker Historical Society/21st Century Community Corporation in Georgia for facility repairs; 

187. $100,000 to the Flint River Auditorium Alliance for renovation of an auditorium in Flint River, Georgia; 

188. $100,000 to the Albany Theater in Albany, Georgia for 

facilities renovations; 

189. $200,000 to the Miller County Development Authority 

for construction of a sound stage in Colquitt, Georgia; 

190. $150,000 to the Covenant House of Atlanta, Georgia to 

purchase and construct a new crisis shelter for homeless youth; 

191. $150,000 to Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia for 

renovations to Rockefeller Hall; 

40 

192. $125,000 to the Tubman Museum in Macon, Georgia for 

construction; 

193. $100,000 to the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii 

for expansion and renovation of the Makiki Library; 194. $150,000 to the City of Storm Lake, Iowa for the construction of the Storm Lake Destination Park; 

195. $100,000 to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County 

in Iowa City, Iowa, for capitalization of loan funds; 196. $200,000 to the City of Waterloo, Iowa for industrial 

park development; 197. $125,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for land acquisition for a technology park; 198. $100,000 to the Clearwater Economic Development Association for an economic planning study for the Lewis and 

Clark Bicentennial Project; 199. $500,000 to the City of Blackfoot, Idaho for land acquisition and improvements at the Jensen Grove City Park and 

Jensen Grove Lake; 

200. $150,000 to Franklin County, Idaho for the moving, renovation, restoration of the Oneida Stake Academy building in 

Preston, Idaho; 

201. $200,000 to Idaho State University for facilities construction for the L.E. and Thelma E. Stephens Performing Arts 

Center; 

202. $100,000 to Power County, Idaho for the Fort Hall Reservation/Power County Joint Economic Redevelopment Initiative; 

203. $200,000 to the City of Crest Hill, Illinois for facilities 

construction and renovation of Our Children’s Homestead Foster Home Development; 204. $150,000 to the Village of Zurich, Illinois for industrial 

park development; 205. $500,000 to the City of DeKalb, Illinois for industrial 

park infrastructure improvements; 

206. $350,000 to the City of Downers Grove, Illinois for capital improvements for the Ray Graham Association for People 

With Disabilities; 

207. $100,000 to the World War II Black Navy Veterans of 

Great Lakes Memorial Foundation for the North Chicago Veterans’ Memorial in North Chicago, Illinois; 

208. $275,000 to the St. Francis Medical Center in Peoria, Illinois for improvements, including consolidation of ambulatory 

care; 

209. $275,000 to the Lakeview Regional Museum in Peoria, 

Illinois for facilities construction and renovation of a new 

building; 

210. $275,000 for PeoriaNEXT in Peoria, Illinois for facilities 

construction and renovation of the Innovation Center business 

incubator; 

211. $250,000 for Illinois College in Jacksonville, Illinois for 

facilities construction and renovation of Whipple Hall; 

212. $275,000 for Glen Oak Zoo in Peoria, Illinois for facilities construction and renovation of a new Africa exhibit; 

213. $100,000 Eureka College, Eureka, IL, for continued construction of Science and Technology Center; 

41 

214. $100,000 Northfield Park District, IL, for facilities renovation and rehabilitation; 

215. $150,000 to the City of Havana, Illinois for facilities 

construction and renovation of the Havana Rural Center; 

216. $100,000 to the Rockford Literary Council for facilities 

construction in Rockford, Illinois; 

217. $200,000 to the Burpee Museum-Discovery Center museum campus expansion project in Rockford, Illinois; 

218. $400,000 to the City of Joliet, Illinois for the continued 

restoration of the Rialto Square Theater; 

219. $175,000 to the City of Benton, Illinois for construction 

of a new library; 

220. $250,000 to the Night of Ministry in Chicago, Illinois for 

rehabilitation and construction of the The Night of Ministry 

Homeless Youth Housing Shelter; 

221. $1,000,000 to the Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical 

Center in Chicago, Illinois for facilities construction; 

222. $75,000 to the Academy for Urban School Leadership 

for construction of a gymnasium and playing fields in Chicago, 

Illinois; 

223. $200,000 to the City of Grafton, Illinois for development 

of the marina and harbor, including construction of sidewalks; 

224. $200,000 to the Western Illinois University for construction of the Quad City Campus in Moline, Illinois; 

225. $200,000 to the Chicago Park District for the Davis 

Square Park reconstruction in Chicago, Illinois; 

226. $175,000 to the Calumet Area Redevelopment Initiative 

for land acquisition and restoration of the Lake Calumet area 

in Chicago, Illinois; 

227. $125,000 to The Inner Voice/A Little Bit of Heaven for 

facility upgrades to homeless shelters on the South Side of Chicago, Illinois; 

228. $400,000 to the Village of Western Springs, Illinois for 

land acquisition and construction of a parking lot; 

229. $350,000 to the Greater Chicago Food Depository for 

construction of a new foodbank and training facility; 

230. $75,000 to the City of Des Plaines, Illinois for expansion 

of a senior center; 

231. $350,000 to the City of Marion, Indiana for refurbishing 

the City of Marion Memorial Coliseum; 

232. $100,000 to Madison Township, Indiana for construction 

of the Madison Township Community Center; 

233. $250,000 to the City of South Bend, Indiana for industrial park development at the Studebaker Corridor; 

234. $250,000 to the South Bend Heritage Foundation in 

South Bend, Indiana for facilities construction and renovation; 

235. $150,000 to the City of Anderson, Indiana for industrial 

park development; 

236. $100,000 to the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana for facilities construction for the Hanna-Creighton Community Enhancement Initiative; 

237. $200,000 to the Tri-State University in Angola, Indiana, 

for facilities construction for the Center for Technology and 

Online Resources; 

42 

238. $150,000 to the University of Indianapolis for facility 

expansion in Indianapolis, Indiana; 

239. $125,000 to the City of Rising Sun, Indiana for the rehabilitation of a building into a community performance center 

and meeting space; 

240. $500,000 to the Town of Schererville, Indiana for construction of a recreational facility; 

241. $275,000 to the City of Whiting, Indiana for renovation 

of the Whiting Social Center Facility; 

242. $250,000 to Historic Abilene, Inc., in Kansas for the revitalization of New Old Abilene Town; 

243. $100,000 to the City of Ottawa, Kansas for improvements to the Municipal Swimming Pool; 

244. $200,000 to the City of Topeka, Kansas for industrial 

park development at the Center Point commerce park; 

245. $250,000 to the City of Wichita, Kansas for the renovations at the Veterans Memorial Park; 

246. $350,000 to the City of Wichita, Kansas for facilities 

construction for the development of the 21 st Street Community Development Corporation; 

247. $125,000 to the Kansas Chapter, National Korean War 

Veterans’ Association for construction of the Korean War Memorial of Overland Park, Kansas; 

248. $75,000 to El Centro, Inc. for facilities construction and 

renovation in a business park in Kansas City, Kansas; 

249. $100,000 to the City of Radcliff, Kentucky for 

streetscape improvements; 

250. 150,000 to the Trinity Family Life Center of Louisville, 

Kentucky for facilities construction of a multi-purpose center; 

251. 700,000 to the Louisville Metro Government in Kentucky for the Newburg neighborhood revitalization; 

252. 100,000 to Dream Foundation, Inc. in Louisville, Kentucky for playground construction; 

253. $250,000 to Breathitt County Fiscal Court for the construction of an intergenerational community entertainment 

center in Jackson, Kentucky; 

254. $250,000 to the Roy F. Collier Community Center for 

computer hardware, equipment, and furniture needs in Inez, 

Kentucky; 

255. $200,000 to Metcalfe County Fiscal Court for construction of the Metcalfe County Enrichment Center in Edmonton, 

Kentucky; 

256. $125,000 to Morehead State University for construction 

and expansion of classrooms in Mt. Sterling, Kentucky; 

257. $150,000 to the City of St. Francisville, Louisiana for facilities construction and renovation; 

258. $300,000 to the Biomedical Research Foundation of NW 

Louisiana for industrial park development in Shreveport, Louisiana; 

259. $250,000 to St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana for 

facilities renovations to the Louisiana War Veterans Home; 

260. $125,000 to the City of Bastrop, Louisiana for renovation of a building into a technology multiplex; 

43 

261. $125,000 to the St. Mary’s Women and Infants Center 

for renovations to its facilities for homeless women and children in Boston, Massachusetts; 

262. $100,000 to the Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts for 

site preparation, design, sidewalks, street furniture, and facade 

improvements; 

263. $75,000 to the Town of Dedham, Massachusetts for 

parks improvements; 

264. $150,000 to the Mystic Valley Development Corporation 

in Medford, Massachusetts for the development of a technology 

and research center; 

265. $150,000 to the Malden Immigrant Center in Malden, 

Massachusetts for facilities construction, upgrades and buildout; 

266. $100,000 to Main South Community Development Corporation in Worcester, Massachusetts for the Gardner-Kilby 

Hammond Neighborhood Revitalization Project; 

267. $125,000 to the Lowell, Massachusetts Boys and Girls 

Club for facility improvements; 

268. $150,000 to the City of Springfield, Massachusetts for 

construction of the Springfield Public Market; 

269. $175,000 to the American International College in 

Springfield, Massachusetts for increased classroom space at 

the Reed Mansion and Breck Hall; 

270. $200,000 to the New England Log Homes Redevelopment for demolition in Great Barrington, Massachusetts; 

271. $500,000 to the City of Hatfield, Massachusetts for facilities expansion at the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts; 

272. $150,000 to Salem State College in Salem, Massachusetts for construction and renovation of its Art Glass Works 

Facility; 

273. $75,000 to the Enterprise Foundation for a feasibility 

study in Annapolis, Maryland; 

274. $150,000 to the Baltimore School for the Arts for building upgrades in Baltimore, Maryland; 

275. $200,000 to the Town of North Beach, Maryland for construction of a gym and multipurpose room at the Bayside Boys 

and Girls Club; 

276. $200,000 to the Girl Scout Council of the Nation’s Capital for the Girl Scout Camp construction, in Charles and 

Prince Georges Counties, Maryland; 

277. $250,000 to St. Mary’s County for land acquisition and 

demolishment at the Lexington Manor Northern Parcel in 

Leonardtown, Maryland; 

278. $75,000 to the Cal Ripken Senior Foundation for construction of a stadium in Aberdeen, Maryland; 

279. $75,000 to Prince Georges County, Maryland for facilities construction and renovation of the Permanent Employment & Training Center and Multicultural Academy; 

280. $125,000 to the Anacostia Watershed Society for facilities renovation of the George Washington House in Prince 

George’s County, Maryland; 

281. $125,000 to the Gulf of Maine Research Institute for facilities construction and renovation in Portland, Maine; 

44 

282. $100,000 to the City of Lewiston, Maine for renovation 

of a public theatre; 283. $125,000 to the City of Greenville, Maine for rehabilitation of the Junction Wharf, 

284. $100,000 to the City of Lewiston, Maine for renovation 

of the the Franco-American Heritage Center; 285. $350,000 to Boysville of Michigan for facilities construction and renovations; 

286. $150,000 to Global Enterprises for Water Technology for 

building acquisition and renovation at Clearwater Plaza in 

Grand Rapids, Michigan; 287. $250,000 to the Grand Valley State University for acquisition of a research facility, training and education space for 

the Annis Water Resource Institute in Muskegon, Michigan; 288. $500,000 to the Michigan Jewish Institute for facilities 

construction and renovation at the College Academic Center in 

West Bloomfield, Michigan; 289. $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Troy, Michigan 

for facilities construction and renovation; 

290. $100,000 to the Oakland Livingston Human Service 

Agency for facilities construction and renovation in Pontiac, 

Michigan; 291. $200,000 to the City of Durand, Michigan for downtown 

streetscape improvements; 292. $125,000 to the City of Detroit, Michigan for demolition; 

293. $175,000 to the Arab Community Center for Economic 

and Social Services in Dearborn, Michigan for construction of 

a museum; 

294. $75,000 to Genesee County, Michigan for demolition, rehabilitation, and site preparation; 295. $75,000 to the Tuscola Human Development Commission for construction of an intergenerational day care facility in 

Caro, Michigan; 296. $325,000 to the City of Detroit, Michigan for sidewalks, 

street furniture, and fac ̧ade improvements to the Detroit 

RiverWalk, East River Front; 

297. $150,000 to Marquette General Hospital in Marquette, 

Michigan for construction of a trauma and emergency center; 

298. $50,000 to the Cities of Manistique and Charlevoix, 

Michigan for the Northern Michigan Senior Centers Renovation Project; 

299. $100,000 to the St. Cloud Housing & Redevelopment 

Authority for renovations to Germain Towers; 

300. $150,000 to Scott County, Minnesota for renovation of 

affordable housing at the Belle Haven Apartment Preservation; 

301. $100,000 to the Cornerstone Advocacy Service in Bloomington, Minnesota for facilities construction; 

302. $75,000 to the City of South St. Paul, Minnesota for site 

preparation at Port Crosby Park; 

303. $150,000 to the City of Royalton, Minnesota for the renovation of a multi-purpose community facility; 

304. $150,000 to the City of Park Rapids, Minnesota for 

Teamworks for industrial park development; 

305. $100,000 to Leech Lake Tribal College for facilities construction and renovation in Cass Lake, Minnesota; 

45 

306. $100,000 to the City of Willmar, Minnesota for redevelopment of a closed airport into the City of Willmar Industrial 

Park; 

307. $100,000 to the City of Canby, Minnesota for construction of the Prairie Farm Preservation Education and Exhibit 

Center; 

308. $150,000 to the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota for rehabilitation of a multipurpose community center; 309. $275,000 to the Ritz Theater Foundation in Minneapolis, Minnesota for renovations to the Ritz Theater; 310. $150,000 to the American Swedish Institute in Minneapolis, Minnesota for facilities construction at the Temblad 

Mansion; 

311. $150,000 to the Show-Me Aquatics for facilities construction in Saint Charles, Missouri; 

312. $80,000 to Greene County, Missouri for the development 

of an industrial park; 313. $250,000 to the City of Springfield, Missouri for the construction of a community multipurpose center; 314. $500,000 for the Gillioz-Ronald Reagan Theatre in 

Springfield, Missouri for facilities renovation; 315. $200,000 for the Missouri Soybean Association for construction of the Missouri Soybean Association’s Discovery Research Institute; 

316. $200,000 to the Southeast Missouri State University for 

construction of the Southeast Missouri State University River 

Campus in Cape Girardeau, Missouri; 317. $150,000 to the Missouri Soybean Association for renovations to the New Generation Agribusiness Incubation Center in Kansas City, Missouri; 318. $200,000 to the Brookfield Industrial Development Authority in Brookfield, Missouri, for industrial park development; 

319. $75,000 to the City of St. Louis, Missouri for construction of the Northside Recreation Center; 

320. $100,000 to the City of St. Louis, Missouri for 

streetscape improvements, fac ̧ade improvements, and street 

furniture in the commercial district; 

321. $100,000 to the Lemay Development Corporation in St. 

Louis, Missouri for land and site acquisition, demolition, 

streetscape improvements and renovation of St. Louis neighborhoods; 

322. $200,000 to the Missouri Sheriffs Association for construction of an indoor firing range in Jefferson City, Missouri; 

323. $100,000 to Laderdale County, Mississippi for facilities 

construction for Mississippi Scrimber Wood Project; 

324. $100,000 to the LeFleur Lakes Development Foundation 

in Rankin and Hinds Counties, Mississippi for an economic 

planning study; 

325. $125,000 to Mississippi State University for Phase II 

expansion of its Research, Technology and Economic Development Park in Mississippi State, Mississippi; 

326. $350,000 to the City of Holly Springs, Mississippi for 

the North Memphis Street Redevelopment Revitalization 

Project; 

46 

327. $100,000 to Clarke County, Mississippi for development 

of an industrial park; 

328. $125,000 to Wayne County, Mississippi for development 

of an industrial park; 

329. $100,000 to the Mississippi Valley State University in 

Itta Bena, Mississippi for the renovation and expansion of current facilities for the Center for Rural and Small Town Development; 

330. $75,000 to the Mississippi Valley State University for a 

feasibility study of the recreation areas at the Boys and Girls 

Club facilities in Itta Benna, Mississippi; 

331. $200,000 to the Montana State University-Northern for 

facilities equipment and technology upgrades in Havre, Montana; 

332. $150,000 to the Southeastern Center for Contemporary 

Art for facilities construction and renovation in WinstonSalem, North Carolina; 

333. $200,000 to the Blowing Rock Community Arts Center 

Foundation in Blowing Rock, North Carolina for construction 

of the Blowing Rock Performing Arts Center; 

334. $100,000 to the City of Charlotte, North Carolina for facilities construction and renovation at Grier Heights; 

335. $150,000 to the City of Raeford, North Carolina for 

streetscape improvements; 

336. $150,000 to Scotland County, North Carolina for demolition of the Scotland County Hospital; 

337. $100,000 to the City of Hatteras, North Carolina for 

construction of the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum; 

338. $100,000 to Gaston County, North Carolina, for industrial park development for the Gaston County Technology Park 

Expansion; 

339. $100,000 to Gaston County, North Carolina to establish 

a revolving loan for investment in downtown Gastonia; 

340. $50,000 for the City of Etowah, North Carolina for the 

Etowah community park for streetscape improvements; 

341. $250,000 for the Education and Research Consortium at 

Brevard College in Brevard, North Carolina for science building facilities construction and renovation; 

342. $250,000 for the Education and Research Consortium at 

Brevard College in Brevard, North Carolina for dormitory facilities construction and renovation; 

343. $100,000 to the Raleigh Area Development Authority in 

Raleigh, North Carolina for capitalization of a loan fund; 

344. $150,000 to Duplin County, North Carolina for retrofitting and upgrades to the West Park Business Technology 

Center; 

345. $75,000 to the Wake County Library Foundation for 

construction of a downtown library in Raleigh, North Carolina; 

346. $100,000 to the North Carolina Community Development Initiative, Inc. for construction and buildout of a community center in Apex, North Carolina; 

347. $150,000 to the North Carolina Community Development Initiative, Inc. for expansion and buildout of substance 

abuse treatment facilities in Durham, North Carolina; 

47 

348. $100,000 to Durham County, North Carolina for renovation and buildout of a community health center; 

349. $100,000 to the Center for Community Self-Help in Durham, North Carolina for construction and buildout of a farmer’s market facility; 

350. $150,000 to the Town of Holly Springs, North Carolina 

for construction and buildout of a performing and cultural arts 

center; 

351. $150,000 to the Town of Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina 

for renovation, expansion, and buildout of a community center; 

352. $150,000 to the Town of Apex, North Carolina for renovation, expansion, and buildout of a performing and cultural 

arts center; 

353. $100,000 to the Summit House, Inc. for construction 

and buildout of a residential facility in Greensboro, North 

Carolina; 

354. $75,000 to the Music Maker Relief Foundation, Inc. in 

Durham, North Carolina for acquisition, renovation, and buildout of a facility; 

355. $125,000 to the Bennett College Science Center for facilities construction and renovation in Greensboro, North Carolina; 

356. $100,000 to the East Market Street Development Corporation for facility renovations to the old post office site in 

Greensboro, North Carolina; 

357. $125,000 to the Three Affiliated Tribes at Fort Berthold 

for construction of a cultural interpretive center; 

358. $200,000 for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska for the Antelope Valley revitalization project; 

359. $400,000 to the Boys and Girls Home of Nebraska for 

Columbus Hospital renovations; 

360. $250,000 for the Girls and Boys Town USA in Newark, 

New Jersey, Jersey City, New Jersey, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, Las Vegas, Nevada and New Orleans, Louisiana for construction at the national priority projects of Girls and Boys 

Town USA; 

361. $100,000 to the City of Concord, New Hampshire for facilities restoration and improvements to the Bicentennial 

Square; 

362. $250,000 to the City of Nashua, New Hampshire for facilities restoration and improvements to Thoreau’s Park; 

363. $150,000 to the Currier Art Museum for facilities construction and renovation of the Currier Museum Gallery in 

Manchester, New Hampshire; 

364. $100,000 to the Children’s Specialized Hospital for facility renovations in Mountainside, New Jersey; 

365. $100,000 to the City of Bernardsville, New Jersey for 

the downtown streetscape project; 

366. $100,000 to the Hunterdon County YMCA for construction of a child care facility in Hunterdon County, New Jersey; 

367. $100,000 to the Town of Dover, New Jersey for an economic development planning study; 

368. $100,000 to the Borough of Somerville for an economic 

development planning study; 

48 

369. $100,000 to the Borough of Wanaque, New Jersey for 

improvements to the Haskell Business District Redevelopment; 

370. $175,000 to the Borough of Washington, New Jersey for 

sidewalks, street furniture and fac ̧ade improvements; 

371. $250,000 to the City of Mount Holly, New Jersey for facilities construction and renovation to the Mt. Holly Workforce 

Development & Economic Revitalization Center; 

372. $250,000 to the City of Greater Trenton, New Jersey for 

the construction of the Greater Trenton YMCA; 

373. $200,000 to the LEAP Academy University Charter 

High School for facilities construction and renovation in Camden City, New Jersey; 

374. $125,000 to the Township of Franklin in Somerset 

County, New Jersey for acquisition of a building to be renovated into a museum; 

375. $175,000 to the City of Perth Amboy, New Jersey for rehabilitation and construction of the Jewish Renaissance Medical Center; 

376. $100,000 to Hudson County Community College for construction of Union City Campus in Union City, New Jersey; 

377. $100,000 to the Jersey City Medical Center in New Jersey for facilities construction and expansion of a heart institute; 

378. $150,000 to Monmouth University in West Long Beach, 

New Jersey for renovation of the Guggenheim Memorial Library; 

379. $100,000 to the County of Essex, New Jersey for expansion of the Essex County Environmental Center in Roseland, 

New Jersey; 

380. $150,000 to the City of Newark, New Jersey for land acquisition for the University Heights Science Park; 

381. $150,000 to the Newark Museum in Newark, New Jersey for renovation and expansion of an existing facility; 

382. $175,000 to the Town of Hackensack, New Jersey for 

streetscape renovation; 

383. $150,000 to the Fort Lee Senior Center in Fort Lee, 

New Jersey for expansion; 

384. $150,000 for the Association ode Comerciantes Latinos 

de Nuevo Mexico in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for facilities 

construction; 

385. $200,000 to the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico for 

construction of the Santa Barbara/Martineztown Learning 

Center; 

386. $75,000 to Mora County, New Mexico for construction 

of the David Cargo Public Library; 

387. $200,000 to Nye County, Nevada for facilities renovation of the Pahrump/Nye County Fairgrounds; 

388. $100,000 to the City of Henderson, Nevada for downtown revitalization; 

389. $200,000 to Boulder City, Nevada for the Historic Boulder City Hotel Rehabilitation; 

390. $100,000 to the Nevada Partners, Inc. for facilities construction and expansion of a training facility in North Las 

Vegas, Nevada; 

49 

391. $25,000 to the Town of Mentz, New York for renovations to the Senior Center; 

392. $50,000 to the City of Auburn, New York for facilities 

construction and renovation of Willard Chapel; 

393. $50,000 to the United Cerebral Palsy in Utica, New 

York for development of children’s campus in Rome, New York 

at the Griffiss Business and Technology Park; 

394. $75,000 to the City of Auburn, New York for renovations of the Merry Go Round Playhouse; 

395. $200,000 to the City of Geneva, New York for facilities 

construction and renovation of the Cornell Agriculture and 

Food Technology Park; 

396. $300,000 to the City of Utica, New York for facilities 

construction and renovation of the Science and Technology 

Center at Utica College; 

397. $300,000 to the City of Utica, New York for facilities 

construction and renovation of the Stanley Theater Expansion 

and Modernization Project; 

398. $50,000 to Brooklyn Remembers Inc. for construction of 

the Brooklyn Remembers Memorial in Brooklyn, New York; 

399. $150,000 to the Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Centers 

for facilities construction and renovation of a Primary Care 

Outpatient Center in Stapleton, New York; 

400. $150,000 to Yeled V’Yalda for construction of the Yeled 

V’Yalda Treatment Center for Children with Disabilities in 

Brooklyn, New York; 

401. $500,000 to the Roberts Wesleyan College in Rochester, 

New York for construction of a new Library and Information 

Resource Center; 

402. $250,000 to the Town of Monroe, New York for construction of the Monroe Free Library; 

403. $250,000 to the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health 

System for facilities construction and renovations to expand 

the Emergency Department in Bay Shore, New York; 

404. $350,000 to Paul Smith’s College in Franklin County, 

New York for construction of the Joan Weil Student Center; 

405. $50,000 to the Cheektowaga Senior Center in 

Cheektowaga, New York for facilities improvements; 

406. $150,000 to the Robert H. Jackson Center in Jamestown, New York for facilities renovation; 

407. $268,000 to the Genesee Country Village and Museum 

in Mumford, New York for facilities improvements; 

408. $250,000 to the Catskill Mountain Foundation for the 

renovation of the Orpheum Theatre and Sugar Maples Resort 

in Hunter, New York; 

409. $250,000 to the Warren County Economic Development 

Corp. in North Creek, New York for facilities construction of 

the North Creek Ski Bowl; 

410. $500,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for facilities 

construction and renovations of the Amos Block Redevelopment 

Project; 

411. $250,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for renovations and streetscape improvements to the ARC of Onondaga 

facility for developmentally disabled adults; 

50 

412. $250,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for renovations to P.E.A.C.E. Inc. facilities in Central New York; 

413. $75,000 to Ononaga County, New York for the Greater 

Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame for facilities expansion and renovation; 

414. $400,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for facilities 

renovations to Syracuse Stage; 

415. $250,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for facilities 

expansion and renovation of Vera House; 

416. $100,000 to the City of Rochester, New York for planning and expansion of the High Falls Film Festival; 

417. $1,000,000 to St. John Fisher’s College in Rochester, 

New York for construction of a new School of Pharmacy; 

418. $200,000 to the Town of Penfield, New York for renovations to the Camp Haccamo facilities for the disabled; 

419. $600,000 to the Metropolitan Development Association 

in Syracuse, New York for the Essential New York Initiative; 

420. $100,000 to the Town of Palmyra, New York for renovations to the Palmyra Community Center; 

421. $75,000 to the Wayne County, New York for planning 

and marketing of an alternative use strategy for the Savannah 

Elementary School Building; 

422. $400,000 to the Metropolitan Development Association 

in Syracuse, New York for construction and renovations of the 

Electronics Park complex; 

423. $500,000 to the New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority for facilities construction; 

424. $250,000 to the Simon Wiesenthal New York Tolerance 

Center in New York City for facade restoration improvements; 

425. $500,000 to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New 

York City for fac ̧ade restoration improvements; 

426. $500,000 to the National Center for Disabilities Services 

in Albertson, New York for facilities construction and renovation; 

427. $500,000 to Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York City 

for facilities construction; 

428. $250,000 to the Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks for construction of a new museum in New York State; 

429. $500,000 to Brooklyn Public Library in New York for 

restoration of the central plaza; 

430. $250,000 to the Rivers and Estuaries Center on the 

Hudson in New York for facilities construction; 

431. $350,000 to Daemon College in Amherst, New York for 

facilities improvement; 

432. $75,000 to the North Shore Child and Family Guidance 

Center for expansion of a building in Long Island, New York; 

433. $125,000 to the City of Holtsville, New York for facilities construction of the Brookhaven/Patchogue Family YMCA; 

434. $125,000 to Elmcor Youth and Adult Activities for construction of an economic development center in Queens, New 

York; 

435. $150,000 to City of Mt. Vernon, New York for restoration of an abandoned building into a job training and cultural 

center; 

51 

436. $125,000 to the City of Kingston, New York for the Ulster Performing Arts Center for renovations, upgrades, and repairs; 

437. $125,000 to the Rural Ulster Preservation Company in 

Kingston, New York for renovations to the Kirkland Hotel; 

438. $75,000 to Johnson City, New York for facilities construction and renovations to the Goodwill Theater; 

439. $75,000 to the City of Northport, New York for construction of the Northport American Legion facility; 

440. $75,000 to the Village of Dobbs Ferry, New York for 

streetscape improvements; 

441. $150,000 to the Village of Port Chester, New York for 

construction of a senior center; 

442. $100,000 to the Volunteer Counseling Services of Rockland County, New York for renovations to its building; 

443. $100,000 to the City of Greenburgh for upgrades and 

renovations in Webb Park; 

444. $100,000 to the Village of West Haverstraw, New York 

for sidewalk improvements; 

445. $75,000 to the Queens Borough Public Library System 

for construction of a library in Queens, New York; 

446. $125,000 to the Lower East Side Tenement Museum for 

facilities construction, renovation and buildout; 

447. $125,000 to the Town of North Hempstead, NewYork for 

renovation of blighted properties in New Cassel, New York; 

448. $100,000 to the City of Albany, New York for the South 

End for building demolition; 

449. $100,000 to the City of Albany, New York for expansion 

of the Palace Theater stage; 

450. $100,000 to the City of Albany, New York for the Corning Preserve Albany Waterfront Development; 

451. $125,000 to Jamaica Hospital in New York, New York 

for land acquisition; 

452. $75,000 to the Federation of Italian-American Organizations for expansion and renovation of its community center in 

Brooklyn, New York; 

453. $125,000 to the Brooklyn Public Library for renovation 

and development of the library’s Central Plaza in Brooklyn, 

New York; 

454. $100,000 to the City of Brooklyn, New York for construction of a computer lab; 

455. $150,000 to The Armory Foundation for facilities renovation in New York; 

456. $150,000 to the Amigos del Museo del Barrio, Inc. in 

New York, New York for capital improvements to the 

Heckscher Building; 

457. $100,000 to the Aaron Davis Hall, Inc. for restoration 

and renovation of the hall into a performing arts building in 

Harlem, New York; 

458. $500,000 to the Mary Mitchell Family & Youth Center 

for construction of a multipurpose center in Bronx, New York; 

459. $200,000 to the City of New York Department of Parks 

& Recreation for renovations to the Bath House at Crotona 

Park; 

52 

460. $125,000 to the Pergones Theater in Bronx, New York 

for interior structural renovation work; 

461. $100,000 to the City of Buffalo, New York for renovations to the Broadway Market; 462. $75,000 to the Town of Tonawanda, New York for repairs to a training facility; 463. $75,000 to Group 14621 Community Association for renovations to the Pulaski Library in Rochester, New York; 464. $200,000 to the Brooklyn Academy of Music Local Development Corporation for design, construction, and 

streetscape improvements to the District’s South Site in Brooklyn, New York; 465. $175,000 to the Brooklyn Economic Development Corporation to rehabilitate a building for business and economic 

development activities in Brooklyn, New York; 466. $75,000 to the Electchester Housing Companies for facilities renovations and upgrades in Electchester, New York; 467. $150,000 to the Victory Videos Ministry in the City of 

Forest Park, Ohio for the construction of a youth center; 468. $500,000 to the Westcott House Foundation for facilities 

construction and renovations to the Westcott House in Springfield, Ohio; 

469. $300,000 to the Lancaster Campus of Ohio University 

for facilities construction of a Community Event and Conference Center in Lancaster, Ohio; 

470. $100,000 to Fairfield County, Ohio for facilities construction and renovations at the new location for Fairfield Industries; 

471. $50,000 to the Ohio Wesleyan University for facilities 

construction and renovations in Delaware, Ohio; 

472. $200,000 to the City of Willowick, Ohio for site preparation and construction of the Willowick Lakefront Development; 473. $200,000 to Newbury Township, Ohio for sidewalks, 

street furniture and facade; 

474. $350,000 to the Hocking Athens Perry Community Action in Glouster, Ohio for renovations to the community center; 

475. $350,000 for the 14th Street Community Center in 

Portsmouth, Ohio for facilities construction and renovation; 

476. $1,500,000 for the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce’s Foundation in Canton, Ohio for industrial park development; 

477. $250,000 to the City of Columbus, Ohio for construction 

of the YWCA Family Center; 

478. $250,000 to Development Projects, Inc. for site preparation for the Downtown Dayton Northeast Quadrant in Dayton, 

Ohio; 

479. $250,000 to the St. Mary’s Development Corporation for 

land acquisition for the Multi-Family Housing Project in Dayton, Ohio; 

480. $125,000 to the City of Broadview Heights, Ohio for 

demolition; 

481. $75,000 to Stella Maris, Inc. in Cleveland, Ohio for construction of a community recovery center; 

482. $650,000 to the City of Toledo, Ohio for the Erie Street 

Market for facilities reconstruction; 

53 

483. $250,000 to the City of Toledo, Ohio for building construction and streetscape improvements along Detroit Avenue; 

484. $100,000 to the City of Toledo, Ohio for economic development planning for the Reynolds Road Green Corridor project; 

485. $100,000 to the Lagrange Development Corporation in 

Toledo, Ohio for construction of a community center; 

486. $100,000 to Washington State Community College in 

Marietta, Ohio for construction of a conference center; 

487. $150,000 to the City of Moore, Oklahoma for the expansion of Buck Thomas Park; 

488. $250,000 to the Harrah Industrial and Economic Development Authority for industrial park infrastructure development in Harrah, Oklahoma; 

489. $200,000 to the City of Perkins, Oklahoma for development of the Oklahoma Territorial Plaza; 

490. $150,000 to the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma for facilities 

construction and renovation of the Tulsa Hispanic Family Resource Center; 

491. $75,000 to Southeastern Oklahoma State University for 

the purchase and restoration of the Fortenberry Opera House 

in Durant, Oklahoma; 

492. $200,000 to the Southern Oregon Rehabilitation Center 

for facilities renovations in white City, Oregon; 

493. $75,000 to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry 

for land acquisition in East Portland, Oregon; 

494. $75,000 to the City of Portland, Oregon for the Central 

City Eastside Streetcar project; 

495. $225,000 to the Port of Brookings Harbor, Oregon for 

construction of a seafood processing plant; 

496. $75,000 to the City of Salem, Oregon for facility improvements to the Salem Conference Center; 

497. $125,000 to the City of Salem, Oregon for industrial 

park development at the Mill Creek Industrial and Employment Center; 

498. $150,000 to Gannon University, Erie, Pennsylvania for 

construction of the Erie Technology Incubator; 

499. $250,000 to the Montgomery County Community College for facilities construction of the Small Business Development & University Transfer Center in Pottstown, Pennsylvania; 

500. $250,000 to ARC of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 

for facilities construction of a MARC building; 

501. $100,000 to the Lower Makefield Township, Pennsylvania for construction of the 9–11 Bucks County Memorial 

‘‘Garden of Reflection’’; 

502. $200,000 to Bucks County Planning Commission for 

construction of the Freedom Neighborhood One Community 

Center in Bristol Township, Pennsylvania; 

503. $200,000 to the Vietnam Veterans Leadership Program 

of Western Pennsylvania for facilities expansion in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania; 

504. $100,000 for the Westmoreland County Industrial Development Authority for industrial park development in Hempfield Township, Pennsylvania; 

54 

505. $150,000 to Allegheny County Department of Economic 

Development for site preparation and construction of Clinton 

Industrial Park in Findlay Township, Pennsylvania; 506. $100,000 to the Punxsutawney Weather Museum for 

improvements in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania; 507. $100,000 to the Brookville YMCA in Brookville, Pennsylvania for facilities renovations; 508. $150,000 to Tabor Community Services in Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania for property acquisition and renovation; 509. $150,000 to the York Street Center and Stillmeadow 

Child Care Center in York, Pennsylvania for facilities renovations; 

510. $200,000 to Sayre Borough, Pennsylvania for renovation 

of the Enterprise Center; 511. $200,000 to Trehab Center in Montrose, Pennsylvania 

for facilities construction; 

512. $70,000 for the Morrison’s Cove Memorial Park Recreation Center in Blair County, Pennsylvania for facilities improvements; 513. $100,000 for the Penn’s Woods Council, Boy Scouts of 

America for camp upgrades in Tyrone, Pennsylvania; 514. $130,000 for Indiana University of Pennsylvania for 

construction of a Regional Development Complex in Indiana, 

Pennsylvania; 515. $250,000 to the University Technology Park in Chester, 

Pennsylvania to develop parking facilities for its first and second phase buildings; 516. $125,000 to the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for 

renovations to the Rock School; 

517. $75,000 to the C.C. Mellor Memorial Library in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for infrastructure repairs; 518. $75,000 to the Homeless Children Education Fund/ 

Learning Centers’ homeless shelters for facility revitalization 

and renovations in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; 

519. $75,000 to the Bloomfield Preservation and Heritage Society for construction of an education center in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania; 

520. $100,000 to the Urban Redevelopment Authority to construct public green space in an urban area in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania; 

521. $75,000 to the Breachmenders Mentoring Grants Program in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for facility renovations and 

upgrades; 

522. $75,000 to the Neighborhood Centers Association for facilities construction of a childhood education center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 

523. $200,000 to the Center in the Park in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania for facility enhancements for a senior housing facility; 

524. $100,000 to the Pinn Business Development Center in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for building renovations; 

525. $50,000 to the American Theater Arts for Youth, Inc. in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for facility enhancements; 

526. $50,000 to the Potters House Mission in West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for land acquisition; 

55 

527. $50,000 to The Inglis Foundation for facility upgrades 

in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for enhanced services; 

528. $100,000 to the Mann Center for Performing Arts in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for rehabilitation and expansion of 

the performance hall; 

529. $350,000 to the Educational Advancement Alliance in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for acquisition or facilities construction of a multipurpose facility; 

530. $100,000 to the Greater St. Matthew Community Development Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for construction 

of child development center; 

531. $100,000 to the United Way of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for facility upgrades of the People’s Emergency Center 

West Philadelphia Digital Community Inclusion Project; 

532. $100,000 to the Borough of Tremont, Pennsylvania for 

sidewalks and streetscape lighting; 

533. $225,000 to the City of Harrisburg for capital costs associated with the CorridorOne Regional Rail Program of the 

Modern Transit Partnership in downtown Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; 

534. $150,000 to the City of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania for 

land acquisition, facilities renovation, and demolition; 

535. $75,000 to the City of Scranton, Pennsylvania for land 

acquisition, facilities renovation, and demolition; 

536. $150,000 to Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania for improvements to the Mount Pleasant Veterans Park; 

537. $500,000 to the Winnie Palmer Nature Reserve in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania for facilities construction and 

development; 

538. $400,000 to Cambria County, Pennsylvania for facility 

construction and improvements to the Johnstown Regional 

Technology Complex; 

539. $250,000 to Armstrong County, Pennsylvania for construction of replacement facilities at the Belmont Complex; 

540. $300,000 to Fayette County, Pennsylvania for development of a business park; 

541. $200,000 to the Greene County Community Center for 

construction of a new community center in Greene County, 

Pennsylvania; 

542. $150,000 to the Cambria County, Pennsylvania War 

Memorial Authority for construction of a stage and sports floor; 

543. $100,000 to Armstrong County, Pennsylvania for planning and renovation of buildings for reuse associated with the 

IUP Kittening Campus Reuse Project; 

544. $100,000 to Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania for acquisition and reuse of a facility in the Lenox Building Rehabilitation project; 

545. $250,000 to the Waynesburg College Center for Economic Development in Greene County, Pennsylvania for facilities construction and renovations; 

546. $500,000 to Fayette County, Pennsylvania for renovation, revitalization, and improvement associated with the 

Downtown Uniontown Revitalization Project; 

56 

547. $100,000 to Washington County, Pennsylvania for engineering and design of improvements at the Alta Vista Business 

Park; 

548. $175,000 to the Cornerstone Adult Services/Bristol Center for renovation of a mill building in Bristol, Rhode Island; 549. $150,000 to the City of East Providence, Rhode Island 

for facilities construction and renovation of the East Providence Senior Center; 

550. $250,000 to Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode 

Island for facilities renovations; 

551. $75,000 to the City of West Warwick, Rhode Island for 

construction of the West Warwick Senior Center; 

552. $200,000 to the South Carolina School for the Deaf and 

Blind for renovations of a dormitory building in Spartanburg, 

South Carolina; 

553. $100,000 to the City of Columbia, South Carolina for 

capitalization of the Enterprise Revolving Loan Fund; 554. $100,000 to the City of Columbia, South Carolina for industrial park development; 555. $150,000 to the Five Rivers Community Development 

Corporation for the acquisition of land for a community training site in Georgetown County, South Carolina; 556. $150,000 to the South Sumter Resource Center for facilities construction and renovation in Sumter, South Carolina; 

557. $300,000 to Clinton Junior College in Rock Hill, South 

Carolina for construction of a new library/classroom facility; 558. $100,000 to the Lee County Public Library in Lee County, South Carolina for facilities expansion and relocation; 559. $125,000 to the Cheyenne River Youth Project for construction of a teen center in Eagle Butte, South Dakota; 560. $100,000 to the City of Williamson County, Tennessee 

for the planning and improvements for the Cool Springs Life 

Sciences Center; 

561. $250,000 to East Tennessee Historical Society for construction of the East Tennessee History Center in Knoxville, 

Tennessee;. 

562. $500,000 to the East Tennessee Veterans Memorial Association for construction of an East Tennessee Veterans Memorial in Knoxville, Tennessee; 

563. $100,000 to the Second Harvest Food Bank of Northeast 

Tennessee for facilities renovations; 

564. $100,000 to Oak Ridge/Knoxville, Tennessee for facilities construction of a Center for Entrepreneurial Growth Incubator; 

565. $250,000 to Hamilton County, Tennessee for facilities 

construction for a Center for Entrepreneurial Growth Incubator; 

566. $75,000 to Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee for 

development of a physical facilities master plan; 

567. $125,000 to the Arts Center of Cannon County in 

Woodbury, Tennessee for construction and renovation of the 

Cannon County Cultural Tourism Complex; 

568. $75,000 to the Southwest Tennessee Community College 

for expansion of a biotechnology building in Memphis, Tennessee; 

57 

569. $175,000 to the Arts Center of Cannon County for expansion and construction of the Cannon County Cultural Tourism Complex in Woodbury, Tennessee; 

570. $150,000 to the Lauderdale County Economic Development Board in Ripley, Tennessee for industrial park development at the North Industrial Park; 

571. $250,000 to the City of Arlington, Texas for facilities 

construction and land acquisition and including up to $100,000 

for an economic development planning study; 

572. $250,000 to the City of Arlington, Texas for facilities 

construction and renovation of the Central Arlington Housing 

Development Corporation; 

573. $1,000,000 for Texas A&M International University for 

facility improvements in the City of Laredo, Texas; 

574. $200,000 to the City of Houston, Texas for the Super 

Block renovations; 

575. $750,000 to the City of Forth Worth, Texas for construction of the Trinity River Vision project; 

576. $150,000 to the City of Leonard, Texas for streetscape 

infrastructure including sidewalks projects; 

577. $200,000 to the Audie Murphy/American Cotton Museum in Greenville, Texas for facilities construction and renovation; 

578. $100,000 to the City of Lubbock, Texas for the 

Breedlove Dehydrated Foods facility expansion; 

579. $200,000 to the South Plains Food Bank in Lubbock, 

Texas for facilities upgrades; 

580. $250,000 to the City of Dallas, Texas for renovation to 

the Texas Theatre; 

581. $100,000 for the World Congress on Information Technology in Austin, Texas for facilities construction and renovation of the International Center; 

582. $100,000 to the NABA International Park for the construction and renovations of its visitor center; 

583. $100,000 to Southwest Key in Austin, Texas for facilities construction; 

2584. $100,000 to Quinn Campus, Inc. for renovation and upgrades at Paul Quinn College in Waco, Texas; 

585. $100,000 to the City of Killeen, Texas for construction 

of a senior citizens center; 

586. $350,000 to the City of Waco, Texas for construction of 

a homeless shelter; 

587. $375,000 to the City of Dallas, Texas for renovation of 

the Dallas Texas Theater; 

588. $100,000 to the City of Fort Worth, Texas for the redevelopment of the Magnolia Oleander Walk; 

589. $150,000 to Harris County, Texas Precinct 2 for the 

Harris County Unincorporated Area Revitalization Program in 

Harris County, Texas to enhance economic development in the 

area; 

590. $150,000 to the City of Houston, Texas for construction 

and buildout of a park and family center; 

591. $75,000 to Texas A&M University in Kingsville, Texas 

for facility expansion of the Center for Young Children; 

58 

592. $125,000 to the City of Houston, Texas for capital improvements to the Guadalupe Plaza Park; 

593. $75,000 to the City of Houston, Texas for the renovation 

of a school building to house an African-American archive and 

cultural center; 

594. $125,000 to the City of Dallas, Texas for rehabilitation 

of the Black Dance Theater; 

595. $75,000 to the City of Dallas, Texas for facilities construction and buildout of the Joppa Rodeo; 

596. $225,000 to the City of Beaumont, Texas for the replacement of existing sidewalks; 

597. $75,000 to the Port Arthur International Seamen’s Center in Port Arthur, Texas for facilities construction; 

598. $175,000 to the Corpus Christi Regional Transportation 

Authority for the sidewalk improvements in Corpus Christi, 

Texas; 

599. $125,000 to the Canutillo, Texas Independent School 

District for construction of a Science and research center; 

600. $200,000 to the City of Gilmer, Texas for facilities construction and renovation to the Upshur County Library; 

601. $100,000 to the City of Marshall, Texas for facilities 

construction and renovation of a hotel; 

602. $280,000 to the Texas Frontier Trails in Mineral Wells, 

Texas for construction of an amphitheater; 

603. $75,000 to the Texas Cowboy Reunion Old-timers Association for renovation of the Bunkhouse and Round-up Hall in 

Stamford, Texas; 

604. $150,000 to Brigham City, Utah for facilities construction and renovation of the Box Elder Dance Academy; 

605. $125,000 to the Utah Shakespearean Festival for architectural and engineering design and construction of a performance facility; 

606. $100,000 to Salt Lake County, Utah for construction of 

the East Side Senior Center; 

607. $150,000 for the Virginia Holocaust Museum in Richmond, Virginia for facilities renovation; 

608. $500,000 to the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation 

for construction of the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation 

Education Center in Richmond, Virginia; 

609. $150,000 to the Mary Washington College Foundation 

for facilities construction and renovation of the Maury Center 

Project; 

610. $200,000 to the City of Fairfax, Virginia for the City of 

Fairfax Downtown Redevelopment Project; 

611. $250,000 to the Lutheran Housing Services, Inc. for in 

Burke, Virginia for facilities construction; 

612. $100,000 to the Town of Smithfield, Virginia for the 

Smithfield Downtown Revitalization Project; 

613. $100,000 for the Franklin County Library in Rocky 

Mount, Virginia for facilities renovation and equipment replacement; 

614. $100,000 for Piedmont Arts Association for technology 

improvements in Martinsville, Virginia; 

59 

615. $150,000 to the Town of Appomattox, Virginia for facilities construction of an African-American cultural and heritage 

museum at the Carver-Price building; 

616. $100,000 for the Town of South Boston, Virginia for renovations and creation of a community arts center at the 

Prizery; 

617. $125,000 for the City of Moneta, Virginia for facilities 

construction and renovation of an art, education and community outreach center; 

618. $150,000 to Kenbridge, Virginia for facilities and construction at the Kenbridge Town Center; 

619. $75,000 to the Town of Boydton, Virginia for revitalization efforts of the central business district; 

620. $150,000 for Henry County, Virginia Motorsports in 

conjunction with Patrick Henry Community College for facilities improvements; 

621. $75,000 to the City of Big Island, Virginia for the Sedalia Center restoration; 

622. $500,000 to the Total Action Against Poverty to restore 

and revitalize the Dumas Center for Artistic and Cultural Development in downtown Roanoke, Virginia; 

623. $75,000 to the United Way of Front Royal in the City 

of Front Royal, Virginia for construction for a transitional 

housing program; 

624. $100,000 to the City of Leesburg, Virginia for facilities 

construction of Loudoun Cares; 

625. $250,000 for the Good Shepard Alliance in Leesburg, 

Virginia to build a homeless and poverty center; 

626. $250,000 to the City of Leesburg, Virginia for construction/renovation of the Dodona Manor; 

627. $500,000 to the City of Winchester, Virginia for construction of the Museum of the Shenandoah Valley; 

628. $200,000 to the Dabney S. Lancaster Community College for construction of the Virginia Packaging Applications 

Center; 

629. $75,000 to the Chicago Board of Education for construction and renovations for a high school in Chicago, Illinois; 

630. $175,000 to the Northern Virginia Urban League for rehabilitation of the Freedom House in Alexandria, Virginia; 

631. $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Alexandria, Virginia for renovation and expansion of its facility; 

632. $100,000 to the Shirlington Incubation Center in Arlington, Virginia for construction of an incubator; 

633. $100,000 to the Arlington Housing Corporation in Arlington County, Virginia for property acquisition, building demolition, and facilities renovation; 

634. $150,000 to New Market Heights for site preparation 

and construction of a memorial and visitor’s center in Henrico 

County, Virginia; 

635. $300,000 to Edgehill Recovery Retreat Center in Winchester, Virginia for facilities construction; 

636. $200,000 to the City of Covington, Washington for facilities construction and renovation of the Community Recreation 

Center; 

60 

637. $300,000 to the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center 

in Prosser, Washington for facilities construction; 638. $100,000 for the Spokane Symphony for renovations to 

the Fox Theater in Spokane, Washington; 639. $75,000 to the Fire Mountain Arts Council for renovation of a theatre in Morton, Washington; 640. $200,000 to the Town of Port Townsend, Washington for 

construction on the Northwest Maritime Center; 

641. $75,000 to the City of Hoquiam, Washington for renovation of the Senior Nutrition Center; 

642. $200,000 to the Port of Bremerton, Washington for expansion of a marina; 643. $200,000 to the Boys and Girls Clubs of South Puget 

Sound, Washington for facilities construction in Lakewood, Gig 

Harbor, and Kitsap County, Washington; 644. $75,000 to the Edmonds Public Facilities District for 

renovations at the Edmonds Center for the Arts in Edmonds, 

Washington; 645. $125,000 to the City of Bellingham, Washington for renovations to the Mount Baker Theater; 

646. $75,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of King County, 

Washington for renovation of the Greenbridge Community 

Center in White Center; 

647. $75,000 to the Asian Counseling and Referral Service 

for construction of a new building in Seattle, Washington; 648. $75,000 to the City of Federal Way, Washington for the 

West Hylebos Wetlands Boardwalk Replacement; 649. $70,000 to the Paper Industry International Hall of 

Fame in Appleton, Wisconsin for facilities construction and 

renovation; 

650. $100,000 to the City of Green Bay, Wisconsin for the 

National Railway Museum for exhibits; 651. $250,000 to the City of Cedarburg, Wisconsin for the 

Cedarburg Site revitalization project; 

652. $175,000 to the City of Beloit, Wisconsin for sidewalks, 

street furniture, and fac ̧ade improvements; 

653. $100,000 to Dakota County Technical College and Chippewa Valley Technical College for construction of the Center of 

Technology Innovation and Learn Lab in Eau Claire, Wisconsin and Rosemount, Minnesota; 

654. $1,000,000 to the Ashwabay Outdoor Education Foundation in Washburn, Wisconsin for acquisition of land; 

655. $1,000,000 to the Marshfield Clinic for construction of 

the Laird Center for Applied Sciences; 

656. $250,000 to the Wisconsin Rapids Heart of Wisconsin 

Chamber of Commerce for a loan fund; 

657. $150,000 to the Business and Industrial Development 

Corporation for renovations at the Mid-Atlantic Technology, 

Research and Innovation Center in South Charleston, West 

Virginia; 

658. $775,000 to the Greenbrier Valley Economic Development Corporation in Lewisburg, West Virginia for facilities 

construction and buildout; 

659. $1,000,000 to the 4–County Economic Development Corporation in Oak Hill, West Virginia for facilities construction; 

61 

660. $2,000,000 to Glenville State College in Glenville, West 

Virginia for the construction of a new campus community education center; 

661. $500,000 to Wheeling Hospital in Wheeling, West Virginia for facilities upgrades and buildout; 

662. $1,000,000 to Vandalia Heritage Foundation, Inc. for 

land acquisition; 

663. $1,120,000 to the West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation, Inc. for facilities construction; 

664. $400,000 to the Monongalia County Schools Foundation, 

Inc. in West Virginia for construction of recreational facilities; 

665. $100,000 to Alderson-Broaddus College in Philippi, 

West Virginia for facilities construction, upgrades and buildout; 

666. $75,000 to the Mountaineer Area Council in Fairmont, 

West Virginia for facilities construction; 

667. $200,000 to the Ritchie County Commission in West 

Virginia for facilities upgrades; 

668. $130,000 to the Fremont County Association of Governments for improvements to the Fremont County War Memorial. 

—$21,735,000 for the Neighborhood Initiatives program. 

Targeted grants shall be provided as follows: 

1. $250,000 to Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois for facilities 

construction and renovation of Bradley Hall; - 

2. $250,000 to Pathway Services in Jacksonville, Illinois for facilities construction and renovation of a respite care facility; 

3. $100,000 to Teen Challenge in Decatur, Illinois for facilities 

construction and renovation; 

4. $100,000 to Quincy University in Quincy, Illinois for design 

and construction of a science building; 

5. $100,000 to Tri-State University in Angola, Indiana for facilities construction and renovation of the Center for Technology and 

Online Resources; 

6. $100,000 to Tazewell/Woodford Head Start in East Peoria, Illinois for facilities construction and renovation of a new facility; 

7. $100,000 to the City of Peoria, Illinois for Southern Gateway 

revitalization project; 

8. $275,000 to the First Gethsemane Center for Family Development in Louisville, Kentucky for the purchase of a multi-purpose 

facility; 

9. $600,000 to Maryhurst, Inc. in Louisville, Kentucky for facilities construction and renovation of a multi-purpose youth activities 

center; 

10. $675,000 to the YMCA of Greater Louisville, Kentucky for 

streetscape improvements; 

11. $200,000 to the Visually Impaired Preschool Services in Louisville, Kentucky for facilities construction and renovation; 

12. $735,000 to the Monroe County Heritage Christian Home for 

costs associated with construction of the Springdale Farm Demonstration Project located in Ogden, Monroe County, New York; 

13. $500,000 to NYSERNET for optical networking infrastructure; 

62 

14. $550,000 to the Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board for Finger Lakes Open Lands Conservation 

Project; 

15. $475,000 to the Genessee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning 

Council for the Finger Lakes Open Lands Conservation Project; 

16. $6,000,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for the Neighborhood Initiative Program; 

17. $1,000,000 for The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio 

for facilities construction and renovation in the Community Properties of Ohio Initiative; 

18. $5,000,000 to the Institute for Scientific Research for construction related to a high-technology diversification initiative; 

19. $2,225,000 to the West Virginia High Technology Consortium 

Foundation, Inc. for mission purposes and economic development 

initiatives; 

20. $1,000,000 to the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, Inc. for 

community and neighborhood revitalization and economic diversification initiatives; 

21. $500,000 to Wheeling Jesuit University for education and research initiatives at the university; 

22. $1,000,000 to the City and County of San Francisco for capital improvements, upgrades and buildout for a senior homeless facility. 

Additionally, not less than $3,465,000 is provided for transfer to 

the Working Capital Fund to support the development of and modifications to information technology systems that serve programs or 

activities under Community Planning and Development. 

The Committee has not provided funds for the Development 

Challenge Pilot or the Faith Based Pilot, which were included as 

new items in the budget request. The Committee takes this action 

due to larger funding pressures in this bill and without prejudice. 

Language is included in the bill, similar to language carried in 

prior Acts, which: (1) designates amounts available for the various 

programs and activities funded under this account; (2) limits administrative expenses to no more than 20 percent of any grant with 

certain exceptions; and (3) provides three-year availability for obligation of funds provided under this heading. 

Language is also included which makes technical changes to 

grants provided in prior years. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program costs Limitation on guaranteed loans 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation .................................................................................. $7,000,000 $275,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ....................................................................................... 7,282,000 275,000,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request .................................................................................... 0 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ........................................................... ¥282,000 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................................................ +7,000,000 +275,000,000 

The Section 108 Loan Guarantees program underwrites private 

market loans to assist local communities in the financing of the acquisition and rehabilitation of publicly-owned real property, rehabilitation of housing, and certain economic development projects. 

63 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 for 

program costs associated with the section 108 loan guarantee program. This amount is $282,000 below the enacted level and 

$7,000,000 above the budget request. Of the funds provided, 

$6,000,000 is for credit subsidy costs to guarantee $275,000,000 in 

section 108 loan commitments in fiscal year 2005, and $1,000,000 

is for administrative expenses to be transferred to the salaries and 

expenses account. 

BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $24,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 24,853,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥853,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +24,000,000 

The Brownfields Redevelopment program provides competitive 

economic development grants in conjunction with section 108 loan 

guarantees for qualified brownfield projects. Grants are made in 

accordance with section 108(q) selection criteria. 

The goal of the program is to return contaminated sites to productive uses with an emphasis on creating substantial numbers of 

jobs for lower-income people in physically and economically distressed neighborhoods. 

The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for this program, a decrease of $853,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The 

budget request proposed to eliminate this program. The Committee 

expects HUD to closely coordinate its brownfields efforts with the 

Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for cleanup 

and assessment components of the program, and whose Administrator has lead responsibility for the federal brownfields effort. 

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $1,920,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 2,005,597,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 2,084,200,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥85,597,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥164,200,000 

The HOME investment partnerships program provides grants to 

States, units of local government, Indian tribes and insular areas, 

through formula allocation, for the purpose of expanding the supply 

of affordable housing in the jurisdiction. Upon receipt, State and 

local governments develop a comprehensive housing affordability 

strategy that enables them to acquire, rehabilitate, or construct 

new affordable housing, or to provide rental assistance to eligible 

families. 

The Committee recommends $1,920,000,000 for activities funded 

under this account, a decrease of $85,597,000 below the fiscal year 

2004 level and $164,200,000 below the request. Funds are provided 

as follows: 

—Formula Grants: $1,776,000,000 for formula grants for 

participating jurisdictions (States, units of local government 

and consortia of units local government) and insular areas, a 

decrease of $79,850,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level. Of the 

amount provided, pursuant to the statute, at least 15 percent 

64 

of each participating jurisdiction’s allocation is reserved for 

housing that is developed, sponsored, or owned by Community 

Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs); —Down-payment Assistance Initiative: $85,000,000 for the 

Down-payment Assistance Initiative to be allocated by the Secretary to participating jurisdictions to provide down-payment 

assistance to low-income families to help them achieve homeownership. The 2005 budget request had included 

$200,000,000 for down-payment assistance. The reduction to 

the request for the down-payment assistance program is taken 

without prejudice, and is due to other significant funding pressures in this bill; —Housing Counseling: $38,000,000 for housing counseling 

programs. The Committee has continued funding for this activity within this account rather than creating a separate account 

as proposed in the budget request; —HOME/CHDO Technical Assistance: $17,400,000 for technical assistance activities for State and local participating jurisdictions and non-profit CHDOs. The Committee notes that 

the HOME statute authorizes technical assistance to be provided through contracts with eligible non-profit intermediaries 

as well as with other organizations recommended by participating jurisdictions and therefore expects HUD to use 

$8,000,000 to contract with qualified non-profit intermediaries 

to provide CHDO technical assistance in fiscal year 2005; —Working Capital Fund: no less than $2,000,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund to support the development 

and modification of information technology systems which 

serve programs and activities under Community Planning and 

Development. 

The budget request had proposed to transfer the Partnership for 

Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) program from the Policy 

Development and Research (PD&R) account to the HOME account, 

with a funding level of $2,000,000. Instead, the Committee has continued to fund PATH in the PD&R account at a level of $7,000,000 

in fiscal year 2005. 

The Committee is concerned that recent changes to metropolitan 

statistical area (MSA) boundaries may significantly lower area median incomes (AMI) in some communities with high housing costs, 

making ineligible many families and individuals who are currently 

eligible for housing subsidized through the Community Development Block Grant program and the HOME program, which have 

AMI eligibility requirements. The Committee encourages HUD to 

explore ways to help such MSAs transition to the new AMIs, other 

than through any adjustment of funding formulas, to reduce the 

impact of MSA boundary changes on affordable housing and homeownership opportunities. 

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $1,206,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 1,259,525,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 1,282,400,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥53,525,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥76,400,000 

65 

The homeless assistance grants account provides funding for the 

following homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney Act: 

(1) the emergency shelter grants program; (2) the supportive housing program; (3) the section 8 moderate rehabilitation (single room 

occupancy) program; and (4) the shelter plus care program. This account also supports activities eligible under the innovative homeless initiatives demonstration program. 

The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at 

$1,206,000,000, a decrease of $53,525,000 below the level provided 

in fiscal year 2004 and $76,400,000 below the budget request. The 

recommendation includes no less than $186,000,000 to provide full 

funding for the costs associated with the renewal of all expiring 

Shelter Plus Care contracts. Language is included in the bill requiring funds to be made available for this purpose. 

The recommendation includes $11,500,000 for the national homeless data analysis project and for technical assistance, and no less 

than $2,500,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund for development and modifications of information technology systems that 

serve activities under Community Planning and Development. 

Language is included in the bill which: (1) requires not less than 

30 percent of the funds appropriated, excluding amounts made 

available for renewals under the shelter plus care program, be used 

for permanent housing; (2) requires the renewal of all expiring 

shelter plus care contracts; (3) requires funding recipients to provide a 25 percent match for social services activities; (4) requires 

all homeless programs to coordinate their programs with mainstream health, social services and employment programs; and (5) 

provides two-year availability for obligation of funds provided 

under this account, except that no year availability is provided for 

the portion of funding necessary to meet initial contract requirements for the Single Room Occupancy program. 

Within this account, funding is not provided for a new Prisoner 

Reentry initiative, which was proposed at $25 million in the budget 

request. 

SAMARITAN HOUSING INITIATIVE

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... 0 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 0 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... $50,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥50,000,000 

The Committee has not included $50,000,000 requested in the 

budget for the Samaritan Housing Initiative because the necessary 

authorization legislation has not yet been passed by Congress. 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $741,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 773,728,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 773,300,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥32,718,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥32,300,000 

66 

The housing for the elderly (Section 202) program provides eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants to finance 

the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of housing intended 

for low-income elderly people. In addition, the program provides 

project-based rental assistance (PRAC) to support operational costs 

for units constructed under the program. The Committee recommends a $741,000,000 for the Section 202 

program for fiscal year 2005, a decrease of $32,728,000 from the 

fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $32,300,000 below the request. 

The recommendation allocates funding as follows: —$654,550,000 for new capital and project rental assistance contracts (PRAC); —$3,000,000 for one-year renewals of expiring PRAC payments; 

—$48,000,000 for service coordinators and the continuation of 

congregate services grants; —$20,000,000 for grants to convert section 202 projects to assisted living facilities; —$15,000,000 for grants for planning, preliminary design and 

site control activities; and —no less than $450,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund 

to support the development of and modifications to information 

technology systems which support programs and activities for elderly programs. 

Language is included, carried in prior years, relating to the initial contract and renewal terms for assistance provided under this 

heading. 

HOUSING FOR THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $238,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 249,092,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 248,700,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥11,092,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥10,700,000 

The housing for the persons with disabilities (Section 811) program provides eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital 

grants to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of 

supportive housing for disabled persons and provides project-based 

rental assistance (PRAC) to support operational costs for such 

units. The Committee recommends a $238,000,000 for Section 811 

activities, a decrease of $11,092,000 from the fiscal year 2004 enacted level, and $10,700,000 below the request. The recommendation allocates funding as follows: —$146,311,000 for capital grants and PRAC; 

—$50,000,000 for renewals of expiring tenant-based rental assistance; 

—$2,349,000 PRAC renewals; 

—$10,000,000 for incremental tenant-based assistance; and 

—$28,890,000 is provided for amendments required for tenantbased contracts (vouchers) entered into prior to fiscal year 2004. 

The Committee has also provided the authority to amend 

$14,610,000 in tenant-based contracts with fiscal year 2004 appropriated funds. 

—$450,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of information technology systems for 

67 

programs and activities for housing for persons with disabilities 

programs. 

The Committee had provided funding and authority to provide a total of $43,500,000 needed to amend tenant-based contracts entered into prior to fiscal year 2004. The Committee is frustrated 

that HUD had entered into contracts without a reasonable anticipation of the full cost of the contracts, leading to a substantial liability for the housing for persons with disabilities program in a 

time when additional funds to correct this problem are simply not 

available in this overall bill. The Committee is also dismayed that 

this amendment need came to its attention several months following the submission of both the fiscal year 2005 budget justification and the fiscal year 2004 operating plan. The Committee has 

made every effort to minimize the impact of this amendment need 

on the housing for persons with disabilities program, and provides 

adequate funds to maintain construction contracts at the full level 

in the budget request, while limiting new incremental vouchers to 

$10,000,000. The Committee expects that HUD will currently and 

in the future properly manage its housing for persons with disabilities contracts so that the Department will never again create a 

substantial funding liability that shifts funds away from current 

needs to address mistakes of the past. 

The Committee directs HUD to issue program guidance for the 

Section 811 ‘‘mainstream’’ tenant-based program by March 15, 

2005. HUD shall include guidance on: (1) targeting of rental assistance consistent with 811 eligibility criteria; (2) maintenance of 

these vouchers exclusively for persons eligible under Section 811 

upon turnover; (3) retention of a meaningful role for non-profit disability organizations. The Committee is aware of concerns that 

funding for Section 811 tenant-based rental assistance may be diverted to the Section 8 voucher program. Such diversion would be 

a violation of Section 811 statute. 

HOUSING COUNSELING

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... 1 0 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 1 0 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... $45,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. 1 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 1¥45,000,000 

1 In fiscal year 2004, $39,764,000 was appropriated for housing counseling as a set-aside under the HOME 

Investments Partnership Program account. 

Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 

authorized HUD to provide housing counseling services to homebuyers, homeowners, low and moderate income renters, and the 

homeless. The Committee does not recommend the creation of a 

separate account for housing counseling activities, but instead has 

provided $38,000,000 for this activity as a set-aside within the 

HOME Investments Partnership Program account. 

FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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 

68 

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. 

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 to support affordable housing projects. 

The recommendation includes language identical to language carried in prior years, to allow surplus funds derived from rental collections which were in excess of allowable rents levels to be returned to project owners only for the purposes of rehabilitating and 

renovating those properties. 

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $13,000,000 

Offsetting collections .......................................................................... ¥13,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 12,923,000 

Offsetting collections .......................................................................... ¥12,923,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 13,000,000 

Offsetting collections .......................................................................... ¥13,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +77,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000, authorized 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. 

The Committee recommends up to $13,000,000 for the manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees collected 

and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund established pursuant to the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act 

of 2000. The amount recommended is an increase of $77,000 above 

the fiscal year 2004 level and equal to the fiscal year 2005 request. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation of direct 

loans 

Limitation of guaranteed loans Administrative expenses 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ........................................... $50,000,000 $185,000,000,000 $356,882,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ................................................ 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 356,882,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ............................................. 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 366,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation .................... 0 0 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ................. 0 0 ¥9,118,000 

The FHA mutual mortgage insurance program account includes 

the mutual mortgage insurance (MMI) and cooperative management housing insurance (CMHI) funds. This program account covers unsubsidized programs, primarily the single-family home mortVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
69 

gage program, which is the largest of all the FHA programs. The 

cooperative housing insurance program provides mortgages for cooperative housing projects of more than five units that are occupied 

by members of a cooperative housing corporation. 

The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 

commitments in the MMI program account as follows: 

$185,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and $50,000,000 for direct 

loans. The recommendation also includes $356,882,000 for administrative expenses, of which $352,906,000 is transferred to the Salaries and expenses account, and $3,976,000 is transferred to the Office of Inspector General. In addition, $78,000,000 is provided for 

non-overhead administrative contract expenses, of which no less 

than $15,000,000 is transferred to the Working Capital Fund for 

development and modifications to information technology systems 

that serve programs or activities under Housing Programs or the 

Federal Housing Administration. Language is continued as requested and carried in previous years appropriating additional administrative expenses in certain circumstances. 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation of direct loans Limitation of guar- anteed loans Administrative ex- penses Program costs 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ................ $50,000,000 $35,000,000,000 $227,649,000 $10,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ...................... 50,000,000 25,000,000,000 227,649,000 14,912,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ................... 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 234,000,000 10,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................................................. 0 +10,000,000,000 0 ¥4,912,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget 

request ....................................................... 0 0 ¥6,351,000 0 

The FHA general and special risk insurance (GI and SRI) program account includes 17 different programs administered by the 

FHA. The GI fund includes a wide variety of insurance programs 

for special purpose single and multi-family loans, including loans 

for property improvements, manufactured housing, multi-family 

rental housing, condominiums, housing for the elderly, hospitals, 

group practice facilities and nursing homes. The SRI fund includes 

insurance programs for mortgages in older, declining urban areas 

which would not be otherwise eligible for insurance, mortgages 

with interest reduction payments, mortgages for experimental 

housing and for high-risk mortgagors who would not normally be 

eligible for mortgage insurance without housing counseling. 

The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 

commitments for the general and special risk insurance program 

account as requested: $35,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and 

$50,000,000 for direct loans. 

As requested, the recommendation includes a $10,000,000 direct 

appropriation for credit subsidy which is equal to the budget request, and $4,912,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level. The recommendation also includes $227,649,000 for administrative expenses, of which $207,767,000 is transferred to the Salaries and 

Expenses account and $19,882,000 is transferred to the Office of 

Inspector General. An additional $86,000,000 is provided for nonoverhead administrative expenses, of which no less than $9,600,000 

is transferred to the Working Capital Fund for development and 

70 

modifications to information technology systems that serve activities under Housing Programs or Federal Housing Administration. 

Language is continued, carried in previous years, appropriating 

additional administrative expenses in certain circumstances. 

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation of guaranteed loans Administrative expenses 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation .......................................................................... $200,000,000,000 $10,695,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................................................................... 200,000,000,000 10,695,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ............................................................................ 200,000,000,000 10,986,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ................................................... 0 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ................................................ 0 ¥291,000 

The guarantee of mortgage-backed securities program facilitates 

the financing of residential mortgage loans insured or guaranteed 

by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Rural Housing Services program. 

The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest on securities 

issued by private service institutions such as mortgage companies, 

commercial banks, savings banks, and savings and loan associations which assemble pools of mortgages, and issues securities 

backed by the pools. In turn, investment proceeds are used to finance additional mortgage loans. Investors include non-traditional 

sources of credit in the housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life insurance companies and individuals. 

The recommendation includes a $200,000,000,000 limitation on 

loan commitments for mortgage-backed securities as requested, the 

same level provided in fiscal year 2003. The Committee also recommends $10,695,000 for administrative expenses to be transferred 

to the Salaries and Expenses account, the same amount provided 

in fiscal year 2004 and a reduction of $291,000 below the request. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $45,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 46,723,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 46,700,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥1,723,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥1,700,000 

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the 

Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing, and 

demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions are 

carried out internally through contracts with industry, non-profit 

research organizations, and educational institutions and through 

agreements with state and local governments and other federal 

agencies. 

The bill includes $45,000,000 for research and technology, a decrease of $1,717,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and 

$1,700,000 below the budget request. Within this account, 

71 

$7,000,000 is provided for the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) Initiative. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $46,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 47,717,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 47,700,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥1,717,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥1,700,000 

The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 

as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing 

and authorizes assistance to State and local agencies in administering the provision of fair housing statutes. The Fair Housing 

Assistance Program (FHAP) assists State and local fair housing enforcement agencies that are certified by HUD as ‘‘substantially 

equivalent’’ to HUD with respect to enforcement policies and procedures. The FHAP assures prompt and effective processing of complaints filed under title VIII that are within the jurisdiction of 

State and local fair housing agencies. The Fair Housing Initiatives 

Program (FHIP) alleviates housing discrimination by providing 

support to private nonprofit organizations, State and local government agencies and other nonfederal entities for the purpose of 

eliminating or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair housing opportunities. The Committee recommends a total of $46,000,000 for this account, a decrease of $1,717,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted 

level and $1,700,000 below the budget request. Of this amount, $26,500,000 is for FHAP and $19,500,000 is for 

FHIP. 

The Committee expects HUD to continue to provide quarterly reports on obligation and expenditure of these funds, delineated by 

each program and activity. 

Language is included, carried in previous years, designating the 

amount available for FHIP. 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $167,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 173,968,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 139,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥6,968,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +28,000,000 

The Lead Hazard Reduction Program, authorized under the 

Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, provides grants 

to State and local governments to perform lead hazard reduction 

activities in housing occupied by low-income families. The program 

also provides technical assistance, undertakes research and evaluations of testing and cleanup methodologies, and develops technical 

guidance and regulations in cooperation with EPA. 

The Committee recommends $167,000,000 for this account, an increase of $28,000,000 above the budget request. Amounts provided 

are to be allocated as follows: 

72 

—$138,300,000 for the lead-based paint hazard control grant program to provide assistance to State and local governments and Native American tribes for lead-based paint abatement in private lowincome housing; —$8,900,000 for Operation LEAP (Lead Elimination Action Program), which provides competitive grants to non-profit organizations and the private sector for activities which leverage funds for 

local lead hazard control programs; —$9,900,000 for technical assistance and support to State and 

local agencies and private property owners. This is an increase of 

$100,000 over the budget request; —$9,900,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative for competitive 

grants for research, standards development, and education and outreach activities to address lead-based paint poisoning and other 

housing-related diseases and hazards; 

Language is included, as requested in the budget, delegating the 

authority and responsibility for performing environmental review 

for the Healthy Homes Initiative, LEAP, and Lead Technical Studies projects and programs to governmental entities that are familiar with local environmental conditions, trends and priorities. This 

delegated environmental review authority is currently available in 

the CDBG, HOPWA, SHOP, SHP, and special projects programs. 

The Committee reminds the Department that all funding provided under this heading is to be competitively awarded as required under the HUD Reform Act of 1989 and section 205 under 

Administrative Provisions under this title. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

73 

By transfer 

Appropriation FHA funds GNMA funds CPD Title VI Indian hous- ing Hawaiian housing Total 

FY 2005 recommendation .................................................................. $543,773,000 $560,672,000 $10,695,000 $1,000,000 $150,000 $250,000 $35,000 $1,116,575,000 FY 2004 appropriation ....................................................................... 543,773,000 560,672,000 10,695,000 1,000,000 150,000 250,000 35,000 1,116,575,000 FY 2005 budget request .................................................................... 591,579,000 576,000,000 10,986,000 0 150,000 250,000 35,000 1,179,000,000 Comparison with Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comparison with Fiscal year 2005 budget request .......................... ¥47,806,000 ¥15,328,000 ¥291,000 +1,000,000 0 0 0 ¥62,425,000 

74 

A single appropriation has been provided to finance all salaries 

and related costs associated with administering the programs of 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development, except the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. These activities include housing, mortgage credit 

and secondary market programs community planning and development programs, departmental management, legal services, and 

field direction and administration. 

The Committee recommends total funding of $1,116,575,000 for 

the salaries and expenses of the Department, a decrease of 

$62,425,000 below the request and the same level provided in fiscal 

year 2004. 

Language is included in the bill setting forth the amounts and 

staffing levels provided for the various offices funded under this 

heading as follows: 

Office FTE Amount 

Office of Housing ......................................................................................................... 3,301 $310,663,000 

Office of Public and Indian Housing .......................................................................... 1,643 174,910,000 

Office of Community Planning and Development ....................................................... 856 88,653,000 

Office of Policy Development and Research ............................................................... 180 23,405,000 

Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ........................................................... 640 61,234,000 

Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control .................................................... 49 5,171,000 

Government National Mortgage Association ............................................................... 73 8,599,000 

Departmental Management ......................................................................................... 207 23,844,000 

Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives .................................................... 8 2,142,000 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ........................................................................... 227 37,832,000 

Office of the General Counsel ..................................................................................... 710 78,779,000 

Office of Field Policy and Management ...................................................................... 500 52,426,000 

Office of Administration .............................................................................................. 792 245,646,000 

Total, Management and Administration ............................................................. 9,214 $1,116,575,000 

Amounts provided are consistent with a pro-rata distribution of 

staffing among offices based on revised Department’s Resource Allocation and Estimation Process (REAP) studies completed to date. 

However, the Committee understands REAP refresh studies are ongoing for the Offices of Housing, Public and Indian Housing, and 

the Chief Financial Officer and therefore the Committee considers 

these distributions to be preliminary and expects the Department 

to provide revised distributions upon completion of all REAP refresh studies. Further, the Department is reminded that it may reallocate funds and FTE between the amounts specified above for 

these offices only in accordance with operating plan and/or reprogramming procedures. 

The recommendation reflects the Committee’s believe that necessary staffing must be maintained to ensure continued improvements in the Department’s oversight and administration of its programs, particularly in the areas of financial management. Within 

the total amount made available, the Department is directed to 

provide no less than 75 FTE for the Section 8 Quality Assurance 

Division created in fiscal year 2004. Therefore, the object classification distribution, which shall also serve as the basis for operating 

plan and reprogramming changes is as follows: Personal Services—$908,984,000 

Travel and Transportation of Persons—$17,031,000 

Transportation of Things—$548,000 

Rent, Communications and Utilities—$131,791,000 

75 

Printing and Reproduction—$2,740,000 

Other Services—$48,058,000 

Supplies and Materials—$4,687,000 

Furniture and Equipment—$2,511,000 

Indemnities—$255,000 

Operating Plans/Reprogramming Requirements.—The Committee appreciates the need for management flexibility to allocate 

management and administrative resources or reorganize offices and 

programs to address changing requirements at the departments 

and agencies funded in the bill, including HUD. To provide such 

flexibility, while ensuring appropriate consultation and oversight, 

all Departments within the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction are required to submit operating plans and reprogramming letters and 

reorganization proposals for Committee approval. On a number of 

occasions, the Committee has expressed its concerns that HUD has 

not adhered to these requirements and instead has reallocated resources among programs, projects and activities, reorganized offices 

and created new offices without prior notification and approval by 

the Committee. The Committee directs HUD to follow the Committee’s requirements regarding operating plans, reprogrammings and 

reorganizations so that the Committee is kept informed of, and 

therefore is better able to respond to, changing requirements at the 

Department. HUD is reminded that operating plans or reprogramming requirements apply to any reallocation of resources totaling 

more than $500,000 among any program, project or activity as well 

as to any significant reorganization within offices or the proposed 

creation or elimination of any program or office, regardless of the 

dollar amount involved; and any reorganization, regardless of the 

dollar amount involved. Object classification changes above 

$500,000 also are subject to operating plan or reprogramming requirements. Unless otherwise specified in this Act or the accompanying report, the approved level for any program, project, or activity is that amount detailed for that program, project, or activity 

in the Department’s annual detailed budget justification document. 

These requirements apply to all funds provided to the Department. 

The Department is expected to make any necessary changes during 

fiscal year 2004 to its current procedures and systems to ensure 

that it is able to meet the necessary operating plan and reprogramming requirements applied to other agencies funded in the bill. 

Budget Submission.—The Committee commends the Department 

for working with the Committee over the last two years to improve 

the quality of the annual Budget Justification submission. The fiscal year 2005 submission was significantly improved from previous 

years submissions. The submission was formatted in the traditional 

appropriations account structure and included the necessary detail 

for most programs required by the Committee to assess funding requests and program requirements. The Committee appreciates the 

Department’s cooperation and efforts to ensure that the submission 

is a useful document. The Committee requests that the Department continue to work to make refinements in certain areas as 

part of the fiscal year 2006 budget submission. The Committee expects the Department’s fiscal year 2006 submission to be submitted 

in the identical format and continues its direction that strategic 

planning document, formats or materials are not to be incorporated 

into the submission. Language has been continued under AdminisVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
76 

trative Provisions, carried in fiscal year 2004, setting forth such requirements. 

Language is included in the bill, similar to language carried in 

prior Acts, which designates amounts provided from various accounts for salaries and expenses and which requires the Department to implement appropriate funds control and financial management procedures. Language carried in previous years regarding 

limitations on certain positions at the Department is deleted as 

proposed in the budget. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $100,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 233,614,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 234,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥133,614,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥134,000,000 

The Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 3535 to provide necessary capital for the development of, 

modifications to, and infrastructure for Department-wide information technology systems, and for the continuing operation of both 

Department-wide and program-specific information technology systems. 

The Committee recommends $100,000,000 direction appropriation for the Working Capital Fund to support Department-wide information technology system activities, a reduction of $133,614,000 

below the fiscal year 2004 level and $134,000,000 below the request. The recommendation does not include language proposed in 

the budget to give the Department the authority to divert funding 

provided to address information technology needs in various HUD 

programs to instead augment funding for Department-wide infrastructure. 

The Committee is frustrated that the Department has, to date, 

been unable to successfully award a new contract to provide for its 

Department-wide information technology infrastructure and maintenance support. As a result, during fiscal year 2004, the Department has significantly overspent for outdated technology to the detriment of critical financial and management systems. The Committee can no longer accept the extraordinary costs associated with 

continued delays which have prohibited the Department from modernizing its information technology infrastructure. The Committee 

does not intend to provide continued funding to support the status 

quo. The Committee expects the Department to develop and be prepared to implement alternative approaches to meeting its information technology needs should the Department be unable to successfully and expeditiously put in place a modernized information technology infrastructure. Therefore, the Committee has reduced funding for this account, and will re-evaluate the Department’s funding 

needs based upon the Department’s success in completing its efforts to implement a modernized information technology infrastructure. 

In addition to the direct appropriation for Department-wide systems, funds are transferred from various accounts to be used exclusively for program-specific information technology requirements. 

The Committee recommends transfers totaling $52,654,000 as follows: 

77 

FHA, Mutual mortgage insurance fund—$15,000,000 

FHA, General and special risk insurance fund—$9,600,000 

Community development fund—$4,700,000 

HOME investment partnerships program—$2,000,000 

Homeless assistance—$2,500,000 

Public housing capital fund—$10,150,000 

Native American Indian block grants—$2,600,000 

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance—$2,940,000 

Project-Based Rental Assistance—$1,960,000 

Housing for the elderly—$450,000 

Housing for the disabled—$450,000 

Office of Inspector General—$300,000 

The Committee remains committed to improving HUD’s information technology capacity. To a large extent, both HUD’s and Congress’ ability to oversee the effectiveness of HUD’s programs is undermined due to the failure of HUD’s information systems to provide the information necessary to assess program performance and 

ensure effective resource management. The Committee continues to 

have concerns regarding the Department’s progress in implementing several of its major information technology projects. The 

Department is directed to continue to work with the Committee to 

further develop and define and update its five-year IT requirements based upon the format previously requested by the Committee. The Department is directed to provide an updated five-year 

IT plan consistent with such format no later than November 15, 

2004. In addition, the Department is directed to submit to the 

Committee no later than September 15, 2004 a report on updating 

the status of, funds spent to date, and estimated fiscal year 2005 

funding requirements for the following major projects: PIH Information Center (PIC), FHA Subsidiary Ledger, HUD Integrated Financial Management Improvement Project (HIFMIP), HUD Integrated HR and Training System (HIHRTS), and the Single Family 

Integration System. Such report shall include a comparison to the 

information submitted to the Committee on November 15, 2003. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation FHA funds Total 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ................................................. $77,000,000 $23,858,000 $100,858,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ...................................................... 76,546,000 23,858,000 100,404,000 

Fiscal year 2005 request ................................................................ 77,000,000 24,000,000 101,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................... +454,000 0 +454,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................... 0 ¥142,000 ¥142,000 

The Office of Inspector General provides agency-wide audit and 

investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement. The audit 

function provides internal audit, contract audit, and inspection 

services. Contract audits provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, award, administration, re-pricing and settlement of contracts. Internal audits evaluate all facets of agency operations. Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of agency 

operations. The investigative function provides for the detection 

78 

and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel and operations. 

The Committee recommends $100,858,000 for the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $454,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2004 and $142,000 below the budget request. 

Of this amount, $23,858,000 is derived from transfers from FHA 

funds. 

Language is included in the bill, similar to language carried in 

prior Acts, which: (1) designates amounts available to the Inspector 

General from other accounts; and (2) clarifies the authority of the 

Inspector General with respect to certain personnel issues. 

The Committee directs the IG to increase its audits and investigative efforts related to Public Housing Agencies’ administration 

of the Section 8 voucher program. The Committee requests that the 

IG provide a workplan for these activities no later than January 

1, 2005. 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT SALARIES

AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $59,209,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 39,680,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 59,209,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +19,529,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) 

was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing government-sponsored enterprises 

(GSEs)—the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) 

and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). 

The office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also provided the 

regulator enhanced authority to enforce these standards. In addition to financial regulation, the OFHEO monitors the GSEs compliance with affordable housing goals that were contained in the Act. 

The Committee recommends a total of $59,209,000 for OFHEO, 

an increase of $19,529,000 over the enacted level and equal to the 

budget request, to be derived from fees assessed to the GSEs and 

deposited into the Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight Fund. 

The funding increase supports an additional 59 FTE for OFHEO, 

for a total of 237 FTE. In addition, the funding increase will provide $3,300,000 for contract services for special examinations, 

$2,500,000 to complete the automated examination workstation, 

and $1,400,000 for analytical software to improve oversight of interest rate risk. These enhancements will strengthen annual examinations, accounting treatment examinations, and capital management analyses, adding the necessary supervision to ensure that 

OFHEO performs as an early warning system for control and management problems and providing the necessary capabilities to address emerging financial issues. 

79 

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(RESCISSION)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ................................................. ¥$1,557,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ...................................................... ¥2,844,000,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ................................................... ¥1,557,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ......................... +1,287,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................... 0 

The Committee recommends a rescission of $1,557,000,000 from 

unobligated balances and carryover remaining in the Housing Certificate Fund from the Section 8 tenant-based and project-based 

rental assistance programs as proposed in the budget. The Committee directs that a portion of this rescission be met by reducing 

public housing authorities tenant-based Section 8 program reserves 

to one-week as assumed in the budget. 

Language is included under this account clarifying that excess 

balances in the Housing Certificate Fund shall not be used to augment fiscal year 2005 funding for the tenant-based rental assistance. The Committee believes such practice is inappropriate since 

it results in total program spending in excess of the levels appropriated in the bill leading to future funding problems that create 

instability and uncertainty for the individuals who rely on the program and jeopardize funding for other important housing programs. 

DRUG ELIMINATION GRANTS FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING

(RESCISSION)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... ¥$5,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 0 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... ¥5,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥5,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The recommendation rescinds $5,000,000 from excess balances 

remaining from funds appropriated in fiscal year 2001 and prior 

years for the Public Housing Drug Elimination program as proposed in the budget. The program was terminated in fiscal year 

2002. 

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

(RESCISSION)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... ¥$21,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 0 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... ¥21,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥21,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Committee recommends a rescission of $21,000,000 from unused credit subsidy appropriated in prior years for the title VI Indian Housing Federal Loan Guarantee program as proposed in the 

budget. 

80 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(RESCISSION)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... ¥$33,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 0 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... ¥33,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥33,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Committee recommends a rescission of $33,000,000 from unused credit subsidy appropriated in prior years for the Section 184 

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee fund as proposed in the budget. 

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

(RESCISSION)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... ¥$675,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... ¥303,000,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... ¥675,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥372,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Committee recommends a rescission of $675,000,000 from 

amounts appropriated in the fiscal year 1983 Supplemental Appropriations Act for amendment funding for both State-aided, non-insured Rental Supplement and Rental Housing Assistance Payment 

contracts as proposed in the budget. 

The Committee recommends this rescission with reservation because these funds will need to be restored in future years to fund 

these contracts. While the Committee has adopted this rescission 

proposed in the budget in order to avoid significant cuts in departmental programs, the Committee believes it imprudent for the Department to propose additional rescissions from funding known to 

be required to fulfill existing long-term contracts in the future. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(RESCISSION)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... ¥$30,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 0 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... ¥30,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥30,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Committee recommends a rescission of $30,000,000 from unused credit subsidy appropriated in prior years for the general and 

special risk insurance funds as proposed in the budget. 

The bill contains a number of administrative provisions. 

Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment factors, as requested. 

Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair Housing Act, 

which was proposed for deletion. 

Section 203 continues language to correct an anomaly in the 

HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain States. 

81 

Section 204 authorizes the Secretary to waive certain requirements related to an assisted living pilot project, as requested. 

Section 205 continues language requiring funds appropriated to 

be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989. 

Section 206 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding the availability of funds subject to the Government Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950. 

Section 207 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding allocation of funds in excess of the budget estimates. 

Section 208 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding the expenditure of funds for corporations and agencies subject to the Government Corporation Control Act. 

Section 209 continues language, carried in previous years, requiring submission of a spending plan for technical assistance, training 

and management improvement activities prior to the expenditure 

of funds. 

Section 210 continues language requiring the Secretary to provide quarterly reports on uncommitted, unobligated and excess 

funds in each departmental program and activity. 

Section 211 continues language requiring the Secretary to maintain section 8 assistance on certain properties occupied by elderly 

or disabled families. 

Section 212 extends a technical amendment included in the fiscal 

year 2000 Appropriations Act relating to the allocation of HOPWA 

funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary metropolitan areas. A 

proviso is added to allow a state to administer the HOPWA program in the event that a local government is unable to undertake 

the HOPWA grants management functions. 

Section 213 continues language allowing the Secretary to maintain and dispose of certain elderly and disabled projects upon foreclosure. 

Section 214 continues language setting certain requirements for 

the Department’s annual congressional justification of appropriations. 

Section 215 continues language carried in previous years elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to continue 

to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous years for persons with disabilities upon turnover. 

Section 216 clarifies an equitable title issue for the section 202 

program. 

Section 217 relates to state authority regarding participation on 

housing boards. 

The Committee does not recommend ten new administrative provisions requested in the budget to amend various housing authorization statutes. The Committee strongly recommends that the relevant authorization Committees address these authorization proposals, particularly in light of the reforms needed to address cost 

and management concerns associated with programs funded by the 

Department. 

82 

TITLE III—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $41,100,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 41,056,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 41,100,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +44,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Commission is responsible for the administration, operation 

and maintenance of cemetery and war memorials to commemorate 

the achievements and sacrifices of the American Armed Forces 

where they have served since April 6, 1917. In performing these 

functions, the American Battle Monuments Commission maintains 

twenty-four permanent American military cemetery memorials and 

thirty-one monuments, memorials, markers and offices in fifteen 

foreign countries, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the British dependency of Gibraltar. In addition, six memorials are located in the United States: the East Coast Memorial 

in New York; the West Coast Memorial, The Presidio, in San Francisco; the Honolulu Memorial in the National Memorial Cemetery 

of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii; and the American Expeditionary 

Forces Memorial and the World War II and Korean War Veterans 

Memorials in Washington, DC. 

The Committee recommends $41,100,000 for fiscal year 2005 for 

the Commission’s salaries and expenses account as proposed in the 

budget. 

The recommendation includes $9,100,000 for continued construction costs of the Normandy Interpretive Center at the Normandy 

American Cemetery in France, the full amount requested. The 

Cemetery averages nearly two million visitors per year, and the existing facilities are over 40 years old and inadequate to serve this 

large number of visitors. The new and expanded center will provide 

a fuller array of interpretive services to put the D-Day landings 

and the following battles in Europe in perspective as one of the 

greatest military achievements of all time. The Committee understands that exchange rate fluctuations may impact construction 

costs and expects the Commission’s fiscal year 2006 budget submission to accommodate such changes. 

The responsibility for operation and maintenance of the World 

War II Memorial passed to the National Park Service when the 

memorial was dedicated. The Commission, however, retains a fiduciary role in overseeing the remainder of funding donated by the 

public for construction of the memorial. The Commission is directed 

to report annually to the Committee on the financial position of the 

fund including any expenditures during the prior year. 

Language is included allowing up to $7,500 to be used for official 

reception and representation expenses. 

FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATIONS ACCOUNT

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $9,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 0 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +9,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +9,000,000 

83 

The Commission’s foreign currency fluctuations account is authorized pursuant to 36 U.S.C. 2109 to pay the costs of salaries and 

expenses that exceed the amount appropriated for salaries and expenses because of fluctuations in currency exchange rates of foreign 

countries occurring after a budget request for the Commission is 

submitted to the Congress. The account may not be used for any 

other purpose. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,000,000 to 

re-capitalize the Commission’s Foreign Currency Fluctuations account. Due to declining exchange rates during fiscal year 2004, all 

available resources in the account have been depleted and necessary Commission activities have been deferred. Current estimates of exchange rates during fiscal year 2005 indicate that the 

Commission’s budget submission will be insufficient to support 

Commission activities. Re-capitalization of the account ensures that 

funds are available to offset dollar losses during fiscal year 2005. 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $9,451,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 8,201,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 9,451,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +1,250,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... +0 

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. The Board became 

operational in fiscal year 1998. 

For salaries and expenses in fiscal year 2005, the Committee is 

recommending $9,451,000, an increase of $1,250,000 from the level 

for fiscal year 2004 and an equal to the request. 

Again this year, bill language has been included which limits the 

number of career senior executive service positions to three. 

The Committee directs that of the amounts approved in this appropriation, the Board must limit transfers of funds between object 

classifications or program activities to not more than $100,000 

without prior notification of the Committees on Appropriations. 

Changes from the budget request in excess of $250,000 shall be 

subject to the normal Committee reprogramming guidelines as outlined at the beginning of this report. No changes may be made to 

any expense as reflected in the budget justification, except as approved by the Committees on Appropriations, if it is construed by 

the Committee to be policy or change in policy. 

The Committee notes that, pursuant to Congressional direction, 

the Board has been seeking discussions with the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to ensure efficient coordination of fieldwork and 

appropriate exchange of technical expertise. The Committee lauds 

the Board’s attempt to work with DHS, and urges DHS to work 

with the Board to complete the MOU expeditiously. 

84 

EMERGENCY FUND

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $400,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 447,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 400,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥47,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... +0 

The emergency fund provides a funding mechanism by which 

periodic accident investigation cost fluctuations can be met without 

delaying critical phases of the investigations. Amounts provided to 

the Emergency fund are available until expended and may be 

added to in future appropriations acts. 

The purpose of the fund is to address investigation costs that 

greatly exceed the amounts already budgeted and provided for in 

the current fiscal year and is not to be used to offset the agencies 

normal operating expenses. The Board is directed to notify the 

Committee in writing of any withdrawals from the emergency fund 

within 2 business days of such withdrawal. Such notification shall 

include the amount being withdrawn from the fund, the purpose 

and need for the withdrawal, and any relevant budget implications. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $60,640,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 60,640,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 48,403,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... +12,237,000 

The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund provides grants, loans and technical assistance to new and existing 

community development financial institutions such as community 

development banks, community development credit unions, revolving loan funds and micro-loan funds. Recipients must use the funds 

to support mortgage, small business and economic development 

lending in currently underserved, distressed neighborhoods. The 

Fund is also responsible for implementation of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $60,640,000 for 

the program in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $12,237,000 when 

compared to the budget request. The Committee recommendation 

includes bill language designating $4,000,000 for financial and 

technical assistance for Native American, Native Hawaiian, and 

Alaska Native communities. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $62,650,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 59,646,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 62,650,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +3,004,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... 0 

85 

The Consumer Product Safety Act established the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an independent Federal regulatory agency, to reduce unreasonable risk of injury associated with 

consumer products. Its primary responsibilities and overall goals 

are: to protect the public against unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer products; to develop uniform safety standards 

for consumer products, minimizing conflicting State and local regulations; and to promote research into prevention of product-related 

deaths, illnesses, and injuries. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $62,650,000 for 

fiscal year 2005 the same level as requested and an increase of 

$3,004,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. 

The Committee urges the CPSC to expand its relationship with 

the Home Safety Council and its Great Safety Adventure Program. 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ................................................... $572,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ........................................................ 581,027,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ..................................................... 642,232,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ........................... ¥9,027,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ......................... ¥70,232,000 

The Corporation for National and Community Service was established by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 

to enhance opportunities for national and community service and 

provide national service educational 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 through full-time national 

and community service programs. Funds for the Volunteers in 

Service to America and the National Senior Service Corps are provided in the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill. 

The Committee recommends the same three-account structure 

that was included in the fiscal year 2004 enacted bill, which included a separate salaries and expenses account. The budget request integrated salaries and expenses into the general funding account. 

NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS OPERATING EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $541,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 549,961,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request1 ...................................................... 607,338,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥8,961,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥66,338,000 

1This amount represents the budget request for operational expenses excluding salaries and expenses. 

While the budget request integrated $28,894,000 of salaries and expenses into the larger Corporation appropriation, the Committee continues to provide a separate account for this purpose. 

The Committee recommends $290,000,000 for AmeriCorps competitive and formula state grants and $144,000,000 for the trust, 

including $13,000,000 to be held in reserve, and $3,900,000 for the 

President’s Freedom Scholarships. The Committee expects that this 

level for AmeriCorps grants and the trust will support a minimum 

of 70,000 volunteers, a reduction of 5,000 volunteers from the 

75,000 volunteers supported by the fiscal year 2004 enacted budget. The reduction in volunteers supported by this bill is taken withVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
86 

out prejudice, and is a consequence of broader funding constraints 

in this bill overall. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes the following program 

levels: 

FY 2004 

enacted 

FY 2005 

request 

FY 2005 recommendation 

Learn and Serve .............................................................................. $42,746,000 $46,000,000 $40,000,000 

National Civilian Community Corps ............................................... 24,852,000 27,027,000 25,500,000 

Innovation and Demonstration ....................................................... 11,159,000 30,010,000 12,000,000 

Evaluation ....................................................................................... 2,982,000 6,000,000 3,000,000 

State Commissions ......................................................................... 11,929,000 14,568,000 12,000,000 

Points of Light Foundation ............................................................. 9,941,000 10,000,000 9,700,000 

America’s Promise .......................................................................... 4,971,000 7,500,000 4,800,000 

Teach for America ........................................................................... 0 4,000,000 0 

Silver Scholarships ......................................................................... 0 10,000,000 0 

The Committee’s recommendation for Learn and Serve grants 

does not include the requested increase of $3,000,000 for a higher 

education initiative. The decrease below the fiscal year 2004 enacted budget should be applied on a pro rata basis to ongoing 

grants, which will be in their third and final year in fiscal year 

2005. 

The Committee’s recommendation of $25,500,000 for the National 

Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) does not provide the full 

$2,000,000 increase for capital improvement costs at NCCC facilities requested in the budget. The Committee directs the Corporation to address the most crucial capital improvement needs for fiscal year 2005 with the $500,000 increase provided by the Committee, and any necessary additional amounts within remaining 

available funds. Less critical capital improvements should be deferred to subsequent years. 

The Committee does not recommend an earmark for Teach for 

America (TFA) requested in the budget. The Committee notes that 

Teach for America operates an outstanding program that has successfully competed for AmeriCorps grants and has placed thousands of teachers in underserved areas. TFA is encouraged to continue to compete for AmeriCorps grants in fiscal year 2005. 

The Committee does not recommend funding for the new Silver 

Scholarships initiative, which is not authorized. 

The Committee is pleased with the progress made to date by the 

Corporation on the rulemaking directed in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations Act. As the Corporation moves into the notice and 

comment period, the Committee expects to continue to be kept informed of its progress. Further, consistent with the direction of the 

fiscal year 2004 Act, the Committee expects the rulemaking to establish policy guidelines for the long-term. 

The Committee directs the Corporation to submit an operating 

plan within 90 days of enactment of this bill and abide by the reprogramming requirements outlined at the beginning of this report. 

87 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $25,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 24,853,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request1 ...................................................... 28,894,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +147,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥3,894,000 

1While the budget request did not include a separate salaries and expenses account, this is the comparable level in the budget request for these activities. 

For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $147,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2004 level and $3,894,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee does not recommend increases for publications, 

marketing, and outreach, as requested in the budget. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $6,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 6,213,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 6,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥213,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Office of Inspector General is authorized by the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended. This Office provides an independent assessment of all Corporation operations and programs, including those of the Volunteers in Service to America and the National Senior Service Corps, through audits, investigations, and 

other proactive projects. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2005, $213,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 level and 

equal to the budget request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee has included two administrative provisions carried in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations Act regarding qualified 

student loans eligible for education awards and the availability of 

funds for the placement of volunteers with disabilities. 

The Committee has repeated an administrative provision carried 

in the fiscal year 2004 Act regarding Inspector General audits to 

ensure proper use of AmeriCorps grant funding. 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $16,725,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 15,844,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 17,623,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +881,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥898,000 

The Veterans’ Judicial Review Act established the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Court reviews appeals from Department of Veterans Affairs claimants seeking review of a benefit denial. The Court has the authority to overturn findings of fact, regulations and interpretations of law. 

The bill includes $16,725,000 for the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $881,000 above the 

current year appropriation and $898,000 below the budget request. 

88 

The bill also identifies $1,100,000 to be used for the pro bono representation program, the same as proposed in the budget request. 

The Committee has not included the budget request of approxi- mately $900,000 for the GSA to conduct feasibility studies preparatory to design and construction of the Veterans Courthouse 

and Justice Center. The Committee notes that there has been no 

independent assessment of the need for such a facility and contrary 

to the recommendations of the Committee included in its report 

from last year, the Court has not provided information concerning 

its efforts to resolve issues with its current facility. Nor has the 

Court addressed the Committee recommendation that alternative 

Federal office space may well meet its needs. The Committee directs the Court to seek an independent assessment of its basic 

needs, which may then lead to inclusion of a new facility as part 

of the General Services Administration 5-year plan. Until such an 

assessment is completed and presented to the Congress, the Committee will continue to oppose funding for the Veterans Courthouse 

and Justice Center. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

CEMETERIAL EXPENSES, ARMY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $29,600,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 28,829,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 29,600,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +771,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

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 non-funeral ceremonies each year 

and has approximately 4,000,000 visitors annually. 

The Committee recommends $29,600,000 for operations and maintenance of the Cemetery, an increase of $771,000 from the fiscal year 2004 funding level and equal to the budget request. 

The Committee believes it is extremely important that the Cemetery be able to expand into continguous space to maintain the Cemetery as a unified site to honor the nation’s veterans. The Committee requests the Cemetery to keep the Committee fully informed 

of any proposals to divert land currently slated for the Cemetery’s 

use for other purposes, including Navy Annex and Fort Myer land, 

and report on the impact of such proposals on the Cemetery’s longterm requirements. 

The recommendation includes $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2005 for 

the Cemetery’s automation project, bringing the total provided for 

this project over the last two years to $4,200,000. The Committee 

remains supportive of this effort but notes that detailed information on the overall project plan, cost and schedule has yet to be provided. The Committee expects the Cemetery to continue working 

89 

with the Office of Management and Budget, the Veterans Administration and other governmental agencies to capitalize on the most 

efficient and cost effective solutions to meet its technology needs as 

it finalizes its plans. The Cemetery is directed to provide a report 

to the Committee not later than November 15, 2004, on its plan for 

the project, including but not limited to, current status of the 

project, estimated total project cost, timeline for completion, and recurring out-year funding requirements. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $80,486,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 78,309,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 80,486,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +2,177,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

(NIEHS), 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 to conduct certain research and worker training activities associated with the nation’s Hazardous Substance Superfund program. 

For fiscal year 2005 the Committee has recommended a funding level of $80,486,000, an increase of $2,177,000 above the enacted 

level and equal to the budget request. The Committee directs that 

funds be divided between the research and the worker training programs in the same proportions as in the budget request. 

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY

TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $76,654,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 73,034,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 76,654,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +3,620,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

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. 

For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has recommended a funding 

level of $76,654,000, which is $3,620,000 above the fiscal year 2004 

funding level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee is aware of the high quality of work being conducted by the nation’s schools of public health in the area of environmental hazards research and effective response protocols for accidental or intentional releases of toxic substances. Within the inVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
90 

crease provided, the Committee encourages the Agency to expand 

its collaborations with schools of public health in these areas. 

The Committee encourages ATSDR to provide adequate funding 

in fiscal year 2005 for its cooperative agreement with the minority 

health professions community. 

The Committee urges ATSDR, within available funds, to conduct 

a study of the health effects of naturally occurring asbestos and report its findings to the Committee by September 30, 2005. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $7,753,069,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 8,365,817,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 7,789,245,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥612,748,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥36,176,000 

The Environmental Protection Agency was created by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which consolidated nine programs 

from five different agencies and departments. Major EPA programs 

include air and water quality, drinking water, hazardous waste, research, pesticides, radiation, toxic substances, enforcement and 

compliance assurance, pollution prevention, oil spills, Superfund, 

Brownfields, and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) 

program. In addition, EPA provides Federal assistance for wastewater treatment, sewer overflow control, drinking water facilities, 

and other water infrastructure projects. The agency is responsible 

for conducting research and development, establishing environmental standards through the use of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, monitoring pollution conditions, seeking compliance 

through a variety of means, managing audits and investigations, 

and providing technical assistance and grant support to states and 

tribes, which are delegated authority for actual program implementation. Under existing statutory authority, the Agency may contribute to specific homeland security efforts and, additionally, may 

participate in some international environmental activities. 

Among the statutes for which the Environmental Protection 

Agency has sole or significant oversight responsibilities are: 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as 

amended. 

Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. 

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended. 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as 

amended. 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

Public Health Service Act (Title XIV), as amended. 

Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended. 

Clean Air Act, as amended. 

Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended. 

Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002. 

Bioterrorism Act of 2002. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. 

Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002 (amending CERCLA). 

91 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 

1986. 

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended. 

Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990. 

Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003. 

For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has recommended a total 

program and support level of $7,753,069,000, a decrease of 

$612,748,000 below last year’s appropriated level and a decrease of 

$36,176,000 below the budget request. 

Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations accounts, the Agency must limit transfers of funds between objectives 

to not more than $500,000, except as specifically noted, without 

prior approval of the Committee. No changes may be made to any 

account or objective except as approved by the Committee, if it is 

construed to be policy or a change in policy. Any activity or program cited in the report, including specific funding amounts, shall 

be construed as the position of the Committee and should not be 

subject to reductions or reprogramming without prior approval of 

the Committee, unless adjusted by the subsequent Conference Report. It is the intent of the Committee that all carryover funds in 

the various appropriations accounts are subject to the normal reprogramming requirements outlined above. The Agency is expected 

to comply with all normal rules and regulations in carrying out 

these directives. Reprogramming requests associated with States 

and Tribes applying for Partnership Grants do not need to be submitted to the Committee for approval should such grants exceed 

the normal reprogramming limitations. Finally, the Committee 

wishes to continue to be notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, or activities prior to the planned implementation 

of such reorganizations. 

The bill includes sufficient funding to support a level of federal 

enforcement personnel throughout the Agency’s programs equal to 

the fiscal year 2004 level of 3,471 FTE’s. 

The Committee notes that the General Accounting Office staff review of EPA’s fiscal year 2005 budget request was received by the 

Committee on July 16, 2004, more than five months after the 

President’s Budget was transmitted to the Congress and less than 

one week prior to scheduled action by the Committee on this request. The Committee has noted previously in discussions with 

GAO staff that such analysis in order to be useful to the Congress 

must be more timely. The Committee requests that the Comptroller 

General inform his staff that any future reviews of the EPA budget 

be submitted to the House and Senate Committee’s on Appropriations not later than 45 days after the budget is released to the public. 

The Committee wishes to recognize the leadership EPA has assumed by integrating GPRA into their budget process over the last 

five years. The Committee also supports the continuation of the 

Agency’s recent efforts to reformat their budget justification with 

the goal of having a more concise and transparent document for fiscal year 2006. 

92 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... 1 $729,029,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 781,685,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 689,185,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥52,656,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 budget request ........................... +39,844,000 

1Total does not include transfer of $36,097,000 from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account. 

The Science and Technology account funds all Environmental 

Protection Agency research (including, by transfer of funds, Hazardous Substances Superfund research activities) carried out 

through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with other 

Federal agencies, states, universities, and private business, as well 

as in-house research. This account also funds personnel compensation and benefits, travel, supplies and operating expenses for all 

Agency research. Research addresses a wide range of environmental and health concerns across all environmental media and 

encompasses both long-term basic and near-term applied research 

to provide the scientific knowledge and technologies necessary for 

preventing, regulating, and abating pollution, and to anticipate 

emerging environmental issues. 

The Committee has recommended an appropriation of 

$729,029,000 for Science and Technology for fiscal year 2005, a decrease of $52,656,000 below last year’s spending level, and an increase of $39,844,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes the following changes 

to the funding levels included in the budget submission: 

FY 2004 

enacted 

FY 2005 

request 

FY 2005 recommendation 

Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification ................ $57,875,400 $64,466,500 $58,000,000 

Research: Particulate Matter .......................................................... 58,644,000 63,690,800 59,000,000 

Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs .......................................... 4,633,600 9,352,900 4,750,000 

Research: Drinking Water ............................................................... 44,127,700 46,118,100 44,500,000 

Research: Water Quality ................................................................. 45,073,600 46,809,800 $45,000,000 

The Committee’s recommended appropriation also includes the 

following increases to the budget request: 

1. +$16,232,000 for the STAR and STAR Fellowship programs, which fully restores these activities to the fiscal year 

2004 level. 

2. +$2,450,000 for EPSCoR; 

3. +$3,900,000 for Water Environmental Research Foundation; 

4. +$4,900,000 for the American Water Works Association 

Research Foundation; 

5. +$1,950,000 for the National Decentralized Water Resource Capacity Development Project, in coordination with 

EPA, for continued training and research and development of 

the program; 

6. +$1,000,000 to the Florida Department of Citrus to provide for the manufacture of an adequate amount of abscission 

chemical compound for testing and to provide for any comprehensive environmental and toxicological studies and other 

relevant research required by the federal government in order 

to register this product for use as an abscission chemical agent 

for citrus; 

93 

7. +$4,000,000 for continuation of building decontamination 

research. 

8. +$1,500,000 for the Mickey Leland National Urban Air 

Toxics Research Center in Houston, Texas; 

9. +$1,500,000 for the clean automotive technology program 

for advanced diesel, hybrid, and high efficiency, low emission 

vehicle development. 

10. $200,000 to the Arkansas State University in Jonesboro, 

Arkansas for the Delta Center for water quality; 

11. $150,000 to the University of Arkansas for environmental resource management to develop watershed technologies and management tools; 

12. $350,000 to the University of California Riverside for the 

Center for Environmental Research and Technology in Riverside, California; 

13. $200,000 to Florida International University for research 

activities in the greater Everglades in Miami, Florida; 

14. $250,000 for the Florida Gulf Coast University for the 

Novel Early Detection and Detoxification Technologies for 

Toxic Red Tide in Fort Myers, Florida; 

15. $200,000 for the City of New College, Florida for 

ecotoxicology training; 

16. $750,000 for the University of South Florida Study, Protection and Amelioration of Coastal Environments; 

17. $200,000 for the management of waste from navigating 

vessels in U.S. tidal waters; 

18. $1,000,000 for the Karmanos Cancer Institute to create 

a National Center for Vermiculite-Related Cancers in the Detroit metropolitan area; 

19. $250,000 for the Iowa Foundation for Education Administration for the Bus Emissions Education Program; 

20. $100,000 to the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus for the 

Clean Air Counts Campaign in Chicago land Metropolitan 

Area, Illinois; 

21. $400,000 to the Lawerence Technology University for 

sustainable alternative energy technologies Green Building in 

Southfield, Michigan; 

22. $750,000 to the National Center for Manufacturing 

Sciences for Life Cycle Analysis in Ann Arbor, Michigan; 

23. $1,250,000 to the National Center for Manufacturing 

Sciences for the sustainable produce initiative in Ann Arbor, 

Michigan; 

24. $200,000 to Green Hills Regional Planning in Princeton, 

Missouri for the Biomass Processing System; 

25. $150,000 for the University of Nebraska for the Nebraska Water Resources Model in Lincoln, Nebraska; 

26. $250,000 to Ramapo College in Mahwah, New Jersey for 

a new Sustainability Education Center; 

27. $150,000 to the State University of New York at 

Brockport for the Center of Excellence for Great Lakes Research; 

28. $450,000 to the State University of New York Environmental School of Forestry for research and demonstration of 

contaminant mitigation strategies for rural/suburban run-off 

94 

affecting water quality along the rural-urban interface in Central New York watersheds; 

29. $500,000 to the Center for Environmental Information in 

Rochester, New York for continued research, planning and environmental remediation for the Lake Ontario Coastal Initiative; 

30. $7,000,000 for the Environmental Systems Center of Excellence at Syracuse University for research and technology 

transfer in the fields of indoor environmental quality and 

urban ecosystems sustainability; 

31. $750,000 to the Syracuse Research Corporation in Syracuse, New York for a Microbial Risk Assessment Center; 

32. $1,500,000 to Onondaga County’s Metropolitan Water 

Board for a demonstration project to determine the feasibility 

of bringing naturally chilled water from Lake Ontario to Onondaga and Oswego County; 

33. $300,000 to the State University of New York Environmental School of Forestry for training, education and research 

related to the, Summer Eco-Science Camp Initiative; 

34. $500,000 to Alfred University, New York for the Center 

for Environmental and Energy Research; 

35. $575,000 to Orbital Research Inc., Fuel Efficient Diesel 

Sensor for Advanced Vehicle Emission Reduction (FEDSAVER), for research that may reduce fuel consumption and 

will help diesel engines meet EPA standards, Ohio; 

36. $600,000 to the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority/ 

Ohio Coal Development Office for research and development of 

the Jupiter Oxy-Fuel Technology, Ohio; 

37. $650,000 to the University of Toledo for the Lake Erie 

Center in Toledo, Ohio; 

38. $250,000 to the University of Tulsa, University of Oklahoma, University of Arkansas, and Oklahoma State University 

for the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium; 

39. $100,000 for the Oregon Department of Human Services 

for the View Master Water Contamination Study in Washington County, Oregon; 

40. $225,000 for California University of Pennsylvania for 

the Monongahela Valley River Research Project in California, 

Pennsylvania; 

41. $200,000 to the Middle Tennessee State University for 

research in Development and Transmission of Emerging Diseases; 

42. $500,000 for the University of Houston, Texas for the 

GulfStar Grid Program in Houston, Texas; 

43. $1,700,000 for the Canaan Valley Institute to continue to 

develop a regional sustainability support center and coordinated information system in the Mid Atlantic Highlands; 

44. $1,000,000 for the Canaan Valley Institute in close coordination with the ORD Restoration Plus program to demonstrate, validate and report on critical ecological hubs and 

corridors within the Mid-Atlantic Highlands and approaches to 

Highlands ecological prioritization, restoration and conservation Research and educational tools are to be developed using 

integrative technologies to predict future environmental risks 

95 

and support informed, proactive decision-making to be undertaken in conjunction with the Highlands Action Program; 

45. $900,000 to the Polymer Alliance Zone’s MARCEE Initiative with oversight provided by the Office of Solid Waste. 

The Committee has recommended a general reduction of 

$3,938,000 in this account. 

In addition to the funds provided through appropriations directly 

to this account, the Committee has recommended that $36,097,000 

be transferred to ‘‘Science and Technology’’ from the ‘‘Hazardous 

Substance Superfund’’ account for ongoing research activities consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended. 

The Committee is fully supportive of the collaborative partnership of the EPA and the National Institutes of Health in their system of Centers for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease 

Prevention Research. 

The Committee recognizes the EPA’s commitment to developing 

a Computational Toxicology program to reduce the cost and use of 

animal testing, and has funded this activity at the requested level. 

This program was fully funded and the Committee encourages EPA 

to consider validation of existing non-animal and alternative chemical screening and prioritization methods that might not typically 

be considered ‘‘computational toxicology’’ methods. The Committee 

continues to await EPA’s report regarding expenditures for fiscal 

year 2004 funds for research, development and validation of nonanimal and other alternative methods by the Office of Research 

and Development. 

The Committee directs that the EPA continue its technology 

transfer activities initially funded by this Committee in fiscal year 

2000 at not less than the current level of support and that those 

activities be carried out through the West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation. 

In 2001 EPA requested that NAS review the situation regarding 

use of human studies in EPA regulatory programs. Congress has 

also expressed a concern in this area. The NAS Committee published its findings and recommendations in February 2004. The 

Committee urges EPA to consider these conclusions in developing 

policy and regulation to govern use of human studies in its regulatory programs and responsibilities. 

The Committee has also included funding to continue the endocrine disruptor research program at the fiscal year 2004 level of 

$10,887,000. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $2,241,476,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 2,280,046,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 2,316,959,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥38,570,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥75,483,000 

The Environmental Programs and Management account encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, and compliance activities, and personnel compensation, benefits, travel, and expenses 

for all programs of the Agency except Science and Technology, Hazardous Substance Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

96 

Trust Fund, Oil Spill Response, and the Office of Inspector General. 

Abatement, prevention, and compliance activities include setting 

environmental standards, issuing permits, monitoring emissions 

and ambient conditions and providing technical and legal assistance toward enforcement, compliance, and oversight. In most cases, 

the states are directly responsible for actual operation of the various environmental programs. In this regard, the Agency’s activities include oversight and assistance in the facilitation of the environmental statutes. 

In addition to program costs, this account funds administrative 

costs associated with the operating programs of the Agency, including support for executive direction, policy oversight, resources management, general office and building services for program operations, and direct implementation of all Agency environmental programs—except those previously mentioned—for Headquarters, the 

ten EPA Regional offices, and all non-research field operations. 

For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has recommended 

$2,241,476,000 for Environmental Programs and Management, a 

decrease of $38,570,000 below the budget request and a decrease 

of $75,483,000 below the fiscal year 2004 funding level. For this account only, the Agency may transfer funds of not more than 

$500,000 between programs and activities without prior notice to 

the Committee, and of not more than $1,000,000 without prior approval of the Committee. All other reprogramming procedures as 

outlined earlier shall apply. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes the following: 

FY 2004 

enacted 

FY 2005 

request 

FY 2005 recommendation 

Great Lakes Legacy Act .................................................................. $9,941,000 $45,000,000 $10,000,000 

IT / Data Management ................................................................... 103,077,700 133,182,400 103,000,000 

Facilities Infrastructure and Operations ........................................ 307,035,400 326,793,800 308,000,000 

Surface Water Protection ................................................................ 184,222,700 191,796,600 188,000,000 

Federal Support for Air Quality Management ................................. 86,631,800 93,283,600 87,000,000 

Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides ............ 51,714,400 58,053,900 52,000,000 

Pollution Prevention Program ......................................................... 16,822,800 22,496,200 17,000,000 

Human Resources Management ..................................................... 39,109,000 44,139,500 40,000,000 

Drinking Water Programs ................................................................ 93,186,900 97,948,000 94,000,000 

Regulatory Innovation ..................................................................... 17,338,300 21,992,200 18,000,000 

Exchange Network ........................................................................... 21,801,400 25,419,700 22,000,000 

RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling ......................................... 10,828,400 14,301,700 11,000,000 

Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management ........................... 17,179,000 20,328,900 20,000,000 

Brownfields ..................................................................................... 24,938,500 28,002,300 23,000,000 

Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund .......................................... 10,935,100 13,500,000 11,000,000 

Geographic Program: Great Lakes .................................................. 18,837,400 21,195,000 19,000,000 

National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways ............................ 24,348,100 19,229,300 25,000,000 

Environmental Justice ..................................................................... 5,810,600 4,230,500 5,900,000 

Environmental Education ................................................................ 9,109,400 0 9,200,000 

Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program .......................... 14,821,100 11,082,600 14,800,000 

Geographic Program: Long Island Sound ....................................... 2,286,300 477,400 2,300,000 

The Committee’s recommended appropriation also includes the 

following increases to the budget request: 

1. +$1,000,000 for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration 

Program; 

2. +$17,640,000 for rural water technical assistance activities 

and groundwater protection with distribution as follows: 

$9,800,000 for the NRWA; $4,165,000 for RCAP, to be divided 

equally between assistance for water programs and assistance 

97 

for wastewater programs; $735,000 for GWPC; $1,960,000 for 

Small Flows Clearinghouse; $980,000 for the NETC; 

3. +$1,470,000 for the Water Systems Council Wellcare Program; 

4. +$980,000 for implementation of the National Biosolids 

Partnership Program; 

5. +$2,000,000 for source water protection programs; 

6. +$2,000,000 for the Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Water ISAC) to gather, analyze, and disseminate 

sensitive security information to water and wastewater systems; 

7. +$2,940,000 for EPA’s National Computing Center to provide for the remote mirroring of all critical information and related systems to achieve a Continuity of Operations (COOP)/ 

Disaster Recovery capability; 

8. +$5,000,000 to support a demonstration project for deployment of idle reduction technology including advanced truck 

stop electrification, as part of the Agency’s Smartway Transport Program. 

9. $1,000,000 to the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program within the State of Alaska; 

10. $100,000 to the Salton Sea Authority in Salton Sea, California for air quality mitigation projects; 

11. $75,000 for Operation Clean Air for the Hot Spot Pilot 

Program in the Town of Malaga, California; 

12. $250,000 to Calleguas Municipal Water for the Calleguas 

Creek Watershed Management Plan Implementation in Ventura County, California; 

13. $100,000 to the University of Redlands in California for 

the Salton Sea Database; 

14. $300,000 for the City of Highland, California for the City 

of Highland Environmental Learning Center; 

15. $200,000 for the Operation Clean Air Advocates, Inc. in 

San Joaquin Valley, California for Operation Clean Air; 

16. $100,000 for the California State University—Fullerton, 

California for the National Center for Water Hazard Mitigation; 

17. $100,000 to the University of Connecticut Health Center 

to implement a model asthma intervention program for the 

State of Connecticut; 

18. $250,000 to the University of North Florida for the RealTime Regional Environmental Modeling in Jacksonville, Florida; 

19. $900,000 to Osceola County, Florida for abatement and 

prevention of hydrilla and hygophila; 

20. $400,000 to the Georgia Water Conservation Team for 

the development and implementation of the Georgia Water 

Planning and Policy Center, Offset Banking Water Quality Improvement program; 

21. $150,000 to the Spokane Region Chamber of Commerce 

for the Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley Aquifer Study in 

Spokane County, Idaho; 

22. $1,700,000 to Boise State University for research projects 

aimed at developing and demonstrating multi-purpose sensors 

98 

to detect and analyze contaminants and time-lapse imaging of 

shallow subsurface fluid flow; 

23. $300,000 for the Selenium Information System Project at 

the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory; 

24. $100,000 to the City of Rexburg, Idaho for the Teton 

River Mill Site Redevelopment and Learning Project; 

25. $150,000 to the City of Chicago, Illinois for the Beach 

Contamination Identification/Elimination Study; 

26. $200,000 to the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission for the Ohio River Watershed Pollutant Reduction Program; 

27. $100,000 for PRIDE in the 2nd District of Kentucky for 

PRIDE in the Heartland of Kentucky; 

28. $500,000 to the Olmsted Parks Conservancy in Louisville, Kentucky to remove invasive species and correct erosion 

in Cherokee and Seneca Parks; 

29. $1,000,000 to the Olmsted Parks Conservancy in Louisville, Kentucky to correct riverbank erosion in Chickasaw 

Park; 

30. $550,000 to the Olmsted Parks Conservancy in Louisville, Kentucky to correct erosion in Iroquois Park; 

31. $850,000 to the Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation, Kentucky for anti-erosion strategies; 

32. $200,000 to the Louisiana State University in Shreveport, Louisiana for the Red River Watershed Management Institute; 

33. $100,000 to Prince George’s County, Maryland for the 

Low Impact Development demonstration project in the Anacostia River Watershed; 

34. $100,000 to Wayne County, Michigan for the Lead Prevention Initiative; 

35. $100,000 to Wayne County, Michigan for the lead prevention initiative; 

36. $200,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute in 

East Lansing, Michigan for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute International’s Nanocomposite Surfaces; 

37. $850,000 for the North Carolina Central University for 

research initiative to assess environmental exposure and impact in communities of color and economically disadvantaged 

communities in Durham, North Carolina; 

38. $100,000 to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services to develop a statewide water resources management plan; 

39. $250,000 to the Ten Towns Great Swamp Watershed 

Management Committee in New Jersey for a water quality 

monitoring program in the Great Swamp National Refuge; 

40. $100,000 to Monmouth University for the Coastal Watershed Program in West Long Branch, New Jersey; 

41. $150,000 for Monmouth University for the Center for 

Coastal Watershed Management in West Long Beach, New 

Jersey; 

42. $200,000 to Madison County, New York for the Landfill 

Gas to Electricity Project; 

99 

43. $250,000 for the New York University in Bronx, New 

York for health disparity studies; 

44. $1,500,000 for continued work on water management 

plans for the Central New York Watersheds in Onondaga and 

Cayuga counties; 

45. $750,000 to Cortland County, New York for continued 

work on the aquifer protection plan, of which $350,000 is for 

continued implementation of the comprehensive water quality 

management program in the Upper Susquehanna Watershed; 

46. $250,000 to Wayne County, New York for continued work 

on a county-wide lakeshore embankments resource preservation and watershed enhancement plan; 

47. $250,000 to the Central New York Regional Planning 

and Development Board for continued research and planning 

for the Oneida Lake Watershed Management Program; 

48. $200,000 for the NADO (National Association of Development Organizations) Research Foundation for environmental 

training and information dissemination related to rural 

brownfields, air quality standards and water infrastructure; 

49. $250,000 to Lake Erie Coastal Ohio for planning, research, and analysis of coastal Lake Erie community, environmental, and educational efforts; 

50. $200,000 to the Oklahoma State University, the University of Oklahoma, the University of Tulsa, and the University 

of Arkansas for the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium in Tulsa, Oklahoma; 

51. $1,500,000 to the American Cities Foundation (ACF) for 

the Neighborhood Environmental Action Team program and 

other community environmental efforts; 

52. $700,000 to Caribbean American Mission for Education 

Research and Action, Inc. (CAMERA), to support a youth environmental stewardship program in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; 

53. $700,000 to the Environment and Sports Inc., of Philadelphia to continue support of an environmental awareness 

program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 

54. $350,000 for the Concurrent Technologies Corp for the 

Small Partner Environmental Information Exchange Network; 

55. $100,000 to Cabrini College in Radnor, Pennsylvania for 

the Center for Science Education and Technology; 

56. $100,000 to the University of Memphis for Environmental Programs Hazard Management in Memphis, Tennessee; 

57. $250,000 to the Tarrant County Watershed District in 

Tarrant County, Texas to develop and implement an integrated 

watershed protection plan; 

58. $750,000 to the University of Texas at Austin for environmental resource management and technical assistance activities for the Rio Bravo-Rio Grande Physical Assessment Program; 

59. $250,000 to the University of North Texas for the Texas 

Institute for Environmental Assessment and Management; 

60. $200,000 to the City of Lubbock, Texas for a comprehensive study to address regional water and wastewater concerns; 

100 

61. $75,000 to the Brazos River Authority for the Brazos/ 

Navasota Watershed Management Project in Texas; 62. $200,000 to the Puget Sound Action Team of Hood Canal, 

Washington for the Hood Canal Depleted Oxygen Study; 63. $100,000 for the Spokane Regional Chamber of Commerce for the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Study; 64. $200,000 to the Upper Kanawha Valley Enterprise Community for the Shrewsbury Riverbank Erosion Project in 

Shewsbury, West Virginia; 65. $2,000,000 for on-going activities at the Canaan Valley 

Institute, including activities relating to community sustainability; 66. $1,500,000 to support and implement the Highlands Action Program (HAP) of the Agency, including, but not limited 

to, federal personnel and related costs; 67. $150,000 for Marshall University, Center for Environmental, Geotechnical and Applied Sciences for Environmental 

Management Incubator in Huntington, West Virginia. 

The Committee has recommended a general reduction of $20,859,000 in this account. 

The Agency has been provided $9,200,000 for Environmental 

Education programs. The Agency is directed to distribute funds 

under the Environmental Education program proportionally in a 

manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Education Act. 

The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for source water protection programs. The Committee intends that these funds be used to 

continue and to expand the statewide grassroots sourcewater protection programs being carried out by state rural water associations. 

EPA Brownfields funding is the same as FY 2004; while this ac- count’s portion is reduced by $2,000,000 additional resources are 

available for the Brownfields revolving loan fund in the State and 

Tribal Assistance Grants. 

The Committee commends the Agency for resolving a large number of pending Title VI environmental justice cases and has restored funds so that the program can continue to address the backlog of cases. 

The Committee clarifies that ‘‘shall conform’’ in Clean Water Act 

(CWA) § 402(q) means that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authorities should evaluate the 

facts and circumstances of each CSO community’s program against 

the CSO Control Policy’s themes of flexibility, site specificity, cost 

effectiveness, and water quality standards achievement after longterm control plan implementation (LTCP). NPDES permits should 

be used to impose LTCP obligations whenever possible. In authorized states, state administrative orders or state judicial orders 

should be the primary alternative implementation mechanism to 

NPDES permits for imposing LTCP obligations. This clarification 

does not preclude state and/or federal enforcement actions where 

appropriate. 

According to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC), about 2.2% of children living in the United 

States have an unacceptably high level of lead in their blood, which 

may result in learning disabilities, reduced intellectual ability, or 

101 

other problems. The Committee is particularly concerned about recent reports of elevated lead levels in drinking water supplied to 

schools in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Therefore, the 

Committee directs EPA, in cooperation with the states, to evaluate 

and report state compliance of the Control of Lead and Copper 

Rule (56 FR 26460–26564) as it applies to drinking water monitoring requirements for the public. 

The Committee is concerned about the occurrences of combined 

sewage overflow from wastewater treatment facilities into Lake 

Michigan. The committee is also concerned that existing regulations concerning such discharges are not sufficiently enforced so as 

to prevent negative impacts on the Lake Michigan ecosystem. The 

committee directs the EPA to report, by September 30, 2005, outlining what future steps it plans to take to minimize such overflows. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... 1 $37,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 37,336,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 37,997,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥336,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥997,000 1Total does not include transfer of $13,000,000 from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account. 

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. This 

account funds personnel compensation and benefits, travel, and expenses (excluding rent, utilities, and security costs) for the Office 

of Inspector General. The appropriation for the OIG is funded from 

two separate accounts: Office of Inspector General and Hazardous 

Substance Superfund. In addition, the IG also holds the position of 

Inspector General for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. 

For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends a total appro- priation of $37,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General, a decrease of $336,000 below last year’s funding level and $997,000 

below the budget request. An additional amount of $13,000,000 

shall be derived by transfer from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account. Of the total funding, $750,000 shall be used to carry 

out the duties of Inspector General for the Chemical Safety and 

Hazard Investigation Board. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $39,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 39,764,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 42,918,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥764,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥3,918,000 

This appropriation 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. The funds are 

to be used to correct unsafe conditions, protect health and safety 

of employees and Agency visitors, and prevent deterioration of 

structures and equipment. 

The Committee is recommending $39,000,000, the budget request, for Buildings and Facilities. This funding level represents a 

102 

decrease of $764,000 below the fiscal year 2004 funding level and 

a decrease of $3,918,000 below the amount requested. This recommendation provides for necessary maintenance and repair and 

improvement costs at Agency facilities. 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $1,257,537,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 1,257,537,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 1,381,416,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥123,879,000 

The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) program was 

established in 1980 by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to clean up emergency 

hazardous materials, spills, and dangerous, uncontrolled, and/or 

abandoned hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) expanded the program substantially in 

1986, authorizing approximately $8,500,000,000 in revenues over 

five years. In 1990, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act extended the program’s authorization through 1994 for 

$5,100,000,000 with taxing authority through calendar year 1995. 

The Superfund program is operated by EPA subject to annual appropriations from a dedicated trust fund and from general revenues. Enforcement activities are used to identify and induce parties 

responsible for hazardous waste problems to undertake clean-up 

actions and pay for EPA oversight of those actions. In addition, responsible parties have been required to cover the cost of fund financed removal and remedial actions undertaken at spills and 

waste sites by Federal and State agencies. Through transfers to the 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Science and Technology accounts, the OIG and the Office of Research and Development also 

receive funding from this account. 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. 

For fiscal year 2005, $1,257,537,000 has been recommended by 

the Committee, the same amount as last years funding and a decrease of $123,879,000 below the budget request. Bill language is 

included which provides up to the full amount of the appropriated 

amount from general revenues, if sufficient amounts are not available from the Superfund Trust. 

Bill language has been included which transfers $13,000,000 

from this account to the Office of Inspector General and 

$36,097,000 to the Science and Technology account. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes the following program 

levels: 

1. $879,100,000 for Superfund response and cleanup activities; 

2. $146,514,000 for enforcement activities; 

3. $145,000,000 for management and support; 

4. $13,000,000 transfer to the Office of Inspector General; 

5. $36,097,000 transfer to the Science and Technology account; and 

6. $37,826,000 for other federal agencies. 

103 

The Committee supports the national pilot worker training program which recruits and trains young persons who live near hazardous waste sites or in the communities at risk of exposure to contaminated properties for work in the environmental field. The Committee directs EPA to continue funding this effort in cooperation 

and collaboration with NIEHS. The research activities of NIEHS 

can compliment the training and operational activities of EPA in 

carrying out this program. 

The Committee is aware of technologies developed and successfully deployed in Eastern Europe that use enzyme extracts of 

earthworms to cleanup contaminants such as pesticides and PCB’s. 

The Committee supports innovative technologies that may reduce 

the cost and complication of cleanup and encourages the EPA to review this technology for field application under the Superfund Innovative Technologies Evaluation Program. 

The Committee is aware that naturally-occurring asbestos is 

common in some areas, such as El Dorado County, California, and 

that this asbestos may be disturbed by construction or other typical 

activities. The Committee is concerned that the Environmental 

Protection Agency may be premature in seeking remediation of 

these natural substances. As a result, the Committee directs EPA 

to develop a Standard Test Method for naturally occurring asbestos 

that will provide reproducible results; provide a risk analysis using 

the existing EPA Airborne Asbestos Health Assessment Update; 

and, determine the background levels of naturally occurring asbestos in El Dorado County. 

The Committee encourages EPA to continue its scientific, technical and logistical support to the people of Tallevast, Florida in response to findings of ground contamination in the area. 

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $74,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 75,552,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 72,545,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥1,552,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +1,455,000 

Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, authorized the 

establishment of a response program for clean-up of releases from 

leaking underground storage tanks. Owners and operators of facilities with underground tanks must demonstrate financial responsibility and bear initial responsibility for clean-up. The Federal trust 

fund is funded through the imposition of a motor fuel tax of onetenth of a cent per gallon, which generates approximately 

$170,000,000 per year. 

Most states also have their own leaking underground storage 

tank programs, including a separate trust fund or other funding 

mechanism, in place. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

Trust Fund provides additional clean-up resources and may also be 

used to enforce necessary corrective actions and to recover costs expended from the Fund for clean-up activities. The underground 

storage tank response program is designed to operate primarily 

through cooperative agreements with states. However, funds are 

also used for grants to non-state entities including Indian tribes 

under Section 8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

104 

For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has provided $74,000,000, a decrease of $1,522,000 below fiscal year 2004 and $1,455,000 above 

the request. 

OIL SPILL RESPONSE

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $16,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 16,113,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 16,425,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥113,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... ¥425,000 

This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act as 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. In addition, 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 clean-up and removal activities posing a threat to public health and the environment; conducting site inspections; providing for a means to achieve cleanup 

activities by private parties; reviewing containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency plans; and pursuing cost recovery 

of fund-financed clean-ups; and, conducting research of oil clean-up 

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. 

The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, a decrease of $113,000 over the fiscal year 2004 level and $425,000 

below the request. 

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $3,359,027,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 3,877,785,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 3,231,800,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥518,758,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... +127,227,000 

The State and Tribal Assistance Grants account provides grant 

funds for programs operated primarily by state, local, tribal and 

other governmental partners. The account provides funding for infrastructure projects through the State Revolving Funds, geographic specific projects in rural Alaska and Alaska Native Villages, Puerto Rico and on the United States-Mexico Border, and 

other targeted special projects. In addition, the account funds 

Brownfields assessment and revitalization grants, grants for clean 

school buses, as well as miscellaneous categorical grant programs. 

The largest portion of the STAG account consists of two State Revolving Funds (SRFs), which provide Federal financial assistance 

to protect the nation’s water resources. The Clean Water State Revolving Funds are intended to help eliminate municipal discharge 

of untreated or inadequately treated pollutants and thereby maintain or help restore this country’s water to a swimmable and/or 

fishable quality. This program provides resources for municipal, 

105 

inter-municipal, state, interstate agencies, and tribal governments 

to plan, design, and construct wastewater facilities and other 

projects, including non-point source, estuary, stormwater, and 

sewer overflow projects. The Safe Drinking Water State Revolving 

Fund program finances improvements to community water systems 

so that they can achieve compliance with the mandates of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act and continue to protect public health. 

This account also funds various categorical grant programs to ensure continued environmental protection nation-wide. Among these 

are non-point source grants under Section 319 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, as amended, Public Water System Supervision grants, Section 106 water quality grants, grants to improve 

targeted watersheds, Clean Air Act Section 105 and 103 air grants, 

a program targeted to environmental information, Brownfields 

cleanup grants, and other grants utilized by the states, tribes, and 

others to meet Federal environmental statutory and regulatory requirements. 

For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends a total of $3,359,027,000, a decrease of $518,758,000 below the current fiscal 

year spending level, and $127,227,000 above the level proposed in 

the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes the following program 

levels: 

$850,000,000 for Clean Water State Revolving Funds; 

$845,000,000 for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving 

Funds; 

$50,000,000 for high priority U.S./Mexico border projects; 

$20,000,000 for Alaska rural and Native Villages; 

$95,000,000 for Brownfields assessment and revitalization 

grants; $1,161,627,000 for state and tribal program/categorical 

grants; $10,000,000 for Clean School Bus Grants; and 

$323,400,000 for targeted grants to communities for the construction of drinking water, wastewater and storm water infrastructure and for water quality protection. 

As was the case in past years, no reprogramming requests associated with States and Tribes applying for Partnership grants need 

to be submitted to the Committee for approval should such grants 

exceed the normal reprogramming limitations. In addition, the 

Agency need not submit a request to move funds between wastewater and drinking water objectives for those grants targeted to 

specific communities listed below. 

The Committee has also included bill language, as requested by 

the administration and as carried in previous appropriations acts, 

to: (1) extend for an additional year 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; and (4) 

require that any funds provided to address the water infrastructure 

needs of colonias within the United States along the United StatesMexico 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, 

106 

wastewater, or other necessary infrastructure. Bill language has 

been included which provides specific dollar amounts for each of 

the above listed programs. The Committee has recommended $10,000,000 for grants program to local school districts to reduce emissions from their buses 

as proposed in the budget request. 

Bill language has been included which stipulates that, consistent 

with section 603 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended, $50,000,000 of the $850,000,000 proposed for the Clean 

Water SRF program is to be made available by the States for interest-free loans that increase non-point and non-structural, decentralized alternatives, to expand the choices available to communities in their fight for clean water. The Committee continues to 

enthusiastically support this program, and believes that the States 

will be able to increase their participation in this program with the 

funds made available by this provision. From within the Committee’s $50,000,000 recommendation for 

the United States-Mexico Border program, the Agency is expected 

to provide $1,000,000 for continuation of the Brownsville, Texas 

area water supply project, and $3,500,000 for continuation of the 

El Paso, Texas area desalination and water supply project. 

The Committee has provided funding for a grant for drinking 

water infrastructure improvements in San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

The Committee has included bill language that makes technical 

corrections to grants provided in last year’s bill. The Committee has provided $1,161,627,000 for state and tribal 

program assistance/categorical grants. The Committee’s recommendation for each categorical grant follows: 

FY 2004 

enacted 

FY 2005 

request 

FY 2005 

recommendation 

State and Local Air Quality Assistance .......................................... $227,201,555 $228,550,000 $225,000,000 

Tribal Air Quality Assistance .......................................................... 10,984,805 11,050,000 10,830,000 

Radon .............................................................................................. 8,101,915 8,150,000 8,000,000 

Pollution Control (Section 106) ...................................................... 199,217,640 222,400,000 200,000,000 

Beaches Protection ......................................................................... 9,941,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Nonpoint Source (Section 319) ....................................................... 237,092,850 209,100,000 235,250,000 

Wetlands Program Development ..................................................... 14,911,500 20,000,000 14,500,000 

Water Quality Cooperative Agreements (Sec. 104(3)(b)) ............... 18,887,900 20,500,000 18,620,000 

Targeted Watersheds ...................................................................... 14,911,500 25,000,000 14,500,000 

Wastewater Operator Training ........................................................ 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) ...................................... 101,994,660 105,100,000 100,550,000 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) .............................................. 10,935,100 11,000,000 10,780,000 

Homeland Security .......................................................................... 4,970,500 5,000,000 5,000,000 

H.W. Financial Assistance .............................................................. 105,772,240 106,400,000 104,300,000 

Brownfields ..................................................................................... 49,705,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 

Underground Storage Tanks ........................................................... 11,879,495 37,950,000 12,000,000 

Pesticides Program Implementation ............................................... 13,022,710 13,100,000 13,000,000 

Lead ................................................................................................ 13,619,170 13,700,000 13,500,000 

Toxic Substances Compliance ........................................................ 5,119,615 5,150,000 5,047,000 

Pesticides Enforcement ................................................................... 19,782,590 19,900,000 19,500,000 

Environmental Information ............................................................. 19,882,000 25,000,000 19,500,000 

Pollution Prevention ........................................................................ 5,964,600 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Sector Program (Enforcement & Comp Assurance) ....................... 2,236,725 2,250,000 2,250,000 

State and Tribal Performance Fund ............................................... 0 23,000,000 0 

Indian General Assistance Program ............................................... 62,131,250 62,500,000 62,000,000 

The distribution of targeted grants is as follows: 1. $400,000 to the City Falkville, Alabama for sewer infrastructure improvements; 

107 

2. $750,000 to the City of Albertville, Alabama for sewer infrastructure improvements; 

3. $180,000 to the City of Boldo, Alabama for water infrastructure improvements; 

4. $200,000 to the City of Addison, Alabama for sewer infrastructure improvements; 

5. $220,000 to Lamar County, Alabama for infrastructure 

improvements to the Lamar County Reservoir; 

6. $350,000 to the City of Arley, Alabama for water infrastructure improvements; 

7. $200,000 to the City of Eva, Alabama for sewer infrastructure improvements; 

8. $200,000 to the City of Guin, Alabama for water infrastructure improvements; 

9. $250,000 to the City of Phil Campbell, Alabama for water 

infrastructure improvements; 

10. $500,000 to Blount County, Alabama for water infrastructure improvements; 

11. $500,000 to the DeKalb-Jackson Water Supply District in 

Ider, Alabama for construction of a water treatment plant; 

12. $150,000 to Fort Payne, Alabama for a pump station at 

Wills Valley Industrial Park; 

13. $250,000 to the Helena Utility Board in Helena, Alabama 

for sewer infrastructure improvements; 

14. $250,000 to the City of Jackson, Alabama for water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

15. $200,000 to the City of Athens, Alabama for wastewater 

infrastructure improvements; 

16. $500,000 to Lawrence County, Alabama for the 

Bankhead Forest Water Project; 

17. $250,000 to the City of Huntsville, Alabama for water infrastructure improvements; 

18. $400,000 to Hartselle Utilities for wastewater infrastructure improvements in Hartselle, Alabama; 

19. $100,000 to Harvest-Monrovia Water, Sewer, and Fire 

Protection in Alabama for a master plan to accomplish the establishment of a sewer system within the service area; 

20. $300,000 to the Limestone County Water and Sewer Authority in Alabama for water infrastructure improvements; 

21. $400,000 to the Waterworks Boards of the Towns of Section and Dutton, Alabama for water infrastructure improvements; 

22. $500,000 to the Scottsboro Waterworks, Sewer, and Gas 

Board in Scottsboro, Alabama for construction and rehabilitation of a sanitary sewer collection system; 

23. $600,000 to the City of Sheffield, Alabama for water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

24. $200,000 to the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and 

Sewer Authority for water and wastewater system infrastructure improvements; 

25. $50,000 to Jackson County, Alabama for water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

26. $400,000 to the City of Muscle Shoals, Alabama for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

108 

27. $100,000 to the community of Overlook Hills in Dallas 

County, Alabama for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

28. $100,000 to the Town of Fulton, Alabama to construct a 

wastewater treatment facility; 

29. $150,000 to the Town of Red Level, Alabama for Phase 

II water infrastructure improvements; 

30. $150,000 to the City of Valley, Alabama to purchase 

Langdale Mill and Fairfax Utilization Plant; 

31. $200,000 for the Millerville Water Authority (Clay County Commission) for water infrastructure improvements in 

Millerville, Alabama; 

32. $250,000 to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas for water 

infrastructure improvements; 

33. $250,000 for the Faulkner County Public Facilities Board 

for Lake Conway Sewer Improvements in Faulkner County, 

Arkansas; 

34. $200,000 for the City of Goodyear, Arizona for water infrastructure improvements; 

35. $150,000 to the City of Avondale, Arizona for wastewater 

infrastructure improvements; 

36. $150,000 to the City of Chandler, Arizona for the Chandler Arsenic Mitigation Program; 

37. $1,000,000 to the University of Arizona, College of Pharmacy for the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Protection 

Program; 

38. $250,000 to the City of Stafford, Arizona for construction 

of a wastewater treatment plant; 

39. $500,000 to the City of St. Johns, Arizona for new water 

transmission pipeline construction; 

40. $150,000 to the City of Rialto, California for water infrastructure improvements; 

41. $250,000 to the Box Springs Mutual Water Company of 

the City of Moreno Valley, California for installation of a sewer 

system; 

42. $200,000 to the City of Oxnard, California for the 

Headworks Expansion Project and Redwood Trunk Project; 

43. $150,000 to the City of Modesto, California for the neighborhood storm water, sewer, and water infrastructure project 

(Ninth Street Corridor Storm Drain Project); 

44. $500,000 to the Orange County Sanitation District for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements in Fountain Valley, 

California; 

45. $600,000 to the City of Laguna Beach, California for 

emergency sewer repairs; 

46. $1,000,000 to the City of Solana Beach, California for 

wastewater treatment improvements in the municipal sewer 

system; 

47. $250,000 to the City of Roseville, California for water infrastructure improvements; 

48. $400,000 to the City of Monrovia, California for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvement; 

49. $1,000,000 to the Cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre, 

California for the Joint Water Infrastructure Restoration Program; 

109 

50. $200,000 to the City of East Palo Alto, California for the 

storm water infrastructure improvements; 

51. $350,000 to the Monterey County Water Resource Agency 

for the Salinas Valley Water Project in Monterey County, California; 

52. $100,000 to the Sweetwater Authority for the water quality monitoring in Chula Vista, California; 

53. $250,000 to the City of El Segundo, California for wastewater infrastructure improvements for Smoky Hollow; 

54. $350,000 for the City of Redding, California for water infrastructure improvements; 

55. $750,000 to the San Diego County Water Authority for 

the San Diego County Water Authority Regional Seawater Desalination Initiative in San Diego, California; 

56. $350,000 to the City of Brisbane, California for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

57. $150,000 for the Bighorn Desert Water Agency for water 

infrastructure improvements in Yucca Valley, California; 

58. $200,000 to the City of San Bernardino, California for 

Lakes and Stream Project; 

59. $200,000 to the City of Lake Arrowhead, California for 

the Community Services District; 

60. $750,000 for Mission Springs Water District for the 

Groundwater Protection, Supply Enhancement/Reuse Program 

in Desert Hot Springs, California; 

61. $750,000 to the City of Banning, California for the 

Brinton Reservoir; 

62. $200,000 for the City of San Jose, California for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

63. $500,000 to the City of Sacramento, California for combined sewer system improvement rehabilitation project; 

64. $250,000 for the Castaic Lake Water Agency in California for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

65. $250,000 to the City of Barstow, California for a sewer 

master plan implementation project; 

66. $250,000 to the City of Victorville, California for water 

infrastructure improvements; 

67. $200,000 for the California State University, Dominguez 

Hills for the Center for Urban Environmental Research in Carson, California; 

68. $200,000 to the City of Brea, California for sewer infrastructure improvements; 

69. $200,000 to the City of Mission Viejo, California for the 

Oso Creek Barrier Project; 

70. $300,000 to the City of Vallejo, California for the Mare 

Island Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain Improvement Project; 

71. $250,000 to the City of Norwalk, California for the Balancing Facility Project; 

72. $150,000 to the Strathmore Public Utility District for a 

wastewater treatment plant; 

73. $250,000 to the City of Folsom, California for the sewer 

rehabilitation project; 

74. $1,000,000 to the City of San Francisco, California for 

water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

110 

75. $800,000 for the Santa Clara Valley Water District in 

Santa Clara County, California for Perchlorate Cleanup; 

76. $200,000 to the City of Westminster, California for the 

Westminster Water Quality Pilot Project; 

77. $300,000 to the City of Huntington Beach, California for 

the Wintersberg Channel Urban Run-Off Treatment; 

78. $250,000 to the City of Downey, California for storm 

water infrastructure improvements; 

79. $150,000 for the Municipal Water District of Orange 

County, California for an Orange County water reliability 

study; 

80. $200,000 for the Orange County Sanitation District for a 

new secondary treatment facility in Fountain Valley, California; 

81. $250,000 to the City of Eurka, California for the Martin 

Slough Interceptor; 

82. $250,000 to the City of Gardena, California for water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

83. $250,000 to the City of Santa Monica, California for 

water infrastructure improvements; 

84. $200,000 for Sonoma County, California for the Monte 

Rio sanitation project in Monte Rio, California; 

85. $250,000 to Jefferson County, Colorado to implement a 

new storm water improvement program; 

86. $250,000 to the City of Ouray, Colorado for water infrastructure improvements; 

87. $150,000 to the City of Meriden, Connecticut for the City 

Center Initiative Flood Control and Demolition; 

88. $300,000 to the City of New Britain, Connecticut for 

water infrastructure improvements; 

89. $500,000 to the City of Southington, Connecticut for the 

Southington Water Supply Improvement Project; 

90. $200,000 to the City of Stamford, Connecticut for storm 

water infrastructure improvements; 

91. $350,000 to the City of Groton, Connecticut for water and 

sewer line extension; 

92. $500,000 to the District of Columbia Government for 

drinking water infrastructure improvements to address lead 

problems; 

93. $400,000 for the City of Wilmington, Delaware for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

94. $250,000 to the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

95. $200,000 to the City of Gainesville, Florida for the depot 

regional storm water park; 

96. $250,000 to Citrus County, Florida for the 

Chassahowitzka Area Wastewater Collection and Drinking 

Water Distribution System; 

97. $200,000 to Hillsborough County, Florida for the 

Hillsborough County Alternative Water Supplies—Phase III; 

98. $700,000 to the City of Miami Beach, Florida for storm 

water infrastructure improvements; 

99. $200,000 to the City of Pemroke Pines, Florida for water 

treatment expansion; 

111 

100. $250,000 to the City of Homestead, Florida for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

101. $150,000 for the South Seminole & North Orange County Wastewater Transmission Authority for the replacement of 

wastewater pipes and mechanical equipment; 

102. $200,000 to the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District for the Peace River & Myakka River Water Initiative 

in Polk County, Florida; 

103. $300,000 to the Village of Wellington, Florida for the reconfiguration of storm water system project; 

104. $350,000 for the County of Sarasota, Florida for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

105. $200,000 to the City of Rivera Beach, Florida for the 

storm water management plan; 

106. $200,000 to the Town of Windermere, Florida for storm 

water management improvements; 

107. $250,000 to the City of Miami Gardens, Florida for 

water, wastewater, storm water, and sewer infrastructure improvements; 

108. $200,000 to the City of Bunnell, Florida for the Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal System Rehabilitation Project; 

109. $500,000 for St. Johns County, Florida for the College 

Park Drainage Improvement Project in West Augustine, Florida; 

110. $250,000 for the Escambia County Utility Authority for 

Wastewater Treatment/water Reclamation Partnership in 

Escambia County, Florida; 

111. $350,000 to the City of Davenport, Florida for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

112. $200,000 to the City of Lakeworth, Florida for water infrastructure improvements; 

113. $200,000 to the City of Davie, Florida for water main 

replacement; 

114. $300,000 for the South Central Regional Wastewater 

Treatment and Disposal Board for the 100% Wastewater Reuse 

Project in the Cities of Delray Beach and Boynton Beach, Florida; 

115. $300,000 to the City of Starke, Florida for the Water 

Quality Improvement Program; 

116. $500,000 to Osceola County, Florida for drainage basin 

improvements; 

117. $2,500,000 to the St. Johns River Water Management 

District for water infrastructure improvements in Central and 

East Florida; 

118. $4,000,000 to the Southwest Florida Water Management District for continuation of the Tampa Bay Reservoir 

Project; 

119. $1,000,000 to the Southwest Florida Water Management District for Tampa Bay Reclaimed Water and Downstream Augmentation Project; 

120. $500,000 to the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District for the Peace River and Myakka River Watershed Restoration Initiative; 

112 

121. $500,000 to the City of Clearwater, Florida for the 

Wastewater and Reclaimed Water Infrastructure Project; 

122. $1,000,000 to the City of Tampa, Florida for sediment 

removal from estuaries of the headwaters at the canals; 

123. $500,000 to the City of Treasure Island, Florida for 

wastewater and sewer system upgrades; 

124. $900,000 to the City of Albany, Georgia storm water infrastructure improvements; 

125. $400,000 to the City of Americus, Georgia for sewer 

service expansion; 

126. $1,000,000 to the City of Atlanta, Georgia for the 

McDaniel Basin Combined Sewer Overflow Separation project; 

127. $1,000,000 for Columbus Water Works, Columbus, 

Georgia for its Biosolids Flow-Through Thermophilic Treatment Demonstration Project; 

128. $250,000 to the City of Plains, Georgia for water infrastructure improvements; 

129. $100,000 to the City of Social Circle, Georgia for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

130. $100,000 to the City of Thomasville, Georgia for extension of sewer lines; 

131. $150,000 to the City of Moultrie, Georgia for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

132. $200,000 to Columbus Water Works, Columbus, Georgia 

for the Columbus Biosolids Flow-Through Thermophilic Treatment Advanced Demonstration Project; 

133. $150,000 to the City of Summerville, Georgia for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

134. $200,000 to Polk County, Georgia for the Polk County 

Wastewater Collection System; 

135. $250,000 to the City of Roswell, Georgia for the Big 

Creek Watershed Project; 

136. $1,000,000 to the City of Atlanta, Georgia for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

137. $750,000 to the City of Moultrie, Georgia for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

138. $700,000 for the Metropolitan North Georgia Planning 

District for water infrastructure improvements in North Atlanta Metropolitan Area, Georgia; 

139. $200,000 to the City of Atlanta, Georgia for pump station improvements; 

140. $150,000 to the City of Byron, Georgia for water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

141. $250,000 to the City of Social Circle, Georgia for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

142. $250,000 to the Guam Waterworks Authority for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements in the Territory 

of Guam; 

143. $150,000 to the Maui County Department of Water Supply for the lead reduction in Upcountry Maui in Upcountry 

Maui, Hawaii; 

144. $150,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for storm 

water infrastructure improvements to the Closes Creek Watershed; 

113 

145. $250,000 to the City of Storm Lake, Iowa for water infrastructure improvements; 

146. $250,000 to the City of Postville, Iowa for the completion of the Postville wastewater facility; 

147. $500,000 to the City of Mason City, Iowa for completion 

of the Mason City water treatment plant; 

148. $450,000 to the City of Ft. Madison, Iowa for water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

149. $450,000 to the City of Ottumwa, Iowa for the South 

Ottumwa Sewer Separation project; 

150. $500,000 to the City of Davenport, Iowa for the 

Westside Diversion Tunnel; 

151. $200,000 to the City of Castleford, Idaho for water infrastructure improvements; 

152. $450,000 to the City of Castleford, Idaho for water infrastructure improvements; 

153. $600,000 to the City of Twin Falls, Idaho for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

154. $750,000 to the City of Pocatello, Idaho for water infrastructure improvements; 

155. $150,000 to the City of Lockport, Illinois for water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

156. $300,000 to the Village of Johnsburg, Illinois for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

157. $300,000 to the Lake County Storm Water Management 

Community for the Lake County Watershed Plan in Lake 

County, Illinois; 

158. $200,000 to the City of Silvis, Illinois for water infrastructure improvements; 

159. $200,000 to the Village of Newark, Illinois for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

160. $200,000 to the Village of Paw Paw, Illinois for construction of an elevated water storage tower; 

161. $200,000 to the Village of Annawan, Illinois for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

162. $650,000 to the Salt Creek Sanitary District in Villa 

Park, Illinois for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

163. $300,000 to the Village of East Hazel Crest, Illinois for 

water infrastructure improvements; 

164. $200,000 to the City of Lexington, Illinois for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

165. $400,000 to Lake County, Illinois for wastewater infrastructure improvements on the Des Plaines River; 

166. $500,000 to the City of Peoria, Illinois for stormwater 

management; 

167. $542,500 to the Village of Bartonville, Illinois for storm 

sewer improvements in Broadmoor Heights; 

168. $500,000 to the Village of Arenzville, Illinois for water 

infrastructure improvements; 

169. $500,000 to the Village of Argenta, Illinois for water infrastructure improvements; 

170. $500,000 to the Village of North Pekin, Illinois for water 

infrastructure improvements; 

114 

171. $357,500 to the City of Spring Valley, Illinois for water 

infrastructure improvements; 172. $250,000 to the City of Virginia, Illinois for water infrastructure improvements; 173. $500,000 to the City of Pekin, Illinois for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 174. $250,000 to the City of Lincoln, Illinois to repair and 

slip line Pulaski Street sewer line; 175. $350,000 to the Village of La Grange, Illinois for water 

infrastructure improvements; 176. $550,000 to the Village of Fox River Grove, Illinois for 

Phase II sewer plant infrastructure improvements; 177. $250,000 to the City of Shelbyville, Illinois for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 178. $250,000 to the City of Breese, Illinois for construction 

of the Breese Water Plant; 

179. $100,000 to the Village of Mazon, Illinois for water infrastructure improvements; 180. $200,000 for Will County, Illinois for the feasibility 

study for sanitary district expansion; 181. $300,000 to the City of Marion, Indiana for water infrastructure improvements associated with the Water Loop 

Project in Grant County, Indiana; 182. $200,000 to the City of Crawford, Indiana for the design 

and construction phases of the Crawfordsville Eastside Sanitary Sewer Project; 183. $500,000 to the City of Frankfort, Indiana for construction of the Eastside Drainage/Detention Facility; 184. $150,000 to the City of Indianapolis, Indiana for sewer 

rehabilitation in northeast Indianapolis; 185. $150,000 to the City of Rockport, Indiana for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 186. $300,000 to the City of Evansville, Indiana for the Pigeon Creek Enhancement Project; 

187. $200,000 to the City of New Castle, Indiana for the sanitary sewer and sanitary forcemain project; 

188. $330,000 to the City of Lowell, Indiana for construction 

of additional water lines; 

189. $400,000 to the City of Hebron, Indiana for water infrastructure improvements; 

190. $250,000 to the City of Mission, Kansas for construction 

and expansion of a storm water flow management system; 

191. $350,000 to the City of Harper, Kansas for water infrastructure improvements; 

192. $150,000 to the Town of North Middletown, Kentucky 

for North Middletown water and sewer improvements; 

193. $100,000 to the City of Shepherdsville, Kentucky for 

storm water compliance; 

194. $100,000 to the City of Hillview, Kentucky for the 

Hillview Storm water Compliance; 

195. $200,000 to Bath County, Kentucky for water infrastructure improvements; 

196. $1,000,000 to the Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, Kentucky to construct a gravity interceptor 

sewer; 

115 

197. $500,000 to the City of Whitesburg, Kentucky for construction of a wastewater treatment plant; 198. $1,000,000 for the Perry County Fiscal Court in Hazard, 

Kentucky for the construction of a wastewater treatment plant; 199. $150,000 to the City of Jamestown, Kentucky for the 

water treatment plant; 200. $150,000 to the City of Monroe for the Monroe Wastewater Improvement Program in Monroe, Louisiana; 201. $200,000 to the Village of Slaughter, Louisiana for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 202. $200,000 to the West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 203. $150,000 to the Village of Cankton, Louisiana for water 

infrastructure improvements; 204. $250,000 to the City of Shreveport, Louisiana for the 

Municipal Water Distribution System—Backflow Prevention; 205. $200,000 to the City of Shreveport, Louisiana for watershed protection; 206. $500,000 for the South Central Planning & Development Commission for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements in New Iberia, St. Charles, Morgan City, St. Bernard and St. James, Louisiana; 

207. $250,000 to the City of Slidell, Louisiana for storm 

water infrastructure improvements; 208. $200,000 to the City of Boston, Massachusetts to continue efforts to address deteriorating groundwater levels in the 

Greater Boston area; 

209. $200,000 for the Towns of Braintree, Holbrook and Randolph in Massachusetts for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 210. $950,000 to the Cities of Fall River and New Bedford, 

Massachusetts for combined sewer overflow projects; 211. $200,000 to the City of Lawrence, Massachusetts for 

combined sewer overflow mitigation; 

212. $400,000 to the City of Leomister, Massachusetts for 

the Rockwell Village revitalization initiative for water infrastructure improvements; 

213. $250,000 for the Southwest Sewerage District for wastewater infrastructure improvements in Lynn, Newburyport, 

Gloucester, Ipswich, Amesbury, Manchester, Essex and Rockport, Massachusetts; 

214. $250,000 to the City of Salisbury, Maryland for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

215. $250,000 to the City of Cambridge, Maryland for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

216. $250,000 to the City of Elkton, Maryland for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

217. $100,000 to Prince George’s County, Maryland for the 

Livable Community Initiative in Brentwood, North Brentwood, 

Edmonston and Cottage City, Maryland; 

218. $250,000 for Prince George’s County, Maryland for the 

Anacostia Trash Reduction Program and Removal of Floatable 

Trash for the Cities of Brentwood and Edmonston, Maryland; 

219. $200,000 to the Town of Windham, Maine for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

116 

220. $500,000 to the City of Brewer, Maine for the sewer improvements project; 

221. $900,000 to Wayne County, Michigan for the Rouge 

River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project; 

222. $500,000 to the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan for 

combined sewer overflows; 

223. $250,000 to the Genesee County Drain Commission for 

the Northeast Relief Sewer/Kearsley Creek Interceptor project 

in Genesee County, Michigan; 

224. $350,000 to the City of Detroit, Michigan for the 

Woodmere Sewage Pump Station Rehabilitation; 

225. $1,000,000 to the Oakland County Drain Commission 

for Evergreen-Farmington Sanitary Sewer Overflow control 

project in Farmington Hills, Michigan; 

226. $500,000 to the Oakland County Drain Commission for 

Footing Drain/Sewer Lead Excess Flow Prevention demonstration project in Waterford, Michigan; 

227. $200,000 for Oakland County, Michigan to identify and 

eliminate sewage contributions from older urban areas in the 

Clinton River; 

228. $200,000 to the City of Westland, Michigan for water infrastructure improvements; 

229. $650,000 for Macomb County and St. Clair County, 

Michigan to implement a comprehensive water quality monitoring program; 

230. $300,000 to Brighton Township, Michigan for a waterline construction; 

231. $300,000 for the Livingston County Drain Commission 

for drain construction in Livingston County, Michigan; 

232. $250,000 to L’Anse Township, Michigan for water and 

sewer infrastructure improvements; 

233. $250,000 to the City of Roseau, Minnesota for storm 

water infrastructure improvements; 

234. $600,000 to the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota for the 

combined sewer overflow; 

235. $350,000 to the City of Joplin, Missouri for the Crossroads Parallel Sewer Phase 4 upgrades; 

236. $200,000 to the City of St. Louis, Department of Public 

Utilities for the Columbia Bottoms Wellfield Development 

water project in St. Louis, Missouri; 

237. $250,000 to the Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water 

Commission for water infrastructure improvements in Monroe 

County, Missouri; 

238. $250,000 to the Duckett Creek Sanitary District for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

239. $200,000 to the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians for 

an Academic Wetlands and Wetlands Mitigation Project in 

Neshoba County, Mississippi; 

240. $300,000 for Lamar County, Mississippi for water and 

sewer infrastructure improvements; 

241. $500,000 to the City of Belmont, Mississippi for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

242. $500,000 to the City of Pontotoc, Mississippi for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

117 

243. $150,000 for the Rosodyn Corporation in Butte, Montana for a waste recovery from municipal waste treatment 

plant; 

244. $150,000 to the City of Macon, North Carolina for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

245. $200,000 to the Cleveland County Sanitary District of 

Lawndale, North Carolina for water system improvements; 

246. $250,000 to the Town of Landis, North Carolina for 

water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

247. $200,000 to Harnett County, North Carolina to install 

pump stations and a forcemain as part of a central wastewater 

treatment rehabilitation project; 

248. $200,000 to the Towns of Biscoe, Star, and Troy, North 

Carolina for the Montgomery County, North Carolina Sewer 

Project; 

249. $200,000 to the Towns of Hamlet-Rockingham, North 

Carolina for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

250. $200,000 to the Town of Farmville, North Carolina for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

251. $150,000 to the Cities of East Arcadia, Bolton and 

Sandyfield, North Carolina for a regional water system; 

252. $200,000 to the Town of Wendell, North Carolina for 

the Buffalo Creek Interceptor project; 

253. $250,000 to the City of Charlotte, North Carolina for 

the wastewater plant expansion; 

254. $200,000 to the Town of Apex, North Carolina for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

255. $1,500,000 to Wake County, North Carolina for water 

infrastructure improvements in cooperation with the Town of 

Cary, North Carolina and Durham County, North Carolina; 

256. $500,000 to Orange County, North Carolina for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

257. $650,000 to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority 

(OWASA) for a water reuse project; 

258. $200,000 to the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina 

for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

259. $880,000 for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians for 

water infrastructure improvements in Cherokee, North Carolina; 

260. $1,000,000 for McDowell County, North Carolina for 

water infrastructure improvements; 

261. $100,000 to the Town of East Spencer, North Carolina 

for water and sewer rehabilitation project; 

262. $150,000 to the City of Devils Lake, North Dakota for 

the Devils Lake water line; 

263. $200,000 to South Sioux City, Nebraska for wastewater 

infrastructure improvements; 

264. $300,000 to the City of Lincoln, Nebraska for water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

265. $550,000 to the City of Omaha, Nebraska for the Combined Sewerage Overflow Project; 

266. $150,000 to the City of Nashua, New Hampshire for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

118 

267. $200,000 to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services for sewer system expansion in Franklin, 

New Hampshire; 

268. $200,000 to the City of Somerworth, New Hampshire for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

269. $1,000,000 to the Township of Parsippany, New Jersey 

for water infrastructure improvements; 

270. $250,000 to the City of Wildwood, New Jersey for storm 

sewer outflow reconstruction; 

271. $250,000 to the New Jersey Municipal Utilities Authority for the Peninsula at Bayonne Harbor Water Infrastructure 

Improvement Project in Bayonne, New Jersey; 

272. $400,000 for the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission 

for the Combined Sewage Overflow Program; 

273. $100,000 for the Bergen County Utilities Authority for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements in Englewood, New 

Jersey; 

274. $300,000 for the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission 

for the Hackensack Meadowlands Ecosystem Restoration; 

275. $100,000 to the City of Lordsburg, New Mexico for 

water infrastructure improvements; 

276. $100,000 to the City of Bayard, New Mexico for the Ft. 

Bayard Effluent Reuse System; 

277. $150,000 to the City of Ruidoso Downs, New Mexico for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

278. $150,000 to the City of Elephant Butte, New Mexico for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

279. $150,000 to the City of Los Lunas, New Mexico to build 

a sewer interceptor line; 

280. $150,000 to the City of Espanola, New Mexico for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

281. $200,000 to the City of Tijeras, New Mexico for water 

infrastructure improvements; 

282. $200,000 for Bernalillo County, New Mexico for the 

South and North water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

283. $400,000 to the City of Fallon, Nevada for wastewater 

infrastructure improvements; 

284. $400,000 to the City of Henderson, Nevada for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

285. $200,000 to the City of Brookhaven, New York for storm 

water infrastructure improvements; 

286. $100,000 to the Chenango County Agricultural Society 

of Chenango County, New York for upgrades to the water and 

septic systems at the Chenango County Fair Grounds and for 

a study; 

287. $125,000 to the Town of Schulyer, New York for water 

system improvements; 

288. $200,000 to the Village of Bridgewater, New York for 

water infrastructure improvements; 

289. $200,000 to the Towns of Springport and Fleming, New 

York for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

290. $300,000 to Rockland County, New York for the Western Ramapo sewer extension and water reuse project; 

119 

291. $250,000 to the Village of Deposit, New York for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

292. $250,000 to the Town of BloomingMove, ew—Yor infrastructure improvements; 

293. $300,000 to the Village of Sea Cliff, New York for the 

Sanitary Sewer System Infrastructure Development and Management project; 

294. $110,000 for the Village of Mamaroneck, New York for 

sewer system improvements; 

295. $150,000 to the Town of New Castle, New York for the 

Phase 11 Storm Water Compliance Program; 

296. $250,000 to the City of Oswego, New York for sewer 

overflow system improvements; 

297. $275,000 for the Wamerville Water District in 

Wamerville, New York for a water and sewer project; 

298. $350,000 to the Town of Cheektowaga, New York for 

the Plant No. 3 overflow retention facility; 

299. $400,000 to the Erie Water Authority for water infrastructure improvements for the Town of Newstead and Village 

of Williamsville, New York; 

300. $200,000 to the Town/Village of East Rochester, New 

York for sewer infrastructure improvements; 

301. $1,000,000 for Dutchess County Water and Wastewater 

Authority in Hyde Park, New York for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

302. $12,000,000 for continued clean water improvements for 

Onondaga Lake, New York; 

303. $4,000,000 to Monroe County Water Authority in New 

York State for the Eastside Water Treatment Project; 

304. $900,000 to Wayne County, New York for construction 

of a waterline along North Geneva Road; 

305. $600,000 to the Wayne County Water and Sewer Authority for water infrastructure improvements in the Town of 

Huron, New York; 

306. $4,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure needs in 

the New York City Watershed; 

307. $4,000,000 for water quality infrastructure improvements for Long Island Sound, New York; 

308. $1,000,000 for water quality infrastructure improvements for the Jamesville, New York sewer project; 

309. $350,000 to the Town of Elbridge, New York for the construction of a waterline; 

310. $150,000 to the City of Lorain, Ohio for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

311. $150,000 to Butler County, Ohio for the Butler County 

Waterline; 

312. $300,000 to the Village of North Baltimore, Ohio for the 

Water Street Combined Sewer Separation Project; 

313. $300,000 to the Village of Hicksville, Ohio for the Hicksville Wastewater Treatment Plant Project; 

314. $300,000 to the City of Defiance, Ohio for the Sewer 

Separation Project; 

315. $750,000 to the City of Circleville, Ohio for sewer infrastructure improvements; 

120 

316. $1,000,000 to the Burr Oak Regional Water District for 

water infrastructure improvements in Perry County, Ohio; 317. $550,000 to Greene County, Ohio for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 318. $50,000 to the Logan Elm School District for water infrastructure improvements in Circleville, Ohio; 319. $220,000 to the Lancaster Campus of Ohio University 

for water infrastructure improvements in Lancaster, Ohio; 320. $155,000 to Fairfield County, Ohio for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 321. $350,000 to the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District 

for the Easterly/Doan Brook Watershed Pollution Abatement 

Project; 322. $1,000,000 to the City of Toledo, Ohio for wet weather 

flow and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 323. $1,000,000 to Ottawa County, Ohio for water infrastructure improvements; 324. $1,000,000 to the City of Sandusky, Ohio for wastewater 

infrastructure improvements; 325. $350,000 to Ashtabula County, Ohio for the Rock Creek 

Village Waterline Extension; 326. $50,000 to Bloomfield Township, Ohio for a water line 

project for Winchester Vega Road; 327. $550,000 to Guernsey County, Ohio for a water line extension; 

328. $500,000 for the St. Mary’s Municipal Government for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements in St. Mary’s, Ohio; 329. $500,000 for Urbana University in Urbana, Ohio for 

storm drainage and water and sewer line construction; 330. $500,000 for the Delphos Municipal Government for the 

Tri-County regional water system in Delphos, Ohio; 331. $550,000 to the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater 

Cincinnati for the sanitary sewer overflow demonstration 

project in Cincinnati, Ohio; 

332. $500,000 to the City of Wooster, Ohio for storm water 

infrastructure improvements along Beall Ave; 

333. $500,000 to the Village of Hayesville, Ohio for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

334. $500,000 to the City of Canton, Ohio for water infrastructure improvements; 

335. $150,000 for the Trumbull County Sanitary Engineer 

for installation of the Maplewood Park sewer system in Hubbard Township, Ohio; 

336. $250,000 for Columbiana County, Ohio for water infrastructure improvements to the Buckeye Water District; 

337. $100,000 to the City of Marlow, Oklahoma for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

338. $200,000 to the City of Sulpher, Oklahoma for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

339. $1,000,000 to the City of Seminole, Oklahoma for water 

infrastructure improvements; 

340. $80,000 to the City of Meeker, Oklahoma to refurbish 

the water tower; 

341. $100,000 to Skiatook, Oklahoma for water and sewer infrastructure improvements; 

121 

342. $150,000 to the City of Portland, Oregon for water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

343. $150,000 to the City of Sweet Home, Oregon for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

344. $150,000 to the City of Salem, Oregon for the Peak Excess Flow Treatment Facility for Sanitary Sewer Overflows; 

345. $200,000 to the City of Klamath Falls, Oregon for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

346. $150,000 to the City of Rainier, Oregon for wastewater 

infrastructure improvements; 

347. $1,000,000 to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania for the 3 

Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Project; 

348. $100,000 to the City of Sharon, Pennsylvania for the 

Budd Street sewer line replacement; 

349. $500,000 to the City of Philadelphia to continue the 

planning, design, and construction of innovative storm-water 

management solutions in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 

350. $500,000 to Cheltenham Township, Pennsylvania to 

continue the planning, design, and construction of innovative 

storm-water management solutions; 

351. $250,000 to Beaver Falls Municipal Authority for wastewater infrastructure improvements to the Big Beaver Treatment Facility in Big Beaver, Pennsylvania; 

352. $250,000 to the City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania for 

the Harrisburg Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility; 

353. $350,000 to the Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority in 

Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania for the Wyoming Valley Combined Sewer Overflow Project; 

354. $200,000 to Ligonier Township, Pennsylvania for the 

Ligonier Township sewage project; 

355. $250,000 for the South Hills Area Council of Governments for the South Hills Area Storm Sewer Project in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; 

356. $250,000 for the Clarion Area Authority for the Fifth 

Avenue sewer line replacement project in Clarion, Pennsylvania; 

357. $500,000 to the Nelson Township Authority for water 

infrastructure improvements in Nelson, Pennsylvania; 

358. $250,000 to the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania for the 

water treatment membrane project; 

359. $200,000 for York City Sewer Authority for the Clean 

Water Demonstration Project in York, Pennsylvania; 

360. $500,000 for the Kulpmont-Marion Heights Joint Municipal Authority in Kulpmont, Pennsylvania for sewer infrastructure improvements; 

361. $200,000 to the Town of North Smithfield, Rhode Island 

for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

362. $200,000 to the City of Newport, Rhode Island for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

363. $200,000 to the Narragansett Bay Commission in Providence, Rhode Island for combined sewer overflow control and 

wastewater improvement project; 

364. $250,000 to the City of Lake Greenwood, South Carolina for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

122 

365. $150,000 to Mount Pleasant Waterworks for the Mount 

Pleasant Waterworks Rural Roads Gravity Wastewater Extension Project in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina; 

366. $500,000 to the Myrtle Beach Downtown Redevelopment Corporation for a new storm water drainage system in 

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; 

367. $250,000 to the Towns of Olar and Govan, South Carolina for water infrastructure improvements; 

368. $300,000 to the City of Welford, South Carolina for 

sewer/wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

369. $400,000 for the Chester County Sewer District for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements in Lando, South 

Carolina; 

370. $200,000 to the Town of Ridgeland, South Carolina for 

the Wagon Branch Water Project; 

371. $125,000 to the City of Franklin, Tennessee for water 

system improvements to the Watson Branch Watershed; 

372. $150,000 to the City of Pikeville, Tennessee for the 

Pikeville/Bledsoe County Water Improvements Project; 

373. $125,000 to the Hampton Utility District in Little Milligan/Fish Springs Community, Carter County, Tennessee for 

water infrastructure improvements; 

374. $125,000 to the City of Tusculum, Tennessee for first 

construction phase of a wastewater treatment plant; 

375. $50,000 to the City of Bean Station, Tennessee for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

376. $100,000 for Roane County, Tennessee for water infrastructure improvements; 

377. $200,000 to Spring City, Tennessee for water and sewer 

line replacement; 

378. $250,000 for Anderson County, Tennessee for water infrastructure improvements; 

379. $400,000 to the City of Dayton, Tennessee for 

flocculation and settling basins; 

380. $150,000 for the City of Houston, Texas for water infrastructure improvements; 

381. $250,000 to the City of Liberty Hill, Texas for the Liberty Hill Central City Sewer System Project; 

382. $75,000 to the Brazos River Authority for the Brazos/ 

Navasota Watershed Management Project in Fort Bend County, Texas; 

383. $100,000 for the Brazos River Authority for the West 

Fort Bend County Regional Water Treatment Facility in Fort 

Bend County, Texas; 

384. $500,000 for Fort Bend County, Texas for water infrastructure improvements; 

385. $350,000 to Bosque County, Texas for water infrastructure improvements; 

386. $250,000 to the City of Weatherford, Texas for water infrastructure improvements; 

387. $250,000 to the City of Pharr, Texas for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

388. $150,000 to the City of Alvin, Texas for water infrastructure improvements; 

123 

389. $250,000 for the El Paso Water Utilities for water infrastructure expansion in El Paso, Texas; 390. $150,000 to the San Antonio Water System for the 

Espada Road Sewer Project in San Antonio, Texas; 391. $500,000 to the City of Austin, Texas for the non-structural sanitary sewer overflow prevention project; 392. $250,000 to the City of Abilene, Texas for the Brazos G 

regional water plan and water infrastructure improvements; 393. $150,000 to Logan City, Utah for water and wastewater 

infrastructure improvements for Phase I and II of the Northwest Park Project; 394. $250,000 to Smyth County, Virginia for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 395. $500,000 to Hanover County, Virginia for wastewater 

infrastructure improvements; 396. $150,000 to Fauquier County, Virginia for a sewage 

treatment plant in the Catlett/Calverton area; 397. $750,000 to Dale Service Corporation in Dale City, Virginia for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 398. $100,000 to the Isle of Wight County, Virginia for water 

infrastructure improvements; 399. $500,000 to the Town of Halifax, Virginia for water infrastructure improvements; 400. $1,000,000 to Franklin County, Virginia for water infrastructure improvements; 401. $500,000 to Fluvanna County, Virginia for water infrastructure improvements; 402. $1,000,000 to the Town of Brookneal, Virginia for water 

infrastructure improvements; 403. $218,000 to Nelson County, Virginia for water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 404. $682,000 to Pittsylvania County, Virginia for water infrastructure improvements; 405. $200,000 to the Eastern Shore of Virginia Public Service 

Authority in Northhampton County, Virginia for wastewater 

infrastructure improvements; 

406. $250,000 to the Government of the Virgin Islands for 

wastewater infrastructure system improvements in St. Croix, 

Virgin Islands; 

407. $150,000 to the City of Chehalis, Washington for water 

infrastructure improvements; 

408. $1,000,000 to the City of Tacoma, Washington for an integrated storm water system for Salishan housing development; 

409. $350,000 to the Greenwater Mutual Water Association 

for water infrastructure improvements in the community of 

Greenwater, Washington; 

410. $200,000 to the City of Carson, Washington for water 

infrastructure improvements; 

411. $200,000 to the City of Oak Harbor, Washington for 

water infrastructure improvements; 

412. $150,000 to the Town of Uniontown, Washington for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

413. $500,000 to the Town of Ione, Washington for water infrastructure improvements; 

124 

414. $150,000 to the City of Lakewood, Washington for the 

American Lake Gardens Industrial Sewer Extension; 

415. $150,000 to the City of Sun Prairie, Wisconsin for 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 416. $200,000 to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District for the Central Metropolitan Interceptor System in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; 

417. $1,850,000 to the City of Antigo, Wisconsin for water 

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 418. $862,000 to the City of Vesper, Wisconsin for water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 419. $1,500,000 to the City of Boyd, Wisconsin for water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements; 420. $100,000 to the Town of Scott, Wisconsin for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 421. $200,000 to the City of Racine, Wisconsin for water infrastructure improvements; 422. $500,000 to the City of Waukesha, Wisconsin for systems planning and water infrastructure improvements; 423. $200,000 to the Kanawha County Commission in 

Kanawha County, West Virginia for the Upper Fishers Branch/ 

Guthrie Water Project; 424. $200,000 to the Braxton County Development Authority 

for the Curry Ridge Water Line Extension in Curry Ridge, 

West Virginia; 425. $1,000,000 to the Marshall County Public Service District #4 in West Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 426. $100,000 to the Jane Lew Public Service District in 

Harrison County, West Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 427. $1,500,000 to the Pleasants County Public Service District in West Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure 

improvements; 

428. $480,000 to the Grant County Commission in West Virginia to extend water service to the Deep Spring area; 

429. $900,000 to the City of Shinnston in West Virginia for 

water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

430. $750,000 to the Town of Pine Grove in West Virginia for 

water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

431. $1,000,000 to City of Fairmont Sanitary Sewer Board in 

West Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

432. $2,374,000 to the City of Petersburg in West Virginia 

for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

433. $101,000 to the River Road Public Service District in 

West Virginia to extend water service on National Church Hollow Road; 

434. $935,000 to the Taylor County Public Service District in 

West Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

435. $833,000 to the Taylor County Commission in West Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

436. $1,000,000 to the City of Cameron in West Virginia for 

water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 

125 

437. $55,000 to the Hammond Public Service District in 

West Virginia for the Lazear’s Lane water project; 

438. $1,840,000 to the Canaan Valley Institute to work in 

conjunction with the Highlands Action Program for the design 

of an innovative wastewater demonstration program in Canaan 

Valley in Tucker County, West Virginia; 

439. $350,000 to the City of Cheyenne, Wyoming for wastewater infrastructure improvements. 

As in past years, targeted grants shall be accompanied by a costshare requirement whereby 45 percent of a project’s cost is the responsibility of the community or entity receiving the grant. In 

those few cases where such cost-share requirement poses a particular financial burden on the recipient community or entity, the 

Committee supports the Agency’s use of its long-standing guidance 

for financial capability assessments to determine reductions or 

waivers from this match requirement. But for the limited instances 

in which an applicant meets the criteria for a waiver, the Committee has provided no more than 55% of an individual project’s 

cost, regardless of the amount appropriated below. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee has again this year included an administrative 

provision giving the Administrator specific authority to, in the absence of an acceptable tribal program, award cooperative agreements to federally recognized Indian Tribes or Intertribal consortia 

so as to properly carry out EPA’s environmental programs. 

When Congress enacted the Pesticide Registration Improvement 

Act (PRIA) of 2003 to allow EPA to collect new pesticide registration fees, it specifically prohibited the collection of any new Tolerance Fees by the EPA. However, the Administration proposed registration fees as part of its fiscal year 2005 budget in conflict with 

this newly passed statute. The Committee is concerned that EPA 

is needlessly spending time proposing fees and promulgating rules 

when other more productive pesticide work could be completed. The 

Committee expects the Agency to use its time and resources on 

useful programs. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $7,081,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 6,986,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 7,081,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +95,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... 0 

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was created 

by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and 

Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP advises the President and other agencies within the Executive Office on science and technology policies 

and coordinates research and development programs for the Federal Government. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,081,000 for 

fiscal year 2005, an increase of $95,000 above the fiscal year 2004 

appropriation and the same level as the budget request. 

126 

The Committee is disappointed that the efforts of the High End 

Computing Revitalization Task Force (HEC RTF), under the lead 

of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), did not 

translate into fiscal year 2005 funding requests for any non-defense 

agencies other than the Department of Energy. For FY 2006, the 

Committee expects OSTP to commit time and resources coordinating with participating agencies so they take into account the 

need for broad and coordinated participation in high-end computing 

and make their budget requests accordingly. 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $3,284,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 3,219,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 3,284,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +65,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established by 

Congress under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ), which provides professional and administrative staff for the Council, was established in the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970. 

The Council on Environmental Policy has statutory responsibility 

under NEPA for environmental oversight of all Federal agencies 

and is to lead interagency decision-making of all environmental 

matters. 

For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has recommended the budget request of $3,284,000 for the CEQ and OEQ, an increase of 

$65,000 above last year’s spending level. 

As in previous years, bill language is included which stipulates 

that, notwithstanding the National Environmental Policy Act, the 

CEQ can operate with one council member and that member shall 

be considered the chairman for purposes of conducting the business 

of the CEQ and OEQ. 

The Committee requests that the Chairman of the Council on 

Environmental Quality conduct a review of existing federal water 

reuse, recycling, and reclamation programs and report to Congress 

on the authorization level of such programs and appropriated funding for such programs. The CEQ Chairman should submit this report to Congress not later than March 31, 2005. 

The Committee directs CEQ, in coordination with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, to contract with the National Academy of 

Sciences within 60 days of enactment to conduct a study of the environmental, including landscape/viewshed, impacts of wind energy 

projects in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. This study is to conclude 

with appropriate viewshed and other criteria for the siting of wind 

turbines in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $30,125,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 30,125,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 30,125,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. 0 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

127 

Funding for the Office of the Inspector General at the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation is provided pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 

1105(a)(25), which requires a separate appropriation account for 

appropriations for each Office of Inspector General of an establishment defined under section 11(2) of the Inspector General Act of 

1978. 

The Committee recommendation, the same as the budget re- quest, provides for the transfer of $30,125,000 from the Bank Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and the 

FSLIC Resolution Fund to finance the Office of Inspector General 

for fiscal year 2004. 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL CITIZEN INFORMATION CENTER FUND

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $14,907,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 13,917,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 14,907,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +990,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... 0 

The Consumer Information Center (CIC) was established within 

the General Services Administration (GSA) by Executive Order on 

October 26, 1970, to help Federal departments and agencies promote and distribute consumer information collected as a byproduct 

of the Government’s program activities. 

The Federal Information Center (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 a nationwide toll-free telephone call center. 

In 2000, the Consumer Information Center assumed responsibility for the operations of the FIC program with the resulting organization being officially named the Federal Consumer Information Center. The Federal Consumer Information Center combines 

the nationwide toll-free telephone assistance program and the database of the FIC with the CIC website and publications distribution 

programs. 

During fiscal year 2002, the Federal Consumer Information Center became part of GSA’s newly established Office of Citizen Services and Communications and was renamed the Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC). The new Office serves as a central federal 

gateway for citizens, businesses, other governments, and the media 

to obtain information and services from the government. FCIC assumed operational control of the FirstGov.gov website in fiscal year 

2002. 

Public Law 98–63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a revolving 

fund for the CIC. 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, 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. The bill 

includes a limitation of $18,000,000 on the availability of the reVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
128 

volving fund. Any revenues accruing to this fund in excess of this 

amount shall remain in the fund and are not available for expenditure except as authorized in appropriation Acts. For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends $14,907,000, an increase of $990,000 over the level for fiscal year 2004 and the 

same as the budget request. 

The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 

Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, user 

fees from the public, and other income. 

U.S. INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON THE HOMELESSNESS OPERATING

EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $1,500,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 1,491,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 1,500,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +9,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for operating expenses of 

the Interagency Council on Homelessness. 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $15,149,369,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 15,378,032,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 16,244,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥228,663,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... ¥1,094,631,000 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created 

by the National Space Act of 1958. NASA conducts aeronautics research; research, development, and flight operations scientific 

spacecraft, and other activities designed to ensure and maintain 

U.S. preeminence in aeronautics, science, and space exploration. 

The Committee has recommended a total program level of $15,149,369,000 in fiscal year 2005, which is a decrease of 

$1,094,631,000 from the budget request and a decrease of 

$228,663,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2004 enacted appropriation. 

The budget submission proposed the renaming of two existing 

appropriations paragraphs. The Committee has accepted the new 

title of Exploration Capabilities for activities that were, for the 

most part, included as Space Flight Capabilities in the fiscal year 

2004 appropriations Act. The Committee has not changed the title 

of the Science, Aeronautics and Explorations account, where the 

proposed change was to simply reorder the three words. While the 

Committee is supportive of the exploration aspect of NASA’s vision, 

the Committee does not believe it warrants top billing over science 

and aeronautics. 

For the second time in the last three years, NASA has failed to 

pass an independent financial audit. Among the material weaknesses identified by the most recent audit was a $1.743 billion discrepancy between NASA’s fund balance and the U.S. Treasury’s reported balance as of September 30, 2003. The Committee understands that NASA has reconciled and corrected $1.6 billion of the 

$1.743 billion in fiscal year 2003 audit differences and that NASA 

expects to reconcile the remaining $143 million by September 2004. 

The Committee requests that NASA submit a report to the ComVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
129 

mittee documenting the reconciliation and correction of the full 

amount by September 30, 2004. 

The Committee notes that NASA was provided with limited Enhanced-Use Lease authority in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations 

Act and has selected two locations for pilot programs as specified 

in the Act. The Committee directs NASA to provide a report to the 

Congress within 120 days on the results of the program with recommendations for expansion if warranted. 

SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND EXPLORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $7,621,169,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 7,830,200,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 7,760,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥209,031,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... ¥138,831,000 

This appropriation provides for the research and development activities, and all associated costs of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. These activities include: space science, earth 

science, biological and physical research, aeronautics, and education programs. 

The Committee recommends $7,621,169,000 for Science, Aeronautics and Exploration in fiscal year 2005. The amount recommended is a decrease of $138,831,000 from the budget request, 

and a decrease of $209,031,000 from the fiscal year 2004 level as 

estimated in this new account structure. 

SPACE SCIENCE

The Committee believes that the planetary exploration and space 

science programs at NASA are essential to the mission and success 

of the federal space program. Therefore, the Committee provides 

full funding for several important NASA missions. The Committee 

supports the continued robust program for the exploration of Mars 

at $691 million. In addition to supporting several critical, ongoing 

missions such as the Mars Exploration Rovers and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, this level will also fund major initiatives which 

will usher NASA into a new generation of discovery. In addition to 

Mars exploration, the Committee provides $155.1 million for the 

Space Interferometry Mission, which will determine the positions 

and distances of stars several hundred times more accurately than 

any previous program. Project Prometheus is supported at a reduced level, with a concentration on basic research into the development of space power systems and space nuclear propulsion systems. 

The Committee notes that the National Academy of Sciences has 

recently issued an interim report on the usefulness of the Hubble 

Space Telescope and has provided some observations on the options 

being considered for extending the life of the mission. The Committee encourages NASA to heed the advice of the Academy, including a further evaluation of the option of using the shuttle to 

perform a servicing mission. The Committee has taken no action at 

this time with regard to funding for the Hubble program, but will 

re-evaluate the programs needs as they become more defined. 

130 

The amount provided reflects the following program and project 

adjustments within the space science enterprise. 

1. A decrease of $12,400,000 associated with a delay in the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission; 

2. A decrease of $70,000,000 associated with a one year delay in 

the Lunar Exploration mission; 

3. A decrease of $15,000,000 from other Technology and Advanced Concepts; 

4. A decrease of $5,000,000 from other research within the Structure and Evolution of the Universe theme; 

5. A decrease of $5,000,000 from Living With a Star in the SunEarth Connection theme; 

6. An increase of $250,000 for the Detroit Science Center; 

7. An increase of $15,900,000 for the Institute for Scientific Research, Inc. for development and construction of research facilities; 

8. An increase of $2,100,000 for continued development of a lightweight carrier pallet to increase NASA’s payload capacity for space 

shuttle servicing missions; 

9. An increase of $500,000 for the Sacramento Space Science 

Center at California State University; 

10. An increase of $2,000,000 for telescope construction at the 

Pisgah Astronomical Research Center; 

11. The Committee directs $3,000,000 from NASA Space Science 

be transferred to the Air Force Research Laboratory to begin development of miniature synthetic radar technology. 

EARTH SCIENCE

The amount provided reflects the following program and project 

adjustments within the earth science enterprise. 

1. A decrease of $15,000,000 from the Orbit Carbon Observatory 

mission resulting in a delay in the program; 

2. A decrease of $20,000,000 from the CCRI(Glory) mission resulting in a delay in the program; 

3. An increase of $500,000 to the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences for NASA Earth Science integration planning; 

4. An increase of $500,000 for continuation of emerging research 

that applies remote sensing technologies to forest management 

practices at the State University of New York, College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry; 

5. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Advanced Interactive Discovery Environment engineering research program at Syracuse 

University; 

6. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Regional Application Center 

for the Northeast; 

7. An increase of $15,900,000 for the Institute for Scientific Research, Inc. for development and construction of research facilities; 

8. An increase of $1,500,000 for on-going activities of the Goddard Institute for Systems, Software, and Technology Research, including mission design tools, Earth Science analysis, and remote 

sensing instrumentation development; 

9. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Goddard Space Flight Center’s Clustering and Advanced Visual Environments Initiative; 

131 

10. An increase of $1,000,000 for the University of San Francisco 

Center for Science and the Environment; 

11. An increase of $500,000 for hyper spectral remote sensing research and development at the Desert Research Institute; 

12. An increase of $400,000 for Space Place; 

13. An increase of $4,500,000 for the implementation of a remote 

data storage capability at the NASA IV&V Facility. Appropriated 

funds are for augmenting available data storage capacities; expanding remote data storage capabilities to the Goddard Space Flight 

Center and a second DAAC; and communications, facility and integration services at the IV&V Facility to support data backup, recovery, and on-line access capabilities for the Goddard Space Flight 

Center (GSFC) ECS program. 

BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL RESEARCH

The amount provided reflects the following program and project 

adjustments within the biological and physical sciences enterprise: 

1. A decrease of $103,000,000 from the bioastronautics research 

program, in the form of a general reduction based upon undefined 

requirements; 

2. An increase of $3,000,000 for space radiation research at the 

Loma Linda University Medical Center; 

3. An increase of $500,000 for the Northwestern University Institute for Proteomics and Nanobiotechnology; 

4. An increase of $400,000 for Musculoskeletal for Simulator for 

Injuries at the Cleveland Clinic; 

5. An increase of $1,250,000 for the Michigan Research Institute; 

6. An increase of $600,000 to the MCNC-Research and Development Institute (RDI) for continued funding for a Laboratory for 

Distributed Chemical and Biological Sensors; 

7. An increase of $500,000 for gravitational space biology research at North Carolina State University; 8. An increase of $3,000,000 for the National Center of Excellence in Bioinfomatics in Buffalo, New York; 

9. An increase of $1,000,000 for Cryogenic Power Electronics Development at the State University of New York at Albany. 10. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Central New York Biotechnology Research Center in Syracuse, New York; 

11. An increase of $900,000 for the State University of New York 

Downtown Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York for the Advanced 

Biotechnology Incubator project. 

AERONAUTICS

The Federal investments in aeronautics research and development have delivered countless economic and societal benefits to the 

nation over the years. Challenges in dealing with the projected 

growth in air traffic as well as the need to reduce significantly the 

adverse environmental impacts of future aircraft will require that 

NASA remain deeply engaged in aeronautics research and development. The Committee directs NASA to develop a prioritized set of 

aeronautics goals through 2020, along with the annual funding requirements associated with achieving each goal. The plan should be 

provided to the Committee within 120 days. As part of NASA’s investments in this area, the Committee directs NASA to provide 

132 

$25,000,000 for Intelligent Propulsion System Foundation Technologies (Propulsion 21) to continue research by the existing coalition of NASA, state government, industry, and academia. 

The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 

budget request: 

1. An increase of $350,000 for Validated Probabilistic Lifing 

Tools; 

2. An increase of $200,000 for the National Center for Communication Navigation, and Surveillance at Glenn Research Center; 

3. An increase of $350,000 for Aerospace Education Center in 

Cleveland, Ohio; 

4. An increase of $500,000 for the Michigan Small Aircraft 

Transportation System; 

5. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Virginia Institute for Performing Engineering and Research; 

6. An increase of $400,000 for COM Simulation Architecture; 

7. An increase of $700,000 to the Virtual Systems Laboratory of 

the National Aviation Technology Center, School of Aviation, 

Dowling College, New York; 

8. An increase of $1,700,000 for the University of Toledo Turbine 

Institute; 

9. An increase of $300,000 for the Bowling Green State University Hybrid Engine project; 

10. An increase of $600,000 to the Research Triangle Institute, 

International for Synthetic Vision Systems/Combined Vision Systems; 

11. An increase of $500,000 to the University of Alabama in 

Huntsville for a Space Flight Guidance, Navigation, and Control 

Test Bed; 

12. An increase of $3,000,000 for the National Center of Excellence in Infotonics in Rochester, New York; 

13. An increase of $2,100,000 for Research on Advanced Wireless 

Communications for Airport Applications; 

14. An increase of $2,700,000 to research Secure Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS–B) Surveillance data link 

technology for enhanced aviation security and general aviation airspace access; 

15. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Computing, Information 

and Communications Technology Program (CICT) for High Information Density Approaches to Mobile Broadband Internet Communications; 

16. An increase of $5,000,000 for Project SOCRATES; 

17. An increase of $1,000,000 for the National Aviation Technology Center at Dowling College, New York; 

18. An increase of $1,500,000 for Integrated Sensing Systems at 

the Rochester Institute of Technology; 

19. An increase of $500,000 for the development of an Aircraft 

Radio Guidance System (ARGUS) utilizing a new radio frequency 

interferometer that will provide two or three dimensional navigation guidance for airborne, space or surface vehicles; 

20. An increase of $1,000,000 for the development of a Research 

Flight Computing System in support of the NASA Dryden Flight 

Research Center’s Altair/Predator B UAV Technology Demonstrator Project; 

133 

21. An increase of $7,500,000 for the Hydrogen Research Initiative; 

22. An increase of $1,000,000 to the Applied Polymer Technology 

Extension Consortium for research on polymers; 

23. An increase of $3,000,000 to the Mobile Broadband Network 

project, a joint effort between NASA and the Air Force Research 

Laboratory; 

24. An increase of $3,000,000 to be transferred to the Air Force 

Research Laboratory to continue joint research between NASA and 

the Air Force on emerging areas of computing including grid computing, quantum and biomolecular information processing technology. 

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The Committee has included $28,200,000 for the National Space 

Grant College and Fellowship program. This amount is an increase 

of $9,100,000 to the fiscal year 2005 budget request. The amount 

provided will fund 40 states at $575,000 each and 12 states at 

$350,000 each as well as $1,000,000 for administrative expenses. 

The Committee has included $12,000,000 for the Experimental 

Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). The 

amount provided is $7,400,000 above the budget request of 

$4,600,000 and will fund the fourth year of current five-year research grants. 

The amount provided reflects the following program and project 

adjustments within the education programs enterprise. 

1. An increase of $9,100,000 for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship program, for a total funding level of 

$28,200,000 in fiscal year 2005; 

2. An increase of $7,400,000 for the Experimental Program to 

Stimulate Competitive Research, for a total funding level of 

$12,000,000 in fiscal year 2005; 

3. An increase of $500,000 to the State of Alabama for the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative; 

4. An increase of $250,000 for the Education Training Center at 

the U.S. Space and Rocket Center; 

5. An increase of $2,000,000 to the Educational Advancement Alliance, to support the Alliance’s K–12 math, science, and technology 

education enrichment program; 

6. An increase of $400,000 for Albany State University/Darton 

College in Albany, Georgia for the Science, Engineering, Math and 

Aerospace Academy program; 

7. An increase of $250,000 for South Georgia Technical College 

in Americus, Georgia for the Science, Engineering, Math and Aerospace Academy program; 

8. An increase of $250,000 for Albany State University in Albany, 

Georgia for project ‘‘JumpStart’’ for a Math, Science Education Enhancement program for pre-college students; 

9. An increase of $250,000 for the Georgia Project/ABAC College, 

Tifton, Georgia to implement a K–12 program for Hispanic students in science, engineering, math and aerospace in SW Georgia 

who struggle with English as a Second Language; 

10. An increase of $400,000 for the University System of GeorgiaBoard of Regents, Atlanta, Georgia for purchase and implementaVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
134 

tion of a pre-testing software for math and science educational and 

career-related standardized test. 

11. An increase of $100,000 for Georgia Southwestern College in 

Americus, Georgia for grants and scholarships in math and science 

for students implemented through the Multicultural Affairs Program; 12. An increase of $4,000,000 for a new Science Center at St. 

Bonaventure’s University in New York State; 13. An increase of $2,000,000 for the JASON Foundation; 

14. An increase of $300,000 for the Challenger Learning Center 

in Cookeville, Tennessee; 15. An increase of $3,500,000 for Little River Canyon Field 

School; 16. An increase of $250,000 for Hollins University for upgrades 

to its science infrastructure; 17. An increase of $250,000 for the University of New England 

Marine Science Center; 18. An increase of $500,000 for the Liberty Science Center. 

EXPLORATION CAPABILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $7,496,800,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 7,520,700,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 8,456,400,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥23,900,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... ¥959,600,000 

This appropriation provides for the conduct and support of exploration capabilities including human and robotic technology, transportation systems, international space station, space shuttle programs, and flight support. Activities include research, development, 

support and services. Within this appropriation, two major subcategories of funding exist, exploration systems and space flight. 

Funding in the exploration systems category includes technology 

for new space transportations systems and robotics as well as technology transfer programs and activities. Funding in the space flight 

category is provided for continued development and operation of 

the International Space Station, operations and upgrades to the 

performance and safety of the space shuttle, and flight support operations. 

The Committee recommends a total of $7,496,800,000 for the exploration capabilities account in fiscal year 2005, an decrease of 

$959,600,000 from the budget request and a decrease of 

$23,900,000 to the fiscal year 2004 level as estimated in this new 

account structure. 

The reductions in this portion of the budget include $30,000,000 from technology maturation efforts, $230,000,000 from Project Prometheus efforts related to the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, 

$438,000,000 resulting from delaying the Crew Exploration Vehicle, and $100,000,000 from Space Launch Initiative by accelerating 

the termination of activities. 

The Committee finds the significant public support of the new 

Vision for Space Exploration to be noteworthy. The Committee is 

supportive of the new vision, and believes that it will serve to preserve our nation’s leadership in space. The Committee support includes a commitment to the safe return to flight of the space shutVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
135 

tle fleet, the completion of the International Space Station as a 

unique scientific research facility, the implementation of a sustained and affordable robotic program to explore the solar system 

and beyond, and extending human exploration activities beyond 

low-earth orbit in a timely fashion. The Committee expects that 

NASA will take full advantage of the core capabilities and appropriate infrastructure of its field centers while implementing the vision. The Committee believes that a robust space exploration program will help strengthen our nation’s economy, benefit our national security, and stimulate the education of future generations 

of scientists and engineers. At this time, the Committee does not 

have sufficient resources to meet the full budget request for NASA 

in fiscal year 2005. However, the Committee is hopeful that if additional resources are identified as the legislative process moves forward, it may be possible to augment NASA funding. 

The Committee directs NASA to provide a report to the Congress, within 120 days, which comprehensively lists the propulsion 

systems that would 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. 

With this appropriation, the Committee continues its support of 

the space shuttle program by fully funding the budget request. 

While the Vision for Space Exploration indicates that the shuttle 

fleet will retire in 2010, the Committee believes this reflects an optimistic assessment of when a replacement system could become 

operational and believes NASA needs to re-evaluate this date in 

the context of the current budget environment and the technical 

challenges associated both with return-to-flight activities and new 

system development needs. Recent information provided to the 

Committee indicates that additional time and money will be required to return the shuttle to safe operations. The Committee 

looks forward to learning more about NASA’s needs for this program and will work with NASA to ensure necessary funding is provided in a timely manner. 

The Committee does not agree with the termination of the commercial programs within the Innovative Technology Transfer Partnerships (ITTP) program as proposed in the budget submission, 

and has therefore provided an increase of $30,000,000 to this appropriation for the express purpose of continuing the commercial 

programs, including the activities of associated NASA personnel, as 

they existed in fiscal year 2003 and prior fiscal years. The Committee notes that the National Academy of Public Administration 

(NAPA) has just completed the first phase of an analysis of the 

ITTP program, which highlights a number of weaknesses that reduce the program’s effectiveness at spin-in and spin-out of technology. The Committee directs NASA to fully address the recommendations of phases I and II of the NAPA study in the context 

of future budget submissions. The Committee supports maintaining 

a vigorous ITTP program at NASA and strongly supports maintaining the spin-out of NASA technology to the commercial world as an 

integral part of the program. 

Within this enterprise, the International Space Station budget is 

reduced by $120,000,000, which represents an estimate of the 

underrun associated with this program due to continued delays in 

136 

the shuttle return-to-flight. Additionally, the Committee recommends a reduction of $70,000,000 to the budget request for 

cargo/crew services, leaving $70,000,000 for this activity. The Committee notes that in the past NASA has not always used full and 

open competition for procurement of technical data and had proposed a sole-source contract for procurement of launch systems. 

The Committee finds this practice to be unacceptable given today’s 

competitive environment and directs NASA to ensure that to the 

maximum extent feasible, competitive procurements should be the 

order of the day. While current regulations allow for a finding of 

other than full and open competition when in the ‘‘best interest’’ of 

the government, NASA should be aware that the Committee will 

be very interested in any sole-source contract awards and will take 

more aggressive action if necessary to ensure the integrity of competitive procurement. 

The Committee has concerns about the role of materials research 

onboard the International Space Station. NASA has developed a 

backlog of application-oriented materials research experiments that 

have undergone multiple peer-reviews. The Committee recognizes 

that materials research performed in the microgravity environment 

offered by this unique laboratory has the potential to play a significant role in developing the novel and improved materials, innovative devices, and enhanced manufacturing processes of the future. 

The Committee strongly urges NASA to give full consideration to 

the role of materials research in its ISS research program, and to 

seek independent external expert advice on how materials research 

performed in the environment onboard the ISS can support the Nation’s Space Exploration Initiative. 

The amount provided reflects the following adjustments within 

the exploration systems enterprise: 

1. An increase of $400,000 for the Glennan Microsystems Commercialization Initiative; 

2. An increase of $300,000 for Garrett Morgan Commercial; 

3. An increase of $900,000 for Simulation based acquisition for 

manned space flight vehicle, design and testing, MSFC; 

4. An increase of $150,000 to the Technology Research & Development Authority of Central Florida for continuing investment in 

IT, and security technologies; 

5. An increase of $850,000 for the Florida Institute of Technology 

in Melbourne, Florida for its Hydrogen, Fuel Cell & Sensor Technology Initiative; 

6. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Idaho National Engineering 

and Environmental Laboratory for development of performance, 

safety, and mission success tools for NASA programs; 

7. An increase of $250,000 to the Alabama A&M University for 

Advanced Propulsion Materials Research; 

8. An increase of $500,000 for the Nano and Micro Devices Laboratory at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; 

9. An increase of $200,000 for Morehouse College in Atlanta, 

Georgia to support the technology center; 

10. An increase of $6,000,000 for the continuation of the Space 

Alliance Technology Outreach Program for business incubators in 

Florida and New York; 

137 

11. An increase of $1,000,000 for the National Center of Excellence in Wireless and Information Technology Programs at Stony 

Brook University, New York; 12. An increase of $1,000,000 for the National Center of Excellence in Small Scale Systems Packaging at the State University of 

New York at Binghamton; 13. An increase of $2,500,000 for NASA’s Independent Verification and Validation Facility, of which $800,000 is available 

for continuation of the Code Level Metrics Data Program; $400,000 

is available for continuation of IV & V of Neural Nets; and 

$400,000 is available for Software Legacy Research. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $31,400,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 27,139,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 27,600,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +4,261,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... +3,800,000 

The Office of the Inspector General was established by the Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for audit and investigation of all agency programs. 

The Committee recommends $31,400,000 for the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $4,261,000 

to the amount provided in fiscal year 2004 and $3,800,000 more 

than the budget request for fiscal year 2005. The increase is for 

contracting for the annual audit of NASA’s financial statements. 

Under current policy, the Office of Inspector General is responsible 

for providing oversight of the independent public accounting firm 

selected to perform the annual audit of NASA’s financial statements, but funding for the audits is provided from other NASA appropriations. With this change, the OIG will have consolidated responsibility for technical oversight and fiscal management of the 

contract. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The bill includes three administrative provisions. The first provision allows for the availability of funds to remain until expended 

when any activity has been initiative for construction of facilities. 

The second provision makes all amounts appropriated for construction of facilities to remain available until September 30, 2007. The 

final provision allows unexpended balances of prior appropriations 

to be transferred to the new account established for the appropriations that provides such activity under this Act. The Committee 

recommendation does not include two administrative provisions 

proposed as part of the budget request. The first provision would 

give NASA unlimited transfer authority. The second provision 

would give NASA authority to award prizes and allow funding for 

such prizes to remain available without fiscal year limitation. 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

Limitation on direct 

loans 

Limitation on administrative expenses 

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation .............................................................................. ($1,500,000,000) ($310,000) 

138 

Limitation on direct 

loans 

Limitation on administrative expenses 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation ................................................................................... ($1,500,000,000) ($310,000) 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ................................................................................ ($1,500,000,000) ($310,000) 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ....................................................... (0) (0) 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ................................................................. (0) (0) 

The National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act established the National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity 

Facility (CLF) on October 1, 1979, as a mixed-ownership government corporation within the National Credit Union Administration. 

It is managed by the National Credit Union Administration and is 

owned by its member credit unions. Loans may not be used to expand a loan portfolio, but are authorized to meet short-term requirements such as emergency outflows from managerial difficulties, seasonal credit, and protracted adjustment credit for long-term 

needs caused by disintermediation or regional economic decline. The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,500,000,000 on 

CLF lending activity to member credit unions from borrowed funds. 

This limitation represents the same level as fiscal year 2004 and 

the same as the budget request. The Committee expects to be kept 

apprised of CLF lending activity. 

The Committee recommends the budget request of not more than $310,000 for administrative expenses. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $1,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 1,193,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 1,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥193,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... 0 

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 five years, although shorter repayment periods may 

be considered. Technical assistance grants are also available to 

low-income credit unions. Earnings generated from the CDRLF are 

available to fund technical assistance grants in addition to funds 

provided for specifically in appropriations acts. Grants are available for improving operations as well as addressing safety and 

soundness issues. The Committee’s recommendation includes 

$200,000 for loans to community development credit unions and 

$800,000 for technical assistance. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $5,466,960,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 5,577,845,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 5,744,690,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. ¥110,885,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... ¥277,730,000 

Established in 1950, the National Science Foundation’s primary 

purpose was to develop a national policy on science, and support 

and promote basic research and education in the sciences filling the 

void left after World War II. The Committee is committed to keepVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
139 

ing the Foundation’s current activities true to the founding purpose 

of supporting basic science. The Committee recommends a total of $5,466,960,000 for the 

Foundation for fiscal year 2005. This recommendation is a decrease 

of $110,885,000 from the fiscal year 2004 level and $277,730,000 

below the budget request. 

Of the amounts approved the Foundation must limit transfers of funds between programs and activities to not more than $500,000 

without prior approval of the Committee. Further, no changes may 

be made to any account or program element if it is construed to be 

policy or a change in policy. Any activity or program cited in this 

report shall be construed as the position of the Committee and 

should not be subject to reductions or reprogramming without prior 

approval of the Committee. Finally, it is the intent of the Committee that all carryover funds in the various appropriations accounts are subject to the normal reprogramming requirements outlined above. 

The Committee is disappointed that the Foundation failed to 

comply with the direction included in the fiscal year 2004 conference report regarding submission of the congressional budget 

justifications. The Foundation is once again reminded that budget 

justifications are intended only for the Committees on Appropriations’ use and therefore must be submitted in a format with the 

necessary level of detail required by the Committee so that funding 

requests may be adequately analyzed. As indicated last year, a 

strategic plan format is not useful to the Committee. While materials formatted by strategic goals may be submitted as supplementary information, the detailed budget justifications are not to 

be formatted by the strategic goals of ‘‘People,’’ ‘‘Tools,’’ and ‘‘Ideas’’ 

nor is such information to be used or integrated into the detailed 

budget justification materials. Instead, the NSF is to present the 

fiscal year 2006 budget justification submission in the traditional 

appropriations account structure with detailed information on the 

prior year, current year, and requested funding levels for each program, project or activity funded within each division and directorate in each account, and provide detailed information on all proposed changes being requested. The NSF is directed to submit to 

the Committee not later than October 15, 2004, a template for its 

fiscal year 2006 budget justification document that complies with 

this direction. 

RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ............................................. 1,2 $4,151,745,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .................................................. 1,2 4,251,368,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ............................................... 1,2 4,452,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ..................... 1,2¥99,623,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ............................... 1,2¥300,255,000 

1The recommendation reflects the transfer of $25,944,000 in administrative costs to the Salaries and Expenses account that were funded in fiscal year 2004 in the Research and Related Activities account. The 

budget did not propose this transfer. 2The recommendation does not adopt the budget proposal to transfer $80,000,000 for the Math and 

Science Partnerships program to the Research and Related Activities account from the Education and 

Human Resources account. 

The appropriation for Research and Related Activities covers all 

programs in the Foundation except Education and Human Resources, Salaries and Expenses, Major Research Equipment and 

Facilities Construction, the National Science Board, and the Office 

140 

of Inspector General. These are funded in other accounts in the 

bill. 

The Committee recommends a total of $4,151,745,000 for Research and Related Activities in fiscal year 2005. The recommendation reflects the transfer of $25,954,000 in administrative costs that 

were funded in this account in fiscal year 2004 to the Salaries and 

Expenses account. The budget did not propose this transfer. In addition, funding for the Math and Science Partnerships program is 

continued in the Education and Human Resources account instead 

of under this account as proposed in the budget. After accounting 

for these changes, the recommendation is $73,672,000 below the 

comparable fiscal year 2004 level and $194,301,000 below the comparable budget request. 

Except as specifically noted herein, the recommendation does not 

include specific funding allocations for each directorate or for individual programs and activities. The Foundation is directed to submit a proposed spending plan to the Committee for its consideration within 30 days of enactment of this Act that addresses the 

Foundation’s highest priority research requirements. In developing 

this plan, the Foundation is urged to be sensitive to maintaining 

the proper balance between the goal of stimulating interdisciplinary research and the need to maintain robust single-issue research in the core disciplines. 

Given the overall funding constraints, no funds are provided for 

the proposed Workforce for the 21st Century program, the proposed 

new class of Science and Technology Centers, or the proposed Innovation Fund. 

Within the amounts provided, the recommendation provides $350,000,000 for the Office of Polar Programs, as requested in the 

budget. Expenses for the Antarctic operation programs have substantially increased due to rising fuel costs, increased Coast Guard 

support costs, the weather, and extraordinary ice conditions in the 

bay. The Committee expects NSF to provide the necessary resources for operations, research support and logistics, and science 

and research grant support to fully fund the Antarctic operations. 

Within the amounts provided, $6,000,000 is for continued planning and design activities for the National Ecological Observatory 

Network (NEON). The National Research Council’s (NRC) review 

of the NEON program, while endorsing a NEON-like concept, 

found that further refinement and more detailed implementation 

plans were necessary to maximum the benefit from this investment. NSF is expected to consider and incorporate the Council’s 

recommendations as it continues planning and design activities, 

particularly the NRC’s recommendation to strengthen partnerships 

and collaborations with other Federal agencies. The Committee believes such collaborations are critical to maximize the use of existing observatory networks in order to avoid redundancy of Federal 

research dollars and reduce the overall cost of the NEON project. 

From within the Engineering, Mathematical and Physical 

Sciences, and Computer and Information Science and Engineering 

Directorates and the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the Committee remains concerned that researchers are reaching the physical limits of current complementary metal oxide semiconductor 

process technology and that this will have significant implications 

for continued productivity growth in the information economy. The 

141 

Committee commends NSF’s examination of the International 

Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors and its initiation of the 

Silicon Nanoelectronics and Beyond program and encourages NSF 

to consider increasing research support, where feasible, through 

this program. 

The Committee directs NSF to issue guidance to all directorates, 

not later than December 15, 2004, that research support grant applications from all Smithsonian Institution scientists are fully eligible to compete for NSF funding and are to be given fair consideration in the merit review process. 

The Committee encourages the Foundation to continue to work 

to expand the participation of minority students attending Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and minority serving institutions in NSF research opportunities. The NSF is also encouraged to provide additional support for minority students and 

faculty by allowing Research Experiences for Undergraduates 

(REU) supplements for students to be added to existing research 

grant awards for faculty from small schools. 

MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $208,200,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 154,980,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 213,270,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +53,220,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... ¥5,070,000 

This account provides funding for the construction of major research facilities that provide unique capabilities at the cutting edge 

of science and engineering. 

The Committee recommends a total of $208,200,000 for the major 

research construction and equipment account for fiscal year 2004, 

an increase of $53,220,000 over the fiscal 2003 funding level and 

$5,070,000 less than the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes: 

Project 2005 request 2005 recommendation 

Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) ......................................................................... $49,670,000 $49,700,000 

EarthScope ....................................................................................................................... 47,350,000 47,300,000 

IceCube Neutrino Detector Observatory ........................................................................... 33,400,000 51,200,000 

National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) ........................................................... 12,000,000 0 

Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) ...................................................................... 40,850,000 30,000,000 

Rare Symmetry Violating Processes (RSVP) .................................................................... 30,000,000 30,000,000 

The Committee recommends $51,200,000 for the IceCube Neutrino Detector Observatory, an increase of $9,450,000 above fiscal 

year 2004 level and $17,800,000 above the request. The Committee 

has accelerated the funding profile to enable certain economies to 

be achieved that will reduce the overall total project cost. 

The Committee does not recommend funding for the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) project within this account 

but instead has included funding for continued planning and design 

within the Research and Related Activities account. The recommendation is based on the NRC’s recent review of the project 

that concluded that a refined focus and a more detailed implementation plan are required. 

142 

EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... 1 $842,985,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 1 938,977,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 1,2 771,360,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. 1¥95,992,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... 1,2+71,625,000 1The recommendation reflects the transfer of $5,500,000 in administrative costs to the Salaries and Expenses account that were funded in fiscal year 2004 in the Education and Human Resources account. The 

budget did not propose this transfer. 2The recommendation continues funding for the Math and Science Partnerships program in this account as provided for in fiscal year 2004. The budget requested $80,000,000 for this program in Related Activities 

account. 

The Foundation’s Education and Human Resources activities are 

designed to encourage the entrance of talented students into 

science and technology careers, to improve the undergraduate 

science and engineering education environment, to assist in providing all pre-college students with a level of education in mathematics, science, and technology that reflects the needs of the nation 

and is the highest quality attained anywhere in the world, and to 

extend greater research opportunities to underrepresented segments of the scientific and engineering communities. For fiscal year 2005, the Committee proposes $842,985,000 for 

this account. Funding for the Math and Science Partnerships program is continued in this account as provided for in fiscal year 

2004 instead of within the Research and Related Activities account 

as proposed in the budget. The recommendation also reflects the 

transfer of $5,500,000 in administrative costs that were funded in 

this account in fiscal year 2004 to the Salaries and Expenses account. The budget did not propose this transfer. After accounting 

for these changes, the recommendation is $90,492,000 below the 

comparable fiscal year 2004 level and $2,875,000 below the comparable budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes the following program 

levels: 

Program 2005 Request 2005 recommenda- tion 

Math and Science Partnerships ...................................................................................... $80,000,000 $82,500,000 

EPSCoR ............................................................................................................................ 84,000,000 94,440,000 

Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education ............................................................. 172,750,000 175,457,000 

Undergraduate Education ................................................................................................ 158,850,000 160,301,000 

Graduate Education ......................................................................................................... 173,880,000 155,950,000 

Human Resource Development ........................................................................................ 107,940,000 115,343,000 

Research, Evaluation and Communication ..................................................................... 62,370,000 53,155,000 

The Committee recommends $82,500,000 for the Math and 

Science Partnerships (MSP), a $2,500,000 increase over the request 

and $56,670,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level. This amount 

funds continuations of existing awards and evaluation and dissemination activities. The Committee notes that a $120,000,000 increase has been proposed in the budget and approved by the Committee in the Department of Education’s K–12 math and science 

education programs in fiscal year 2005. In addition, NSF will 

award approximately $91 million in new MSP grants in fiscal year 

2004. The recommendation includes $2,500,000 above the request 

to be used by the Foundation to review mechanisms to better integrate and maximize the math and science education efforts of the 

Foundation and the Department of Education. Given the overall 

funding constraints and the substantial resources being devoted to 

143 

math and science education, the Committee has deferred any new 

starts in this program pending completion of this review. The Committee recommends $94,440,000 for the Experimental 

Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program, an 

increase of $10,440,000 over the budget request and equal to the 

2004 funding level. 

Within the amounts provided for the Elementary, Secondary and 

Informal Education activity, the Informal Science Education (ISE) 

program is funded at the fiscal year 2004 level of $62,130,000, an 

increase of $12,130,000 over the budget request. The Committee 

recognizes the value of engaging the general public in informal 

science and technology education at all ages. The demand for technical literacy in our nation increases daily. The Committee is concerned about the lack of geographic diversity in the institutions 

that participate in the ISE program and directs that the NSF provide a report to the Committee no later than 90 days of enactment 

of this Act on its plans to geographically broaden participation of 

institutions in the program. 

Within the amounts provided for the Undergraduate Education 

activity, the STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP) is funded at 

the fiscal year 2004 level of $24,850,000, $9,850,000 above the request; the Robert Noyce Scholarship program is restored to the 

2004 level of $7,950,000, $3,950 above the request; and the Advanced Technological Education program (ATE) is funded at the 

fiscal year 2004 level of $45,230,000, $7,070,000 above the request. 

No funds have been provided for the Workforce for the 21st Century program. 

Within the amounts provided for Human Resource Development 

activity, the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation 

(LSAMP) program is funded at the fiscal year 2004 level of 

$34,300,000; the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCUUP) is restored to the 2004 level of 

$23,860,000, $3,880,000 above the request; the Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) is funded at the fiscal 

year 2004 level of $14,910,000; the Centers for Research Excellence 

in Science and Technology (CREST) is restored to the 2004 level of 

$14,910,000; and the Model Institutions for Excellence (MIE) program is funded at the 2004 level of $2,510,000. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... 1 $249,970,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 1 218,702,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 1 294,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. 1+31,268,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... 1¥44,030,000 

1The recommendation reflects the transfer of $31,451,000 in administrative costs to the Salaries and Expenses account that were funded in fiscal year 2004 in the Research and Related Activities ($25,954,000) 

and Education and Human Resources ($5,500,000) accounts. The budget did not propose this transfer. 

The Salaries and Expenses activity provides for the operation, 

support and management, and direction of all Foundation programs and activities and includes necessary funds that develop, 

manage, and coordinate Foundation programs. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $249,970,000 for 

salaries and expenses. Despite the Committee’s explicit direction 

included in the fiscal year 2004 conference report, the Foundation 

did not consolidate funding for all costs associated with NSF emVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
144 

ployees, including temporary employees within this account. Therefore, the Committee has consolidated funding for the compensation, 

travel, training, supplies, equipment, and printing into this account 

and reduced the Research and Related Activities and Education 

and Human Resources accounts accordingly. After accounting for 

this change, the recommendation is $186,000 below the comparable 

fiscal year 2004 level and $75,484,000 below the comparable budget 

request. The Committee directs NSF to include all costs associated 

with NSF employees, including temporary employees, in the Salaries and Expenses account in all future proposed operating plans, 

reprogrammings and budget submissions. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $3,950,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 3,877,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 3,950,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +73,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... 0 

The National Science Board, established in 1950, establishes 

policies and assesses the quality, relevance and performance of the 

National Science Foundation’s awards and capital investments. In 

addition, the Board provides advice to the President and the Congress on matters of science and engineering policy. The Committee recommends $3,950,000 for the operations of the National Science Board, an increase of $73,000 over last year’s appropriated level and equal to the budget request. A representation 

allowance of $9,000 has been provided for the Board. 

Among the most fundamental and important characteristics of 

the NSF partnership with the extramural science community is 

that federal financial support flows through a core system of meritbased peer review administered by Foundation staff who have expertise in their scientific disciplines. This system is intended to ensure both that the highest quality projects are selected for funding 

and that the extramural community believes that funding decisions 

are fair. The Committee is strongly supportive of this system which 

it believes has served the Foundation and the nation well over its 

half century of existence. Notwithstanding this support, the Committee believes that a structured evaluation of the NSF system of 

merit review by the National Science Board is appropriate at regular intervals. The Committee requests that the Board conduct 

such a review during fiscal year 2005 and report its findings to the 

Committee as early in the year as possible. This review should include but not be limited to the quantitative methodologies used to 

distinguish relative quality among projects, the discretion permitted and exercised by Foundation staff in choosing peer review 

panels and in selecting specific projects for funding, the scientific, 

geographic and institutional composition of peer review panels, and 

the ability of the existing process to identify the most innovative 

proposals. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $10,110,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 9,941,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 10,110,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +169,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request ....................................... 0 

145 

This account provides National Science Foundation audit and investigation functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies that could lead to fraud, waste, or abuse. 

For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends $10,110,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $169,000 above last 

year’s funding level and equal to the request. 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $115,000,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 114,322,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 115,000,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +678,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, established by title 

VI of Public Law 95–557 in October 1978, is committed to promoting reinvestment in older neighborhoods by local financial institutions working cooperatively with the community and local government. This is primarily accomplished by assisting communitybased partnerships (NeighborWorks organizations) in a range of 

local revitalization efforts. Increase in homeownership among 

lower-income families is a key revitalization tool. Neighborhood 

Housing Services of America (NHSA) supports lending activities of 

the NeighborWorks organizations through a national secondary 

market that leverages its capital with private sector investment. 

The Committee recommends a funding level of $115,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2005, the same amount as the budget request and an 

increase of $678,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. 

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $26,300,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 26,153,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 26,300,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +147,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The Selective Service System was established 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, but selective service registration was reinstituted in July, 1980. 

For fiscal year 2005, the bill includes the budget request of 

$26,300,000 for the Selective Service System, $147,000 above the 

fiscal year 2004 funding level. 

146 

WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL MOMENT OF

REMEMBRANCE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation ..................................................... $250,000 

Fiscal year 2004 appropriation .......................................................... 249,000 

Fiscal year 2005 budget request ....................................................... 250,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation ............................. +1,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request ........................... 0 

The White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance, established by Public Law 106–579, was created to (1) 

sustain the American spirit through acts of remembrance, not only 

on Memorial Day, but throughout the year; (2) institutionalize the 

National Moment of Remembrance; and (3) to enhance the commemoration and understanding of Memorial Day. The Committee 

recommends an appropriation of $250,000, an increase of $1,000 

above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the level 

requested by the President. 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The Committee recommends inclusion of 20 general provisions. 

With the exception of technical modifications, the first 19 provisions were carried in the fiscal year 2004 Appropriations Act (Public Law 108–199). General provision 420 provides for expansion of 

the NASA Enhanced Use Lease demonstration program. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the rules of the House of Representatives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states: ‘‘Each report of a committee on bill or joint resolution of a public character, shall include a statement citing the 

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to 

enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.’’ 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, which states: ‘‘No money 

shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law * * * ’’ 

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

147 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following statements are made describing the 

transfers of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

The Committee has included language transferring not to exceed 

$20,703,000 from compensation and pensions to general operating 

expenses and medical services. These funds are for the administrative costs of implementing cost-savings proposals required by the 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1992. Language is also included permitting necessary 

sums to be transferred to the medical facilities revolving fund to 

augment funding of medical centers for nursing home care provided 

to pensioners as authorized by the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1992. 

The Committee recommends transferring the following amounts 

to the VA’s general operating expenses appropriation pursuant to 

the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990: the veterans housing benefit program fund program account ($154,075,000), the vocational 

rehabilitation loans program account ($311,000) and the Native 

American veteran housing loan program account ($571,000). In addition, the bill provides up to $750,000 in general operating expenses and medical services for administration of the guaranteed 

transitional housing loans for homeless veterans program account. 

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Veterans Affairs which would allow the transfer of up to 

$400,000,000 from the medical services account to construction, 

major projects for implementing CARES and up to $75,000,000 

from the medical services account to the general operating expenses account for disability claims processing. 

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Veterans Affairs which would transfer no less than $15,000,000 for 

the DoD/VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund as authorized 

under section 721 of Public Law 107–317. 

The Committee recommends providing authority for the Department of Veterans Affairs for any funds appropriated in 2005 for 

compensation and pensions, readjustment benefits, and veterans 

insurance and indemnities to be transferred between those three 

accounts. This will provide the Department of Veterans Affairs 

flexibility in administering its entitlement programs. 

The Committee has included language permitting the funds from 

three life insurance funds to be transferred to general operating expenses for the costs of administering such programs. 

The Committee recommends language permitting up to 

$32,377,000 to be transferred to general operating expenses from 

any funds appropriated in 2005 to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management and the Office of Employment Discrimination 

Complaint Adjudication for services provided. 

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Veterans Affairs which would transfer outstanding balances remaining from the veterans extended care revolving fund, special 

therapeutic and rehabilitation fund, nursing home revolving fund, 

veterans health services improvements fund and parking fund to 

the medical services account. 

148 

The Committee has included language which would transfer certain funds from the medical care collections fund to the construction, major projects and construction, minor projects accounts. 

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Veterans Affairs which would transfer funds from the medical care 

collections fund to medical services. 

The Committee recommends providing authority for the Department of Veterans Affairs to transfer amounts between the medical 

services, medical administration and medical facilities accounts to 

the extent necessary to implement the restructuring of these accounts subject to certain notification requirements. 

The Committee recommends language under the Department of 

Veterans Affairs which would allow the transfer of funds from the 

general operating expenses account to the veterans housing benefit 

program fund program account for certain purposes. 

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development transferring all uncommitted 

prior balances of excess rental charges as of fiscal year 2004 and 

all collections made during fiscal year 2005 to the flexible subsidy 

fund. 

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development transferring the following 

amounts to the salaries and expenses account for administrative 

expenses: FHA mutual mortgage insurance and general and special 

risk insurance program accounts ($560,672,000); GNMA guarantees 

of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account 

($10,695,000); community development loan guarantees program 

account ($1,000,000); Indian housing loan guarantee fund program 

account ($250,000); native Hawaiian housing loan guarantee fund 

($35,000); and Native American housing block grants account 

($150,000). 

The Committee has included language under the Department of Housing and Urban Development transferring up to $13,000,000 

from the manufactured housing fees trust fund to the manufactured housing standards program. 

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development transferring no less than the following amounts to the working capital fund under the salaries and 

expenses account for development and management of information 

technology systems: tenant-based rental assistance ($2,940,000); 

project-based rental assistance ($1,960,000); public housing capital 

fund ($10,150,000); native American housing block grants 

($2,600,000); community development fund ($4,700,000); home investment partnership program account ($2,000,000); homeless assistance grants account ($2,500,000); housing for the elderly account ($450,000); housing for persons with disabilities account 

($450,000); FHA mutual mortgage insurance program account 

($15,000,000); FHA general and special risk insurance program account ($9,600,000); and Office of Inspector General ($300,000). 

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development transferring $23,858,000 from 

the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration to the Office of Inspector General. 

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development transferring $59,209,000 from 

149 

the federal housing enterprise oversight fund to the office of federal 

housing enterprise oversight account. 

The Committee has included language under the Corporation for 

National and Community Service which would transfer not less 

than $144,000,000 to the Nation Service Trust for education 

awards. 

The Committee has included language under the Environmental 

Protection Agency transferring funds from the hazardous substance 

superfund trust fund to the Office of Inspector General in the 

amount of $13,00,000. In addition, $36,097,000 is transferred from 

the hazardous substance superfund trust fund to the science and 

technology account. 

The Committee has included language under the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation transferring up to $30,125,000 from the 

Bank Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, 

and the FSLIC Resolution Fund to the Office of Inspector General. 

The Committee has included general transfer language under 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, science, aeronautics and exploration account and the exploration capabilities account. This language will allow for the transfer of funds between 

these two accounts, as necessary, to reflect full cost accounting recently scheduled for implementation. 

The Committee has included general transfer language under 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration allowing the transfer of unexpired prior year balances in the old accounts to the appropriate accounts in the new budget structure. 

RESCISSIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Certificate Fund ............................................................................................¥$1,557,000,000 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Drug Elimination 

Grants for Low Income Housing ....................................................... ¥5,000,000 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Native American 

Housing Block Grants ........................................................................ ¥21,000,000 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Indian Housing 

Loan Guarantee Program Account ................................................... ¥33,000,000 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Rental Housing 

Assistance ........................................................................................... ¥675,000,000 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, General and Special Risk Program Account ................................................................ ¥30,000,000 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

150 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING 

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004 

DIVISION G—DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004 

AN ACT 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, 2004, 

and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For capital advances, including amendments to capital advance 

contracts, for housing for the elderly, as authorized by section 202 

of the Housing Act of 1959, as amended, and for project rental assistance for the elderly under section 202(c)(2) of such Act, including amendments to contracts for such assistance and renewal of expiring contracts for such assistance for up to a 1-year term, and for 

supportive services associated with the housing, $778,320,000, plus 

recaptures and cancelled commitments, to remain available until 

September 30, 2006, of which amount $30,000,000 shall be for service coordinators and the continuation of existing congregate service 

grants for residents of assisted housing projects, and of which 

amount up to $25,000,000 shall be for grants under section 202b 

of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q–2) for conversion of 

eligible projects under such section to assisted living or related use 

and for emergency capital repairs as determined by the Secretary: 

Provided, That of the amount made available under this heading, 

$20,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development only for making competitive grants to private 

nonprofit organizations and consumer cooperatives for covering 

costs of architectural and engineering work, site control, and other 

planning relating to the development of supportive housing for the 

elderly that is eligible for assistance under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q): Provided further, That no less 

than $470,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund for 

the development of and modifications to information technology 

systems which serve programs or activities under ‘‘Housing programs’’ or ‘‘Federal Housing Administration’’: Provided further, 

That the Secretary may waive the provisions of section 202 governing the terms and conditions of project rental assistance, except 

that the initial contract term for such assistance shall not exceed 

5 years in durationø: Provided further, That all balances outstanding, as of September 30, 2003, for capital advances, including 

151 

amendments to capital advances, for housing for the elderly, as authorized by section 202, for project rental assistance for housing for 

the elderly, as authorized under section 202(c)(2) of such Act, including amendments to contracts shall be transferred to and 

merged with the amounts for those purposes under this heading¿. 

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For capital advance contracts, including amendments to capital 

advance contracts, for supportive housing for persons with disabilities, as authorized by section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, for project rental assistance for supportive housing for persons with disabilities under section 811(d)(2) 

of such Act, including amendments to contracts for such assistance 

and renewal of expiring contracts for such assistance for up to a 

1-year term, and for supportive services associated with the housing for persons with disabilities as authorized by section 811(b)(1) 

of such Act, and for tenant-based rental assistance contracts entered into pursuant to section 811 of such Act, $250,570,000, plus 

recaptures and cancelled commitments to remain available until 

September 30, 2006: Provided, That no less than $470,000 shall be 

transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the development of 

and modifications to information technology systems which serve 

programs or activities under ‘‘Housing programs’’ or ‘‘Federal Housing Administration’’: Provided further, That of the amount provided 

under this heading, other than amounts for renewal of expiring 

project-based or tenant-based rental assistance contracts, the Secretary may designate up to 25 percent for tenant-based rental assistance, as authorized by section 811 of such Act, (which assistance is 5 years in duration): Provided further, That the Secretary 

may waive the provisions of section 811 governing the terms and 

conditions of project rental assistance and tenant-based assistance, 

except that the initial contract term for such assistance shall not 

exceed 5 years in durationø: Provided further, That all balances 

outstanding, as of September 30, 2003, for capital advances, including amendments to capital advances, for supportive housing for 

persons with disabilities, as authorized by section 811, for project 

rental assistance for supportive housing for persons with disabilities, as authorized under section 811(d)(2), including amendments 

to contracts for such assistance and renewal of expiring contracts 

for such assistance, and for supportive services associated with the 

housing for persons with disabilities as authorized by section 

811(b)(1), shall be transferred to and merged with the amounts for 

these purposes under this heading¿: Provided further, That all section 811 balances outstanding, as of September 30, 2003 shall be 

transferred to the appropriation under this heading: Provided further, That of the amount provided under this heading, $14,610,000 

shall be for amendments to existing tenant-based assistance contracts entered into prior to fiscal year 2004 (only one amendment 

authorized for any such contract). 

* * * * * * * 

152 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

ACT OF 1958 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—MISCELLANEOUS 

* * * * * * * 

FULL COST APPROPRIATIONS ACCOUNT STRUCTURE

SEC. 313. (a) Appropriations for the Administration for fiscal year 

2004 and thereafter shall be made in three accounts, ‘‘øSpace flight 

capabilities¿ Exploration capabilities’’, ‘‘Science, aeronautics and 

exploration’’, and an account for amounts appropriated for the necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General. Appropriations 

shall remain available for 2 fiscal years. Each account shall include 

the planned full costs of the Administration’s related activities. 

* * * * * * * 

ENHANCED-USE LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY DEMONSTRATION

SEC. 315. (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, the Administrator may enter into a lease under this section 

with any person or entity (including another department or agency 

of the Federal Government or an entity of a State or local government) with regard to any real property under the jurisdiction of the 

Administrator at no more than øtwo (2)¿ 4 National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA) centers. 

* * * * * * * 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

The Committee submits the following statements in compliance 

with clause 3, rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, describing the effects of provisions proposed in the accompanying bill which may be considered, under certain circumstances, 

to change the application of existing law, either directly or indirectly. 

Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue ongoing activities and programs where authorizations have not been 

enacted to date. 

In some cases, the Committee has recommended appropriations 

which are less than the maximum amounts authorized for the various programs funded in the bill. Whether these actions constitute 

a change in the application of existing law is subject to interpretation, but the Committee felt that this should be mentioned. 

The Committee has included limitations for official reception and 

representation expenses for selected agencies in the bill. 

Sections 401 through 419 of title IV of the bill, all of which, with 

some technical modifications, were carried in the fiscal year 2004 

Appropriations Act, are general provisions which place limitations 

or restrictions on the use of funds in the bill and which might, 

under certain circumstances, be construed as changing the application of existing law. 

The bill includes, in certain instances, limitations on the obligation of funds for particular functions or programs. These limitaVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
153 

tions include restrictions on the obligation of funds for administrative expenses, the use of consultants, and programmatic areas 

within the overall jurisdiction of a particular agency. 

Language is included under the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

general operating expenses, providing for the reimbursement to the 

Department of Defense for the costs of overseas employee mail. 

This language has been carried previously and permits free mailing 

privileges for VA personnel stationed in the Philippines. 

Language is included under the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

construction, major projects, establishing time limitations and reporting requirements concerning the obligation of major construction funds, limiting the use of funds, and allowing the use of funds 

for program costs. 

Language is included under the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

construction, minor projects, providing that unobligated balances of 

previous appropriations may be used for any project with an estimated cost of less than $4,000,000, allowing the use of funds for 

program costs, and making funds available for damage caused by 

natural disasters. 

Language is included under the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

administrative provisions, permitting transfers between mandatory 

and discretionary accounts, limiting and providing for the use of 

certain funds, funding administrative expenses associated with VA 

life insurance programs from excess program revenues, extending 

authority to operate the Franchise Fund, allowing reimbursement 

from enhanced-use leases, allowing for reimbursement for certain 

services, requiring notification of new lease agreements, requiring 

disclosure of insurance and income information, designating funds 

for enterprise architecture activities, prohibiting funds for implementation of two sections of Public Law 107–287, allowing the Secretary to establish a priority system for medical services, allowing 

a recovery audit collection program, and allowing medical services 

funds for recreational and funeral expenses. Twenty provisions 

have been carried in previous Appropriations Acts. Two new provisions have been added. 

Language is included under the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

administrative provisions transferring balances in excess of a specified amount in the Medical Care Collections Fund to the medical 

services for priority 7 and 8 veterans account. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, which designates funds for various programs, activities, and purposes, and specifies the uses of such funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, tenant-based rental assistance, which specifies the 

allocation of funds and limits the use of certain funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, project-based rental assistance, which specifies the 

allocation of funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, public housing capital fund, which limits the delegation of certain waiver authorities and prohibits funds from being 

used for certain activities. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, public housing operating fund, which designates certain funds to be distributed by the Attorney General through a reVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:04 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR674.XXX HR674
154 

imbursable agreement; prohibits funds from being used for certain 

activities; and prohibits funds from being used to pay for prior year 

operations. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, revitalization of severely distressed public housing 

(HOPE VI), which prohibits the use of funds for awards to settle 

litigation or pay judgments; and specifies the allocation of certain 

funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, housing opportunities for persons with AIDS which 

sets forth certain requirements for the allocation of funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, community development fund, which specifies the allocation of certain funds; limits the use of certain funds; and makes 

technical changes to the uses of certain funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, home investment partnerships program, which specifies the allocation of certain funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, homeless assistance grants, which establishes certain 

minimum funding and matching requirements; and requires grantees to integrate homeless programs with other social service providers. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, housing for the elderly, which specifies the allocation 

of certain funds; designates certain funds to be used only for certain grants; and allows the Secretary to waive certain provisions 

governing contract terms. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, housing for persons with disabilities, which specifies 

the allocation of certain funds; allows funds to be used to renew 

certain contracts; and allows the Secretary to waive certain provisions governing contract terms. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, flexible subsidy fund, which permits the use of excess 

rental charges. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, manufactured housing fees trust fund, which permits 

fees to be modified and permits temporary borrowing authority 

from the General Fund of the Treasury. 

Language is included under the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, policy development and research, which specifies the use of certain funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, fair housing and equal opportunity, which places restrictions on the use of funds for lobbying activities. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, management and administration, which specifies the 

allocation of funds; sets forth certain authorities of, and requirements on, the office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, 

which permits temporary borrowing authority from the General 

Fund of the Treasury. 

155 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, administrative provisions, which maintains and reduces annual adjustment factors; prohibits funds to investigate or 

prosecute certain lawful activities; revises allocations for housing 

opportunities for persons with AIDS grant recipients; waives certain section 8 rental payment limits for a demonstration program; 

relates to the expenditures for certain corporations and agencies; 

relates to allocations of funds in excess of budget estimates; requires submission of a spending plan for certain activities; requires 

certain reporting requirements regarding departmental funds; requires maintenance of certain rental assistance contract; allowing 

the use of certain funds for maintenance and disposition of certain 

properties; sets forth requirements for submission of budget justifications; and sets for allocation of certain assistance. 

Language is included under Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, salaries and expenses, which limits certain personnel employed by the Board and designates the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency as the Inspector General for the board. 

Language is included under Department of the Treasury, Community Development Financial Institutions, community development financial institution program account, which sets aside funds 

for various purposes. 

Language is included under Corporation for National and Community Service, national and community service programs operating expenses, allowing funds to be used for education award-only 

grants under subtitle C and prohibiting funds for national service 

programs in other Federal agencies. 

Language is included under Corporation for National and Community Service, administrative provisions allowing certain loans to 

be considered a qualified student loan and allowing certain grantees to be eligible for grants targeted to individuals with disabilities. 

Language is included under the Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims, salaries and expenses, permitting the use of funds for a pro 

bono program. 

Language is included under Department of Health and Human 

Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, toxic 

substances and environmental public health, limiting availability of 

funds for toxicological profiles. 

Language is included under Environmental Protection Agency, 

Environmental Programs and Management, which extends availability of funds of Public Law 108–199 to carry out paragraph 

(c)(12) of section 118 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

as amended, shall remain available until September 30, 2007. 

Language is included under the Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants, which permits Clean School 

Bus grants. 

Language is included under the Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants, which specifies the allocation of certain funds, limits the use of certain funds, and makes 

technical changes to the uses of certain funds. 

Language is included under the Environmental Protection Agency, administrative provisions, which permits the Administrator to 

award cooperative agreements to Indian Tribes or Intertribal consortia under certain circumstances, receive funds contributed by 

156 

non-Federal sponsors to carry out projects under paragraph (c)(12) 

of section 118 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Language is included under the Council on Environmental Quality, which limits the size of the Council. 

Language is included under the General Services Administration, 

Federal Citizen Information Center, limiting certain fund and administrative expenses. 

Language is included under the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, administrative provision, extending the availability 

of construction of facility funds, permitting funds for contracts for 

various services in the next year, and transferring of prior year appropriations to the appropriate new appropriations accounts. 

Language is included under the National Credit Union Administration, central liquidity facility, limiting loans from borrowed 

funds and administrative expenses. 

Language is included under the National Science Foundation, research and related activities, providing for the use of receipts from 

other research facilities, and use of funds. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the agencies in the accompanying bill which contain appropriations that are not authorized by law: 

157 

APPROPRIATION THIS BILL 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/program Last year of authorization Authorization level Appropriation in last year of authorization Appropriation in this bill 

TITLE II: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Rental Assistance: 

Section 8 contract renewals and administrative expenses .................................................................................. 1994 $8,446,173 $5,458,106 $19,895,980 

Section 441 contracts ............................................................................................................................................ 1994 109,410 150,000 20,000 Section 8 preservation, protection, and family unification .................................................................................. 1994 759,259 541,000 163,000 Contract Administrators ......................................................................................................................................... .................................. ................................... ................................... 101,900 

Public Housing Capital Fund ................................................................................................................................. 2003 3,000,000 2,712,255 2,580,000 Public Housing Operating Fund ............................................................................................................................. 2003 2,900,000 3,576,600 3,425,000 

Native American Housing Block Grant ........................................................................................................................... 2001 (1 ) 636,000 622,000 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS ................................................................................................................ 1994 156,300 156,000 282,000 Rural Housing and Economics Development .................................................................................................................. N/A ................................... ................................... 24,000 Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities ............................................................................................................... N/A ................................... ................................... 14,250 Community Development Fund: 

Community Development Block Grants ................................................................................................................. 1994 4,168,000 4,380,000 4,304,900 Housing Assistance Council .................................................................................................................................. N/A ................................... ................................... 3,200 Native American Indian Housing Council .............................................................................................................. N/A ................................... ................................... 2,400 National Housing Development Corporation .......................................................................................................... N/A ................................... ................................... 4,800 National Council on La Raza HOPE Fund ............................................................................................................. N/A ................................... ................................... 4,800 Self-Help Housing Opportunity Program ................................................................................................................ 2000 (1 ) 20,000 26,000 Capacity Building .................................................................................................................................................. 1994 25,000 20,000 33,500 2006 Special Olympics .......................................................................................................................................... N/A ................................... ................................... 2,000 Economic Development Initiatives ......................................................................................................................... N/A ................................... ................................... 136,500 Neighborhood Initiatives ........................................................................................................................................ N/A ................................... ................................... 21,735 YouthBuild .............................................................................................................................................................. 1994 41,680 28,000 62,000 

Brownfields ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................................. ................................... ................................... 24,000 HOME Investment Partnerships ...................................................................................................................................... 1994 2,173,612 1,275,000 1,920,100 Homeless Assistance Grants .......................................................................................................................................... 1994 465,774 599,000 1,206,000 Housing for the Elderly ................................................................................................................................................... 2003 (1 ) 783,286 741,000 Housing for Persons with Disabilities ............................................................................................................................ 2003 (1 ) 250,515 238,000 FHA General and Special Risk Program Account: 

Limitation on guaranteed loans ............................................................................................................................ 1995 (1 ) (20,885,072 ) (35,000,000 ) Limitation on direct loans ..................................................................................................................................... 1995 (1 ) (220,000 ) (50,000 ) Credit Subsidy ........................................................................................................................................................ 1995 (1 ) 188,395 10,000 Administrative Expenses ........................................................................................................................................ 1995 ................................... 197,470 86,000 

158 

APPROPRIATION THIS BILL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/program Last year of authorization Authorization level Appropriation in last year of authorization Appropriation in this bill 

GNMA Mortgage-Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account: 

Limitation on guaranteed loans ............................................................................................................................ 1996 (110,000,000 ) (110,000,000 ) (200,000,000 ) Administrative Expenses ........................................................................................................................................ 1996 (1 ) 9,101 10,695 

Policy Development and Research .................................................................................................................................. 1994 36,470 35,000 45,000 Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Initiatives Program ............................................................................................. 1994 26,000 20,481 19,500 Lead Hazards Reduction Program .................................................................................................................................. 1994 276,000 185,000 167,000 Salaries and Expenses .................................................................................................................................................... 1994 1,029,496 916,963 1,116,575 

TITLE III: INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund .................................................................................................... 1998 111,000 80,000 60,640 Consumer Product Safety Commission ........................................................................................................................... 1992 45,000 40,200 62,650 Environmental Protection Agency: 

Categorical Grants: 

Clean Air Act ................................................................................................................................................. FY 1997 (1 ) 167,230 225,000 Radon Abatement Act ................................................................................................................................... FY 1991 10,000 9,000 8,000 Clean Water Act (FWPCA) ............................................................................................................................. FY 1990 ................................... ................................... 496,370 Safe Drinking Water Act ............................................................................................................................... FY 2003 115,000 ................................... 116,330 Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA) ................................................................................................................. FY 1988 70,000 71,391 104,300 Toxic Substances Control Act ....................................................................................................................... FY 1983 1,500 5,100 5,047 Pollution Prevention Act ................................................................................................................................ FY 1993 8,000 6,800 6,000 Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act .............................................................................. FY 1998 (1 ) 38,585 62,000 Clean Water SRF ........................................................................................................................................... FY 1992 1,800,000 1,948,500 850,000 Drinking Water SRF ....................................................................................................................................... FY 2003 1,000,000 844,475 845,000 Alaska Native Village .................................................................................................................................... FY 1979 2,000 ................................... 20,000 Hazardous Substance Superfund .................................................................................................................. FY 1994 5,100,000 1,480,853 1,258,000 LUST Trust Fund ........................................................................................................................................... FY 1988 10,000 14,400 74,000 

Federal Citizen Information Center Fund: Federal Information Center .......................................................................... FY 1980 7,000 4,492 14,907 Interagency Council on Homelessness ........................................................................................................................... FY 1994 1,563 0 1,500 National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................................................... FY 2002 14,625,400 14,901,700 15,149,369 National Credit Union Administration, Loan Fund ......................................................................................................... 1979 0 0 1,000 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ........................................................................................................................ 1994 30,714 32,000 115,000 

1 Such sums. 

159 

Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93y ̈09344) requires that the 

report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain 

a statement detailing how the authority compares with the reports 

submitted under section 302(b) of the Act for the most recently 

agreed to concurrent resolution of then budget for the fiscal year. 

This information follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) allocation— This bill— 

Budget 

authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Discretionary .......................................................... $92,930 $92,930 1 $101,732 $101,319 

Mandatory ............................................................... 38,445 35,107 38,069 34,688 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, (Public Law 

93y ̈09344), as amended, the following information was provided to 

the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office: 

Millions 

Outlays: 

2005 ........................................................................................................... 1 $87,050 

2006 ........................................................................................................... 24,090 

2007 ........................................................................................................... 8,467 

2008 ........................................................................................................... 3,968 

2009 ........................................................................................................... 3,458 1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, (Public Law 

93y ̈09344), as amended, the Congressional Budget office has provided the following estimate of new budget authority and outlays 

provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to state 

and local governments: 

Millions 

Budget Authority in bill .................................................................................. $23,188 

Fiscal year outlays resulting therefrom ......................................................... 5,957 

BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT

During fiscal year 2005 for purposes of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), the 

following information provides the definition of the term ‘‘program, 

project, and activity’’ for departments and agencies carried in the 

accompanying bill. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall 

include the most specific level of budget items identified in the 

2005 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, the accompanying House and Senate reports, the conference report of the 

joint explanatory statement of the managers of the committee of 

conference. 

In applying any sequestration reductions, departments and agencies shall apply the percentage of reduction required for fiscal year 

160 

2005 pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 99–177 to each program, project, activity, and subactivity contained in the budget justification documents submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support of the fiscal year 2003 

budget estimates, as amended, for such departments and agencies, 

as subsequently altered, modified, or changed by Congressional action identified by the aforementioned Act, resolutions and reports. 

Further, it is intended that in implementing any Presidential sequestration order, (1) no program, project, or activity should be 

eliminated, (2) no reordering of funds or priorities occur, and (3) no 

unfunded program execution, it is not intended that normal reprogramming between programs, projects, and activities be precluded after reductions required under the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act are implemented. 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House 

of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those 

voting for and those voting against, are printed below: 

161 

ROLLCALL NO. 1

Date: July 22, 2004. 

Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 

Bill, FY 2005. 

Motion by: Mr. Edwards. 

Description of motion: To provide funds for VA medical services 

offset by a reduction to tax cuts for certain income groups. 

Results: Rejected—yeas 28; nays 35. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Berry 

Mr. Bishop 

Mr. Boyd 

Mr. Clyburn 

Mr. Cramer 

Ms. DeLauro 

Mr. Dicks 

Mr. Edwards 

Mr. Farr 

Mr. Fattah 

Mr. Hinchey 

Mr. Hoyer 

Mr. Jackson 

Ms. Kaptur 

Mr. Kennedy 

Ms. Kilpatrick 

Mr. Mollohan 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Murtha 

Mr. Obey 

Mr. Olver 

Mr. Pastor 

Mr. Price 

Mr. Rothman 

Ms. Roybal-Allard 

Mr. Sabo 

Mr. Serrano 

Mr. Visclosky 

Mr. Aderholt 

Mr. Bonilla 

Mr. Crenshaw 

Mr. Culberson 

Mr. Cunningham 

Mr. Doolittle 

Mrs. Emerson 

Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Mr. Goode 

Ms. Granger 

Mr. Hobson 

Mr. Istook 

Mr. Kingston 

Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Knollenberg 

Mr. Kolbe 

Mr. LaHood 

Mr. Latham 

Mr. Lewis 

Mrs. Northup 

Mr. Peterson 

Mr. Regula 

Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Sherwood 

Mr. Simpson 

Mr. Sweeney 

Mr. Taylor 

Mr. Tiahrt 

Mr. Vitter 

Mr. Walsh 

Mr. Wamp 

Dr. Weldon 

Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Wolf 

Mr. Young 

162 


Insert offset folio 086 here HR674.001
163 


Insert offset folio 087 here HR674.002
164 


Insert offset folio 088 here HR674.003
165 


Insert offset folio 089 here HR674.004
166 


Insert offset folio 090 here HR674.005
167 


Insert offset folio 091 here HR674.006
168 


Insert offset folio 092 here HR674.007
169 


Insert offset folio 093 here HR674.008
170 


Insert offset folio 094 here HR674.009
171 


Insert offset folio 095 here HR674.010
172 


Insert offset folio 096 here HR674.011
173 


Insert offset folio 097 here HR674.012
174 


Insert offset folio 098 here HR674.013
175 


Insert offset folio 099 here HR674.014
176 


Insert offset folio 100 here HR674.015
177 


Insert offset folio 101 here HR674.016
178 


Insert offset folio 102 here HR674.017
179 


Insert offset folio 103 here HR674.018
(180) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF HON. DAVID OBEY AND HON. ALAN B. 

MOLLOHAN 

The bill reported by the Committee for the Departments of Veterans, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies 

fails the American people in a broad range of critical program 

areas. It epitomizes the problems created by the Majority Budget 

Resolution that favors super-sized tax cuts for our most well-off 

citizens at the expense of assistance to American communities and 

needy individuals. Although the bill reflects a sincere effort by a 

thoughtful and fair Chairman, the Subcommittee allocation is simply adequate to fund the vital programs under its jurisdiction— 

from veterans to the scientific community to the protection of our 

environment and the provision of adequate housing for low-income 

people. The pain in this bill is broad and deep and its substantial 

cuts are going to cause real harm. 

• Veterans programs are funded $1.3 billion below the levels recommended by the bipartisan leadership of the Veterans Affairs 

Committee. 

• Funding for the section 8 housing voucher program is inadequate to maintain current program levels. This will mean fewer 

people can be housed and existing tenants may not have their 

leases renewed. 

• Except for the section 8 program, most of the other programs 

in HUD have been cut by 4.3 percent. 

• EPA is funded $613 million below last year and funding for repairing our nations clean water infrastructure is cut by $492 million. The bill cuts funding for wastewater construction by 40 percent. • NASA is funded more than $1 billion below the level requested by the President and almost $300 million below last year. At this 

level of funding, NASA cannot move forward on the proposed new 

Moon-Mars initiative nor can most of the cuts made in the President’s budget to important programs be restored. • Finally, at a time when Congress has endorsed substantial increases in basic science funding at the National Science Foundation, this bill cuts funding by $277 million below the President’s request and $110 million below the current year funding level. 

Veterans 

Unlike other agencies in this bill, the VA actually received an in- crease of $1.2 billion for veterans health care above the President’s 

request. The bipartisan leadership of the Veterans Affairs Committee as well as the veterans service organizations, however, have 

made it clear that a $2.5 billion increase over the President’s budget—$1.3 billion more than the Committee-reported bill—is required 

to maintain existing service levels within the VA health care system. 

181 

This health care network for needy veterans, the largest in the 

United States, is overburdened by a large retiree population, principally of WWII and Korean War veterans, as well as a growing 

burden of new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In 

1995, the VA treated 2.6 million veterans. In fiscal year 2004, the 

Department expects to treat 4.6 million veterans. The overall medical care inflation rate for 2003 was more than double the general 

inflation rate. Hospital care and related services requirements for 

veterans are growing at a rate of 7.3 percent annually. Facility improvements recommended by the VA’s CARES Commission are expected to cost $1 billion per year for at least the next five to 10 

years. Thousands of veterans are currently waiting for an appointment at a VA facility. Mental health services to current veterans 

and to those soldiers returning home today are inadequate. Medical 

and prosthetic research is cut by $20 million in this bill at a time 

when research could have a direct impact on post deployment quality of life for our veterans. The bill reported by the Committee fails 

to adequately address any of these needs. 

Housing 

The Committee-reported bill includes an increase of $1.5 billion 

for section 8 vouchers. Unfortunately, this amount is inadequate to 

maintain even current levels of housing assistance for this needy 

population. We believe that the HUD section 8 housing vouchers 

program is at least $100 million short. This funding level could reduce the number of families receiving assistance by between 5,000 

and 10,000 families. 

The Committee-reported bill makes several changes to the section 8 program. Some of the changes made include directing HUD 

to strip Public Housing Authorities of all but one week of their onemonth program reserves. More than a week of reserves is needed 

to maintain financial stability and uninterrupted services to low-income families. The bill also cuts the administrative fees that housing agencies use to staff and operate the voucher program by $48 

million below last year’s level, making it difficult to engage in important activities, such as attempting to reduce year-long waiting 

lists and promptly inspecting units. 

All other HUD programs, except section 8, are cut by more than 

four percent below the FY 2004 level. The Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG), public housing funds, homeless assistance grants, and the elderly and disabled programs all 

are reduced. Further, for the second year in a row, the HOPE VI 

program has been drastically reduced. In fiscal year 2003, HOPE 

VI was funded at $570 million. In fiscal year 2005, the proposed 

funding level for HOPE VI is a mere $143 million. 

Corporation for National and Community Service 

The bill also provides $572 million for the Corporation on National and Community Service, a cut of $70 million below the President’s request of $642 million. This cut means that the Corporation 

will fund 70,000 volunteers instead of 75,000 volunteers in fiscal 

year 2005. 

182 

Environmental Protection 

The Committee recommendation reduces overall funding for the 

EPA by $613 million compared to last year. In practical terms, this 

means less money to help communities improve the quality of their 

air and the safety of their water and less money for cleaning up 

toxic wastes. It means less money to help the 474 so-called ‘‘non 

attainment’’ counties that EPA informed in April did not meet minimum public health standards under the Clean Air Act. It means 

the President’s $259 million in increases for Superfund (+$124 million), brownfields clean-ups (+$40 million), school bus diesel engines upgrades (+$60 million), and an expanded Great Lakes initiative (+$35 million) cannot be approved. 

The largest cut by far, however, is the $492 million reduction 

below last year in funding for the Clean Water Fund. In June, the 

EPA estimated the shortfall to upgrade the nation’s aging water 

and sewer system over the next 20 years to be at least $388 billion 

for our local towns and cities. 

Given the remaining challenges to clean up our air and water 

and the enormous financial pressures on local communities, the 

overall eight percent reduction in funding for the EPA included in 

the Committee bill represents a serious retreat from our responsibilities. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NASA is funded at $1.1 billion below the level requested by the 

President and almost $300 million below last year. At this level of 

funding, NASA cannot move forward the Moon-Mars exploration 

program, nor can most of the cuts made in the President’s budget 

to important existing programs be restored. 

Many of the projects cancelled or deferred in the Administration’s budget request were ill-conceived. Notwithstanding bi-partisan agreement on the Committee on this evaluation, cuts to 

NASA approved in the bill include: the delay of the Lunar Exploration mission; a cut in funding to the Crew Exploration Vehicle 

of more than half the requested amount; delay on the Jupiter Icy 

Moons orbiter (JIMO) missions and Project Prometheus; delay of 

the Living with a Star mission; a cut to research in bioastronautics 

of more than one-third below the President’s request; a cut to the 

International Space Station of $190 million, and funding cuts to 

numerous other programs. 

We are pleased with the NASA Administrator’s recent statement 

concerning the Hubble Space Telescope. As part of the President’s 

fiscal year 2005 budget submission, NASA announced the termination of the Hubble telescope and the cancellation of its’ fourth 

servicing mission. In August, NASA reversed that decision and the 

Administrator stated that a robotics servicing mission to the space 

telescope would, in fact, go forward. The Minority is disappointed, 

however, that the Administrator did not wait for the results of a 

study being conducted by the National Academy of Sciences on the 

best method of servicing Hubble as promised by the Administrator 

in a Senate hearing. A preliminary report has been released from 

the Academy urging NASA not to take actions that would preclude 

the possibility of a shuttle servicing mission; however, NASA has 

183 

chosen to proceed without consideration of the NAS’s preliminary 

suggestions. 

We support the Chairman’s view that both this Committee and 

the Congress need more specific information on the President’s 

Moon-Mars proposal to make informed and thoughtful funding decisions on critical programs. We hope that the Administration and 

NASA will continue to provide necessary information to Congress 

and to pursue a vigorous authorization process that is befitting 

such a substantial policy proposal. 

Finally, we fully agree with the Chairman’s commitment to the 

safe return to flight of the space shuttle fleet and the completion 

of the International Space station. We believe that is important for 

the United States to meet our commitments to our international 

partners with regard to the space station. We are concerned, however, about the escalating costs of the repairs to the shuttle fleet. 

Recently, the NASA Administrator stated on the record that the 

cost of fixing all the problems with the fleet could be at least $2.2 

billion. This cost is double the estimate provided to Congress one 

year ago and it is unclear that $2.2 billion is the final number. 

Given the fiscal austerity of this bill—including the $1.1 billion cut 

to NASA—it is difficult to imagine where funds could be found. 

National Science Foundation 

At a time when Congress has endorsed substantial increases in 

basic science funding at the National Science Foundation, this bill 

cuts funding by $277 million below the President and $110 million 

below the current year. Science is a long-term investment in the future by both the scientists and the academic community. Promising 

young students and faculty make career choices and universities 

invest in buildings and equipment based on the potential of financial support of their research. They are willing to compete with 

their peers based on the quality of their ideas but they ask that 

the federal government be a predictable partner in terms of overall 

support. 

This Committee has tried in the past to be both a good partner 

and aggressive advocate for the National Science Foundation. 

Today, despite recent rhetoric in support of NSF funding and passage of a doubling authorization in 2002, the short-term message 

is stark for the community that depends on NSF support. This bill 

provides $194 million less for investigator-initiated research than 

the President requested. That means that approximately 1,400 research projects which otherwise would have been funded next year 

will be rejected. It means the six new Science and Technology Centers which are expected to be selected by the NSF later this year 

will go unfunded. And it means that the Committee does not have 

enough money to reject the budget proposal to phase out NSF’s 

Math and Science Partnerships program. 

Conclusion 

Given this wide range of concerns, the Minority believes the 

Committee-reported bill is simply inadequate. We believe that significant additional resources will need to be added to the bill to address the critical needs of our veterans, public housing recipients, 

184 

housing, science and the environment. Without these added resources, the bill fails the American people. 

DAVE OBEY. 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN. 

Æ