95–707 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–671 

DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION AND TREASURY 

AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 

2005 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2004.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. ISTOOK, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5025] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Departments of Transportation and Treasury and independent 

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Summary and major recommendations of the bill .................................. ........ 3 

The effect of guaranteed spending ............................................................ ........ 4 

Decline in relevance of budget justification material .............................. ........ 5 

Tabular summary ....................................................................................... ........ 6 

Committee hearings ................................................................................... ........ 6 

Program, project, and activity ................................................................... ........ 6 

Title I—Department of Transportation: 

Office of the Secretary ........................................................................ 2 7 

Federal Aviation Administration ....................................................... 6 11 

Federal Highway Administration ...................................................... 14 39 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration .................................. 24 50 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ............................ 27 56 

Federal Railroad Administration ....................................................... 32 65 

Federal Transit Administration ......................................................... 40 75 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ......................... 50 95 

2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Maritime Administration ................................................................... 51 96 

Research and Special Programs Administration .............................. 53 100 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 55 105 

Surface Transportation Board ........................................................... 56 106 

General provisions, Department of Transportation ......................... 56 108 

Title II—Department of the Treasury: 

Departmental Offices .......................................................................... 61 109 

Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investment Programs ...... 63 112 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 63 113 

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration ....................... 64 114 

Air Transportation Stabilization Program Account ......................... 64 115 

Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration ................... 65 115 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ........................................... 65 116 

Financial Management Service .......................................................... 66 117 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau .................................... 66 118 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing .................................................... ........ 118 

United States Mint ............................................................................. 67 119 

Bureau of the Public Debt .................................................................. 67 120 

Internal Revenue Service ................................................................... 68 120 

General provisions, Department of the Treasury ............................. ........ 124 

Title III—Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated 

to the President: 

Compensation of the President .......................................................... 76 125 

White House Office Salaries and Expenses ...................................... 76 126 

Executive Residence at the White House .......................................... 77 126 

Council of Economic Advisors ............................................................ 80 127 

Office of Policy Development .............................................................. 80 128 

National Security Council .................................................................. 80 128 

Homeland Security Council ................................................................ 81 129 

Office of Administration ..................................................................... 81 129 

Office of Management and Budget .................................................... 82 130 

Office of National Drug Control Policy .............................................. 83 132 

Unanticipated Needs .......................................................................... 87 135 

Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of 

the Vice President ........................................................................... 87 136 

Title IV—Independent Agencies: 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board ....... 88 136 

National Transportation Safety Board .............................................. 88 137 

Federal Election Commission ............................................................. 89 138 

Election Assistance Commission ........................................................ 89 138 

Federal Labor Relations Authority .................................................... 90 140 

Federal Maritime Commission ........................................................... 91 140 

General Services Administration ....................................................... 91 141 

Merit Systems Protection Board ........................................................ 107 147 

Morris K. Udall Foundation ............................................................... 107 148 

National Archives and Records Administration ............................... 108 149 

Office of Government Ethics .............................................................. 109 150 

Office of Personnel Management ....................................................... 110 151 

Office of Special Counsel .................................................................... 114 155 

United States Postal Service .............................................................. 115 156 

United States Tax Court .................................................................... 116 157 

Title V—General Provisions: This Act ...................................................... 116 158 

Title VI—General Provisions: Departments, Agencies, and Corporations ......................................................................................................... 124 159 

House of Representatives Report Requirements: 

Constitutional authority ..................................................................... ........ 162 

Appropriations not authorized by law ............................................... ........ 163 

Transfers of funds ............................................................................... ........ 164 

Statement of general performance goals and objectives .................. ........ 165 

3 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Compliance with rule XIII, clause 3(e) (Ramseyer rule) ................. ........ 166 

Changes in the application of existing law ....................................... ........ 179 

Comparison with the budget resolution ............................................ ........ 195 

Five-year outlay projections ............................................................... ........ 196 

Financial assistance to state and local governments ....................... ........ 196 

Rescissions ........................................................................................... ........ 196 

Full Committee votes .......................................................................... ........ 196 

Tabular summary of the bill .............................................................. ........ ...........

SUMMARY AND MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BILL

The accompanying bill would provide $89.9 billion in new budget 

(obligational) authority for the programs of the departments of 

Transportation and Treasury and independent agencies, $1 billion 

more than requested in the budget and $495 million below the fiscal year 2004 enacted levels. In all cases, unless otherwise noted, 

references in this report to fiscal year 2004 enacted levels include 

an across-the-board reduction of .59 percent specified for all government departments, agencies, and entities in division H, section 

168 of Public Law 108–199. 

Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill are: • Federal-aid highways spending of $34.6 billion, the same 

as the House-passed authorization level. This is an increase of 

$1 billion over the President’s request and the same increase 

above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. • A total of $14 billion provided to the Federal Aviation Ad- ministration (FAA)—$171 million over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $55 million over the President’s request. This 

includes $3.5 billion for the airport improvement program and 

$102 million for essential air service. The bill includes $9 million above the request for the hire and training of additional 

air traffic controllers. The bill also extends the current provisions of the war risk insurance program, including current premium price caps, for one additional year. 

• The bill provides $900 million for Amtrak, a level consistent with the President’s budget request. The bill also continues current reforms for Amtrak, including the submission of 

a financial plan and quarterly reports to the Congress on the 

implementation of that plan. The bill includes $500 million for 

capital improvements and $60 million to ensure commuter operations continuity. • Transit program spending totals $7.249 billion, including 

over $1 billion for new fixed guideway systems. 

• Under the General Services Administration, the bill provides: $90.7 million for new border stations to protect our nation’s borders and improve commercial efficiency at the borders; $314.4 million for a new federal courthouse in Los Angeles, California; and $2.7 million for design and site acquisition 

of a new courthouse in San Diego, California. 

• The bill increases funding for Treasury’s Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network by $2.8 million. 

• The bill provides $468.5 million to the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy, including: $215.4 million for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, $7 million above the 

President’s request; $120 million for the National Youth AntiVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:38 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
4 

Drug Media Campaign; and $70 million for the Drug-Free 

Communities program. • Maintains current law requiring contraceptive coverage 

under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program 

(FEHBP) (except in certain circumstances) and prohibiting the 

use of funds under FEHBP to pay for an abortion, except 

where the life of the mother is endangered or in case of rape 

or incest. • Subject to certain criteria, the bill establishes a government-wide threshold requiring that any competitive sourcing 

initiative yield a 10 percent or $10 million savings for the Federal Government; and • Prohibits the Treasury Department from implementing or 

enforcing regulations that permit financial institutions to accept the matricula consular identification. 

THE EFFECT OF GUARANTEED SPENDING

Over the objections of the Appropriations and Budget Committees, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

(TEA21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two new 

additional spending categories or ‘‘firewalls’’, the highway category 

and the mass transit category. The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21) provided a 

similar treatment for certain aviation programs. Although using 

different procedures, each of these Acts produced the same results: 

they significantly raised spending, and they have had the effect of 

prohibiting the Appropriations Committee from reducing those 

spending levels in the annual appropriations process. As the Committee noted during deliberations on these bills, the Acts essentially created mandatory spending programs within the discretionary caps. This undermines Congressional flexibility to fund 

other equally important programs not protected by funding guarantees and to address emerging priorities, such as homeland security 

and overseas military requirements, within projected budget totals. 

The reorganization of the Committee in the 108th Congress posed 

additional challenges in this regard, because funding guarantees 

for selected transportation programs compete in the budget process 

against funding for non-transportation agencies such as the Office 

of National Drug Control Policy, enforcement of anti-terrorism and 

money laundering activities in the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the General Services Administration. As 

in past years, the Committee has done all in its power, considering 

this environment, to produce a balanced bill providing adequately 

for all modes of transportation as well as all non-transportation 

programs under the jurisdiction of this bill. 

Although the funding guarantees in AIR–21 were extended in the 

Vision–100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act last year, the 

guarantees of TEA–21 expired on September 30, 2003, and the 

Committee’s recommendations were developed with that under consideration. As reauthorization of our surface transportation programs continues to be debated during the current session of Congress, the Committee wants to make clear that the continued use 

of spending guarantees to ‘‘wall-off’’ parts of the discretionary budget for particular constituencies could cause both transportation and 

non-transportation programs across the government to be under 

5 

more severe budget pressure, in order to keep the overall budget 

in balance. The effect of maintaining and enforcing these guarantees would leave its mark on non-covered programs and activities 

in this bill, since they must compete for leftover funding. The Committee continues to believe that funding guarantees skew transportation priorities inappropriately, by providing increases to highway, 

transit, and airport spending while leaving safety-related operations in the FAA and FRA, as well as critical non-transportation 

programs, to scramble for the remaining resources. 

DECLINE IN RELEVANCE OF BUDGET JUSTIFICATION MATERIAL

The Committee is disturbed to note the serious decline in the 

quality of budget justification material submitted this year. Many 

of the detailed tables providing breakdowns of requested funds by 

activity or by office have been discontinued. Discussions of specific 

increases and decreases to prior funding levels have been minimized or eliminated, along with breakdowns of changes in staffing 

levels. In the place of critical budget-justifying material, the Committee is provided reams of narrative text expounding on the performance goals and achievements of the various agencies. This requires the Committee to expend unnecessary effort to get the information it needs, and to weed through mountains of information unrelated to the budget in the hope of finding something useful. 

The Committee acknowledges the value of performance measurement. Likewise though, the Committee expects the administration 

to acknowledge that Congressional budget justifications are prepared not for executive officials, but for the use of the Committees 

on Appropriations. The Committees are less able to meet the administration’s requests if they do not come justified with proper financial information. The Committee also believes there is currently 

much waste in the duplicated printing of performance reports. This 

year, for example, the Committee received a detailed ‘‘Performance 

and Accountability Report’’ from the Department of Transportation 

at the time the President’s budget was submitted. Much of this information, however, was reprinted in the budget justifications. This 

was a waste of printing costs, and crowded out important financial 

information. Although the Committee traditionally prints the President’s budget justifications in their entirety for distribution to the 

public, this year the Committee has removed hundreds of pages 

from public printing that were unrelated to justifying the budget 

request. In one agency alone, this saved the government at least 

$9,000 in printing costs. 

While the Committee remains interested in receiving performance information, in future budget submissions by the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and independent agencies 

covered by this Act, these agencies are directed to refrain from including substantial amounts of performance data within the budget 

justifications themselves, and to instead revert to the traditional 

funding information previously provided. Performance-related information may be submitted under separate cover. Secondly, agencies funded in this bill are directed to include, as part of the budget 

justifications, a breakdown of requested budgetary and staffing resources by office. This should include comparative data showing 

such resources for the requested year and the two previous fiscal 

years. If the Office of Management and Budget or individual agenVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
6 

cies do not heed the Committee’s direction, the Committee will assume that individual budget offices have excess resources that can 

be applied to other, more critical missions. 

TABULAR SUMMARY

A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 2004 

and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 2005 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end of this report. 

COMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the programs and projects provided for in this bill. Pursuant to House 

rules, each of these hearings was open to the public. The Committee received testimony from cabinet officers, agency heads, inspectors general, and other officials of the executive branch in 

areas under the bill’s jurisdiction. In addition, the Committee has 

considered written material submitted for the hearing record by 

Members of Congress, private citizens, local government entities, 

and private organizations. The bill recommendations for fiscal year 

2005 have been developed after careful consideration of all the information available to the Committee. 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2005, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as 

amended, with respect to appropriations contained in the accompanying bill, the terms ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall mean 

any item for which a dollar amount is contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and 

joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This 

definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 

(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to capital investment 

grants, Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the percentage 

reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration shall be applied equally to each ‘‘budget item’’ that is listed 

under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified by 

subsequent appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the 

committee of conference. 

7 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 1 ....................................................... $81,193,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 1 ..................................................... 107,103,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 89,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +7,807,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥18,103,000 

1 Includes the transfer of the Office of Emergency Transportation to the Office of the Secretary as requested in the budget. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill provides $89,000,000 for the salaries and expenses of the 

various offices comprising the Office of the Secretary. The following 

table compares the fiscal year 2004 enacted level to the fiscal year 

2005 budget estimate and the Committee’s recommendation by office: 

Fiscal year 2004 

enacted 1

Fiscal year 2005 

estimate 

House 

recommended 

Immediate office of the secretary .................................................. $2,179,000 $2,738,000 $2,219,000 

Office of the deputy secretary ........................................................ 690,000 1,070,000 705,000 

Office of the executive secretariat ................................................. 1,426,000 1,500,000 1,456,000 

Office of the under secretary of transportation for policy ............. 12,141,000 12,919,000 12,639,000 

Board of contract appeals .............................................................. 690,000 801,000 704,000 

Official of small and disadvantaged business utilization ............ 1,251,000 1,295,000 1,277,200 

Office of the chief information officer ........................................... 7,396,000 16,742,000 13,000,000 

Office of the assistant secretary for governmental affairs ........... 2,268,000 2,587,000 2,315,700 

Office of the general counsel ......................................................... 14,985,000 16,920,000 15,394,300 

Office of the assistant secretary for budget and programs ......... 8,418,000 8,889,000 8,572,900 

Office of the assistant secretary for administration ..................... 22,984,000 32,935,000 23,435,700 

Office of public affairs ................................................................... 1,889,000 2,034,000 1,982,700 

Office of intelligence and security ................................................. 1,972,000 2,260,000 2,052,900 

Office of emergency transportation ................................................ 2,904,000 4,323,000 3,300,000 

Total ................................................................................... 81,193,000 107,013,000 89,000,000 

1 Includes across the board reduction of .65 percent. 

Immediate offices of the secretary and deputy secretary and the 

executive secretariat.—The recommendation provides an almost 2 

percent increase for these offices rather than the 2.4 percent proposed. The recommendation includes individual funding for these 

offices, as in past years, rather than consolidating them as proposed in the budget request. 

Office of the chief information officer.—The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for activities of the chief financial officer, 

which represents a 75.8 percent increase above the fiscal year 2004 

enacted level instead of the 126.4 percent increase proposed. While 

this increase may seem generous when compared to the increases 

provided to other offices of the department, the Committee notes 

the fiscal year 2005 level is on par with the fiscal year 2003 and 

2002 funding levels. The Committee’s recommendation includes 

$2,285,000 for cyber intelligence and infrastructure protection, 

$1,000,000 for common access architecture, $500,000 for the enterprise security project, $2,515,000 enterprise architecture implementation, $2,000,000 for departmental investment and capital planVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
8 

ning, $500,000 for strategic management, and $4,200,000 for consolidation and operations support. 

Office of the assistant secretary for administration.—The Committee’s recommendation of $23,435,700 for fiscal year 2005 assumes 

that the centralized workers’ compensation program, consolidated 

benefits activities, security investigation costs, rent, and the remediation of DOT facilities will be funded at the budget request level. 

The Committee recommends a total of $378,000 for training and recruitment activities and $68,000 for ‘‘electronic business practice’’ 

activities to meet the requirements of FedBiz Ops. 

Office of emergency transportation.—The Committee approves the 

request to transfer of this office from the research and special programs administration to the office of the secretary. The Committee 

recommends a funding level of $3,300,000, $396,000 over the fiscal 

year 2004 level and $1,023,000 below the budget request. Of the 

amount provided, $100,000 is for improvements to the crisis management center’s operational capabilities and $100,000 is for regional emergency response team training. 

Operating plan.—The Committee directs the department to submit an operating plan for fiscal year 2005, signed by the Secretary 

for review by the Committees on Appropriations of both the House 

and Senate within 60 days of the bill’s enactment. The operating 

plan should include funding levels for the various offices, programs 

and initiatives detailed down to the object class or program element covered in the budget justification and supporting documents 

or referenced in the House and Senate appropriations reports, and 

the statement of the managers. 

Congressional budget justifications.—The Committee again directs the department to submit all of the department’s fiscal year 

Congressional budget justifications on the first Monday in February, concurrent with official submission of the President’s budget 

to Congress. Also, the department is directed to submit its fiscal 

year 2006 Congressional justification materials for the salaries and 

expenses of the office of the secretary at the same level of detail 

provided in the Congressional justifications presented in fiscal year 

2003. Further, the department is directed to include in the budget 

justification funding levels for the prior year, current year, and 

budget year for all programs, activities, initiatives, and program 

elements. 

Bill language.—Language prohibiting funding for the assistant 

secretary for public affairs position has been retained from last 

year. Also, the bill continues language that permits up to 

$2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the office of the secretary for 

salaries and expenses. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $8,518,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 8,700,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,700,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +182,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

The office of civil rights is responsible for advising the Secretary 

on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and ensuring full implementation of civil rights opportunity precepts in all of the department’s official actions and programs. This office is responsible 

9 

for enforcing laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination in 

federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs. 

This office also handles all civil rights cases related to Department 

of Transportation employees. The recommendation provides 

$8,700,000 for the office of civil rights, the same as the budget estimate and an increase of $182,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $20,741,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 10,800,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 10,800,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥9,941,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation finances those research activities and studies 

concerned with planning, analysis, and information development 

needed to support the Secretary’s responsibilities in the formulation of national transportation policies. It also finances the staff 

necessary to conduct these efforts. The overall program is carried 

out primarily through contracts with other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private 

firms. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,800,000 for 

transportation planning, research and development, a reduction of 

$9,941,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level, but equal to the budget 

request. 

The Committee encourages the department to renew the current 

memorandum of understanding with Langston University regarding transportation research activities, and expand the scope if possible. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, fiscal year 2004 ............................................................... ($116,026,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 1 ..................................................... ............................ Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (125,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Limitation, fiscal year 2004 ........................................................ (+8,974,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ (+125,000,000) 1Proposed without limitation. 

The working capital fund (WCF) was created to provide common 

administrative services to the various modes and outside entities 

that desire those services for economy and efficiency. The fund is 

financed through negotiated agreements with the Department’s operating administrations and other governmental elements requiring 

the center’s capabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $125,000,000 on the 

working capital fund, $26,054,000 below the amount estimated in 

the budget justification. The budget request proposed a limitless 

program level for the fund in fiscal year 2005. The Committee’s recommendation is appropriate considering the funding levels of the 

operations and administrative accounts. 

Modal usage of WCF.—Consistent with past practice, the Committee directs the department, in its fiscal year 2006 Congressional 

10 

justifications for each of the modal administrations, to account for 

increases or decreases in WCF billings based on planned usage requested or anticipated by the modes rather than anticipated by 

WCF managers. 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriation Limitation on guaranteed loans 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................... $895,000 ($18,367,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................... 900,000 (18,367,000) 

Recommended in the bill .................................... 900,000 (18,367,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................. +5,000 (..........) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................ ............................ (..........) 

The minority business resource center of the office of small and 

disadvantaged business utilization provides assistance in obtaining 

short-term working capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The program enables qualified 

businesses to obtain loans at prime interest rates for transportation-related projects. 

The recommendation fully funds the budget request of $500,000 

to cover the subsidy costs for the loans, not to exceed $18,367,000, 

and $400,000 for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program. 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $2,982,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 3,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +18,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in securing 

contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects that involve federal spending. It also provides grants and contract assistance that 

serves DOT-wide goals. The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for 

this program, $18,000 above the fiscal year 2004 funding level and 

equal to the budget request. 

NEW HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 1 ....................................................... $42,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 160,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ............................

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥42,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥160,000,000 

1Fiscal year 2004 funds were provided under ‘‘General services administration, federal buildings fund.’’ 

This appropriation finances fiscal year 2005 costs for the new Department of Transportation headquarters building, which would 

consolidate all of the department’s headquarters operating administration functions (except the Federal Aviation Administration) from 

various locations around the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area 

into a leased building within the central employment area of the 

District of Columbia. 

11 

The Committee’s recommendation includes no new funds in fiscal 

year 2005 for the new headquarters building. The Committee has 

still not yet received a satisfactory answer regarding why the Department is not pursuing a government-owned building at half the 

price instead of the current plan of a long term lease arrangement. 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $51,693,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 50,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 51,700,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +7,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ +1,700,000 

The Essential Air Service (EAS) program was originally created 

by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary measure to 

continue air service to communities that had received federally 

mandated air service prior to deregulation. The program currently 

provides subsidies to air carriers serving small communities that 

meet certain criteria. 

The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 

(Public Law 104–264) authorized the collection of user fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in the United States, commonly known as overflight fees. In addition, the Act permanently 

appropriated these fees for authorized expenses of the FAA and 

stipulated that the first $50,000,000 of annual fee collections must 

be used to finance the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in 

fees, the law requires FAA to make up the difference from other 

funds available to the agency. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget proposes to fund the EAS program 

at a total of $50,000,000, of which $36,000,000 would come from 

new overflight fee collections credited to the Airport and Airway 

Trust fund, and $14,000,000 from overflight fees previously collected and transferred to this payment account. The Committee 

finds the budget proposal unrealistic considering that in 2004, a 

court ruled the imposition of such overflight fees to be illegal and 

the FAA is currently prohibited from collecting such fees. 

The Committee recommends a total program level of EAS in fiscal year 2005 of $101,700,000, roughly the same level as provided 

in fiscal year 2004. This funding consists of an appropriation of 

$51,700,000, $14,000,000 from funds carried over from the prior 

year, and $36,000,000 to be derived from other funds available to 

the FAA. 

The bill includes a provision (sec. 525) prohibiting the use of 

funds to implement the EAS local participation program. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the 

safety and development of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system of airports. The Federal Government’s regulatory role 

in civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch 

within the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This Act instructed the Secretary of Commerce 

12 

to foster air commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, 

operate, and maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and 

development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness certificates 

for aircraft and major aircraft components; and investigate civil 

aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, these activities were subsumed into a new, independent agency named the 

Civil Aeronautics Authority. 

After further administrative reorganizations, Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of two separate 

agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the Civil Aeronautics 

Board. When the Department of Transportation began its operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation Agency was renamed 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and became one of several modal administrations within the department. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of the Airline 

Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist at the end of 1984. 

FAA’s mission expanded in 1995 with the transfer of the Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation from the Office of the Secretary, 

and decreased in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation 

security activities to the new Transportation Security Administration. 

OPERATIONS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $7,486,493,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 7,849,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,726,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +239,507,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥123,000,000 

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

managerial costs for the FAA’s regulatory, international, medical, 

engineering and development programs as well as policy oversight 

and overall management functions. 

The operations appropriation includes the following major activities: (1) operation on a 24–hour daily basis of a national air traffic 

system; (2) establishment and maintenance of a national system of 

aids to navigation; (3) establishment and surveillance of civil air 

regulations to assure safety in aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations governing the physical fitness of airmen 

as well as the administration of an aviation medical research program; (5) administration of the acquisition, research and development programs; (6) headquarters, administration and other staff offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of aeronautical charts used by the flying public. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,726,000,000 for FAA operations, 

an increase of $239,507,000 (3.2 percent) above the level provided 

for fiscal year 2004 and $123,000,000 below the President’s budget 

request. 

13 

A comparison of the fiscal year 2005 budget estimate to the Committee recommendation by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget activity 

Fiscal year— 

2005 estimate 2005 recommended 

Air traffic organization .................................................................................................... $6,522,109,000 $6,160,617,600 

Aviation regulation & certification .................................................................................. 905,194,000 916,894,000 

Research and acquisition ................................................................................................ (1) 224,039,000 

Commercial space transportation ................................................................................... 11,941,000 11,674,000 

Financial services ............................................................................................................ (2) 50,624,000 

Human resources ............................................................................................................. (2) 69,821,600 

Region and center operations ......................................................................................... (2) 149,569,800 

Staff offices ..................................................................................................................... 409,756,000 139,302,000 

Information services ........................................................................................................ (2) 38,254,000 

Account-wide adjustments .............................................................................................. ............................ ¥34,796,000 

Total ................................................................................................................... 7,849,000,000 7,726,000,000 

1 Estimate includes $224,039,000 under ‘‘Air traffic organization’’. 

2 Estimate includes such funds under ‘‘Staff offices’’, as follows: Financial services, $53,624,000; Human resources, $78,660,000; Region 

and center operations coordination, $88,479,000; Office of information services, $38,254,000. 

TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET

The bill derives $6,002,000,000 of the total appropriation from 

the airport and airway trust fund. This is the same as the budget 

estimate. The balance of the appropriation ($1,724,000,000) will be 

drawn from the general fund of the Treasury. Under these provisions, 77.7 percent of the FAA’s operating costs will be borne by air 

travelers and industries using those services. The remaining 22.3 

percent will be borne by the general taxpayer, regardless of whether they directly utilize FAA services. 

STATE OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND

According to Administration estimates, fiscal year 2005 will continue the recent trend where necessary outlays for FAA programs 

outstrip the revenues from aviation users deposited into the airport 

and airway trust fund. The following table compares trust fund 

revenue to trust fund outlays for the past three fiscal years. As the 

table indicates, under current estimates the Federal Government is 

not only spending all the revenues coming into the trust fund, it 

is going beyond that, and spending down the cash balance. The Administration estimates that, at the end of fiscal year 2005, the unliquidated cash balance in the trust fund will be approximately 

$2,875,000,000. This represents a drop of 36.5 percent from the figure two years before. 

Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 Fiscal year 2005 

Trust fund revenue 1 ....................................................................... $9,372,000,000 $10,523,000,000 $11,241,000,000 

Trust fund outlays .......................................................................... 9,618,000,000 11,538,000,000 12,667,000,000 

Difference ........................................................................................ ¥246,000,000 ¥1,015,000 ¥1,426,000,000 

1 Includes excise taxes, offsetting collections, and interest on trust fund cash balance. 

AVERAGE STAFFYEAR COST

The Committee continues to be concerned over FAA’s high average cost for personnel. In fiscal year 2005, the average full-time 

equivalent (FTE) staffyear cost at FAA is estimated at $130,957. 

This is among the highest of all federal agencies, and has risen 22 

percent in the past four years. The Committee believes FAA needs 

14 

to continue, as a high priority, its efforts to reform the agency cost 

structure. These efforts must include business process re-engineering, value activity analysis, facility consolidation, and other options 

to reduce the agency’s personnel costs over the coming years. 

SICK LEAVE

The Committee notes that FAA’s consumption of sick leave rose 

in both leave year 2002 and 2003. Currently, the average FAA employee uses 11.2 sick leave days per year, a figure almost 20 percent higher than the government-wide average. Given the severe 

budget constraints facing the nation, the Committee urges FAA to 

continue focusing on ways to reduce sick leave, to improve productivity and lessen the need for additional staffing resources in future 

years. 

AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES

The bill provides $6,160,617,600 for air traffic services. These resources would be managed by FAA’s air traffic organization. Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are listed and described below: 

Amount 

Contract tower base program ............................................................... +$6,800,000 

Contract tower cost-sharing program .................................................. +7,000,000 

Restoration of Research and Acquisitions office ................................. ¥224,039,000 

NAS handoff—reduce growth ............................................................... ¥104,000,000 

Required navigation performance ........................................................ ¥8,000,000 

Management of MOUs and MOAs ....................................................... ¥500,000 

Realignment of functions to ARC ......................................................... ¥52,252,400 

New controller hires and training ........................................................ +9,000,000 

Aviation weather support training program ....................................... +500,000 

ATC operational supervisors ................................................................. +4,000,000 

Contract tower program.—The bill includes $86,000,000, an increase of $6,800,000 above the budget estimate, to continue the 

contract tower base program. The President’s budget does not reflect the estimate for new contracts being negotiated during fiscal 

year 2005, or costs to continue operations at an estimated 15 new 

towers entering the program during fiscal year 2005. Of the funds 

provided for this program, $500,000 is to deploy computer-based 

interactive training systems for controllers at FAA contract towers. 

In designing the system, FAA should utilize interactive computerbased training and testing systems in use at airports. 

In addition, the bill provides $7,000,000 to continue the contract 

tower cost-sharing program. The Committee continues to believe 

this is a valuable program that provides safety benefits to small 

communities. Communities in this program as of May 1, 2004 are 

shown below: 

Airport name State 

King Salmon ....................................................................................................................................................................... AK 

Springdale .......................................................................................................................................................................... AR 

Laughlin/Bullhead City ....................................................................................................................................................... AZ 

South Lake Tahoe ............................................................................................................................................................... CA 

Macon ................................................................................................................................................................................. GA 

Bloomington ........................................................................................................................................................................ IN 

Columbus Municipal ........................................................................................................................................................... IN 

Muncie/Delaware County .................................................................................................................................................... IN 

Garden City ......................................................................................................................................................................... KS 

Manhattan .......................................................................................................................................................................... KS 

15 

Airport name State 

Jefferson City ...................................................................................................................................................................... MO 

Concord ............................................................................................................................................................................... NC 

Kinston ................................................................................................................................................................................ NC 

Hickory Regional ................................................................................................................................................................. NC 

Lebanon Municipal ............................................................................................................................................................. NH 

Elko ..................................................................................................................................................................................... NV 

Oneida County .................................................................................................................................................................... NY 

Stillwater ............................................................................................................................................................................ OK 

Latrobe ................................................................................................................................................................................ PA 

Williamsport/Lycoming County ........................................................................................................................................... PA 

Grand Strand/Myrtle Beach ................................................................................................................................................ SC 

McKeller-Sipes (Jackson) .................................................................................................................................................... TN 

Walla Walla Regional ......................................................................................................................................................... WA 

Restoration of research and acquisition office.—The Committee 

recommendation restores funding for a separate Office of Research 

and Acquisition. The President’s budget proposed to transfer this 

funding to the air traffic organization. Inasmuch as not all research 

and acquisition staffing is related to air traffic services activities, 

and in recognition that there are separate appropriations for these 

important activities, the Committee believes the traditional budget 

structure should be maintained. 

Competitive sourcing for flight service stations.—In order to 

maintain a high level of safety and efficiency in the provision of 

flight service activities, the Committee urges FAA to ensure that 

the flight service station competitive sourcing effort require bidders 

to provide comprehensive and specific customer service standards 

for providing flight briefings to pilots as well as a process for ongoing customer service monitoring and evaluation. 

Required navigation performance.—The budget proposed a large 

increase to accelerate development of required navigation performance (RNP) criteria, and to publish and validate associated flying 

procedures. While the Committee supports this effort, given budget 

constraints and the need to fund other important priorities, the 

Committee recommends an increase of $8,156,000 above the fiscal 

year 2004 level. This results in a reduction to the budget estimate 

of $8,000,000. 

Management of MOUs and MOAs.—The Committee acknowledges the improvements made over the past year by FAA in managing memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and memoranda of 

agreement (MOAs) with its labor unions. In recognition that many 

of these changes are likely to result in reduced operating costs, the 

Committee bill assumes cost savings of $500,000 from this effort. 

National airspace system handoff.—The Committee recommendation provides a reduction of $104,000,000 below the budget estimate. The President’s budget had proposed an increase of 

$183,200,000, a rate which cannot be sustained in the current 

budgetary situation. 

Controller staffing.—According to FAA, the agency’s staffing 

standard estimates that 15,350 air traffic controllers will be required in fiscal year 2005. The President’s budget request assumes 

an end of year staffing level of 15,333, which is sufficient to meet 

the requirement. However, the Committee believes it prudent to 

provide an initial down payment on the additional resources expected over the next few years to address controller retirements. 

The Committee notes that, as older controllers retire and are reVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
16 

placed by younger ones, the agency will incur substantial savings 

that can be used to offset additional requirements. Further, any assumption of a one-to-one replacement of retiring controllers assumes no productivity improvements from procedural changes, facility consolidation, or new technology. The Committee believes the 

business-like mindset of the new Air Traffic Organization, as well 

as the unusual flexibility provided to the agency through personnel 

and procurement reform, will make such productivity improvements a reality and lessen the need for additional personnel. However, in the short-term the Committee believes it necessary to hire 

some additional controllers and begin their training. The Committee bill includes an additional $9,000,000 to hire and train additional air traffic controllers. This should be sufficient to hire and 

train approximately 120 controllers. The Committee directs that 

the initial training for these personnel be conducted at the FAA 

Academy. In addition, the Committee bill includes $4,000,000 to 

hire an additional 120 air traffic control operational supervisors. 

This is the same amount as provided for fiscal year 2004. The Committee believes it is important to continue the initiative begun last 

year to restore the supervisory ranks to a healthy staffing level 

after several years of severe reductions. In October 1998, FAA had 

1,963 air traffic control supervisors. By February 2004, that number had dropped to 1,519. With the additional resources provided 

last year, FAA intends to build up to the Congressionally-mandated 

level of 1,726 by the end of this fiscal year. The Committee recommendation would bring this level to 1,846. 

Aviation weather support training program.—The recommendation includes $500,000 to establish an aviation weather support 

training and test bed program involving two center weather service 

units, to improve the delivery of weather services and products for 

air route traffic control centers. This program would explore ways 

to correct the deficiencies identified in a November 2003 FAA audit 

by enhancing operational procedures, data dissemination, and coordination between air traffic control personnel and the central 

weather service unit meteorologists supporting them. 

Realignment of functions to Assistant Administrator for Region 

and Center Operations.—FAA has recently decided to transfer certain activities from the Air Traffic Organization and the Assistant 

Administrator for Human Resources to the Assistant Administrator 

for Region and Center Operations. These include certain logistics 

functions and management of the Center for Management Development, which is being transferred to the FAA Academy in Oklahoma 

City, OK. These zero-sum transfers are reflected in the bill. 

New York/New Jersey airspace redesign.—The Committee directs 

that, of the funds provided for national airspace redesign, not less 

than $5,000,000 shall be allocated to airspace redesign activities in 

the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, and these funds shall 

not be reprogrammed to any other activity except through Congressional reprogramming procedures. These funds shall not be used to 

prepare an environmental impact statement for the redesign of this 

airspace, or to conduct any work pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act or related laws, unless the FAA formally declares 

noise mitigation to be a primary objective of the redesign project. 

Procedures and technologies to improve airspace efficiency and capacity.—The Committee supports and encourages the FAA to: (1) 

17 

expeditiously complete the airspace redesign in the Washington, 

DC region and the Chicago terminal areas; (2) to the extent resources allow, develop and implement RNP/RNAV procedures at 

key points nationwide such as Denver, San Francisco, Chicago, and 

Washington Dulles; and (3) continue development of the en route 

automation modernization (ERAM) program for ultimate deployment to FAA en route centers. The Committee believes each of 

these improvements will provide significant efficiency and capacity 

gains in the nation’s airspace. The Committee directs FAA to report on the progress of these activities to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations no later than April 1, 2005. 

Core skills training, airways facilities technical workforce.—The 

Committee believes that basic core skills training and certification 

for the airway facilities (AF) technical workforce is necessary for 

the safe operation of the NAS and for the viability of the FAA’s 

modernization program. In the year 2000, FAA recognized the need 

to establish a core set of information technology skills for the AF 

technical workforce. The AF training model at that time was determined to be lacking in both structure and efficiency. An analysis 

of AF technical workforce responsibilities was accomplished in 

order to identify the core skills required for the performance of individual positions. As a result of this analysis, the FAA agreed to 

revise training with a focus on timely and efficient delivery and accommodation of NAS modernization. FAA’s plan was to provide at 

least 20 percent of the workforce with core skills training each 

year. Unfortunately, despite this agreement, less than 40 percent 

of the current AF workforce has received the training. If FAA had 

fully implemented the agreement, 80 percent of the workforce 

would be trained. The Committee believes that possessing a core 

set of skills will assist the AF technical workforce in their responsibilities, thereby saving the FAA both time and money. The Committee strongly encourages the agency to do whatever is necessary 

to provide the AF technical workforce with core skills training and 

certification, and to shift its technical training focus to a de-centralized model, in fiscal year 2005. The Committee agrees with the 

FAA that this approach will provide the most effective use of resources available with the least impact to NAS operations. 

AVIATION REGULATION AND CERTIFICATION

The Committee recommends $916,894,000 for aviation regulation 

and certification, an increase of $11,700,000 above the budget estimate. Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are listed 

and described below: 

Amount 

Certification of upset training program ............................................... +$500,000 

Flight attendant fatigue study ............................................................. +200,000 

Safety and security analytics ................................................................ +1,000,000 

Transfer, Office of System Safety ......................................................... +10,000,000 

Study and certification of upset recovery training.—The Committee recommends $500,000 for FAA to evaluate and validate 

state-of-the-art methods of conducting enhanced upset recovery 

training using centrifuge-based flight simulator technology. The 

Committee believes FAA should consider the development of aircraft-specific upset recovery procedures using today’s simulator 

technology. Funds in this bill are to conduct human factors experiVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:38 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
18 

ments at the Civil Aeromedical Institute to verify the benefits of 

this technology. 

Flight attendant fatigue study.—The Committee is concerned 

about evidence that FAA minimum crew rest regulations may not 

allow adequate rest time for flight attendants. Especially since the 

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the nation’s flight attendants have been asked to assume a greater role in protecting the 

safety of air travelers during flight. Current flight attendant duty 

and rest rules state that flight attendants should have a minimum 

of nine hours off duty, that may be reduced to eight hours, if the 

following rest period is ten hours. Although these rules have been 

in place for several years, they do not reflect the increased security 

responsibilities since 2001, and only recently have carriers begun 

scheduling attendants for less than nine hours off. There is evidence that what was once occasional use of the ‘‘reduced rest’’ flexibility is now becoming common practice at some carriers. Because 

FAA regulations allow the rest period to commence shortly after 

the aircraft parks at the gate, the eight hour ‘‘rest’’ period also includes the time it takes a flight attendant to get out of the terminal, go through customs if necessary, obtain transportation to a 

hotel and check in. Due to this situation, it is likely that many 

flight attendants are performing their duties with no more than 4 

to 6 hours of sleep. To better understand the impact of the minimum rest requirements of FAR 121.467 and FAR 135.273, the 

Committee recommends $200,000 for a study of flight attendant fatigue. This study should consider professional input from FAA’s 

Civil Aeromedical Institute. The study should be finalized and submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no 

later than June 1, 2005, including the agency’s recommendations 

on potential regulatory revisions. 

Safety and security analytics project.—The recommendation includes $1,000,000 to initiate the safety and security analytics 

project. Current software is available to analyze electronic text 

found in descriptions of accidents, incidents, pilot and controller reports, and other databases to determine trends, patterns, and 

anomalies earlier than using other methods. This technology will 

help FAA meet its long-term goal of reducing the fatal accident 

rate among commercial air carriers by focusing on long-term trends 

rather than specific cases. 

Transfer, Office of System Safety.—The Office of System Safety 

was established in 1996 in response to findings stemming from the 

crash of Valujet flight 592 and concerns over the potential impact 

of suspected unapproved parts in the aviation industry. Given 

changes in FAA’s organizational structure and management since 

that time, the Committee believes the activities of this office would 

benefit from being included in, overseen by, and integrated with, 

the broader day-to-day safety activities of the Office of the Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification (AVR). The 

recommendation funds this office at $10,000,000, a reduction of 

$1,437,000 from the budget estimate. 

Supplemental oxygen.—The Committee remains concerned that 

air travelers who require supplemental oxygen during flight face 

significant barriers to accessibility in air travel, which is at odds 

with the goals of the Air Carrier Access Act. The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in air travel, and requires acVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
19 

commodations that make air travel accessible for passengers with 

disabilities. The Committee is aware that the Research and Special 

Programs Administration has reviewed portable oxygen concentrator technology and found it to be a non-hazardous medical device and, as such, does not pose a safety or security risk. The Committee encourages FAA to initiate a rulemaking within six months 

of enactment that would establish rules for the use of portable oxygen concentrators and other oxygen delivery systems by airline patrons. 

RESEARCH AND ACQUISITION

The Committee recommends $224,039,000, the same as the budget estimate and $8,165,400 (3.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2004 

enacted level. 

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

The Committee recommends $11,674,000 for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, a reduction of $267,000 below the 

budget estimate. The Committee recommendation reflects the 

House-passed authorization for this office, which freezes funding at 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee’s recommendation also reflects the fact that this office has had problems obligating funds in a timely manner in past years, and that the number of FAA-licensed launches remained flat in fiscal year 2003, the 

last full year for which actual data are available. 

FINANCIAL SERVICES

The Committee recommends $50,624,000, a reduction of 

$3,000,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee recommendation does not include the requested increase of $3,000,000 

for additional staffing in the office of budget. The Committee believes the office can meet its requirements by re-prioritizing its activities in accord with the Administrator’s corporate goals without 

additional staff, and notes that Financial Services had 10 positions 

vacant at the time of the Committee’s budget hearing this year. 

Hearing data indicates that Financial Services has 56 positions 

which are classified as either ‘‘executive or management’’, ‘‘management and program analyst’’, ‘‘budget analyst’’, or ‘‘fiscal specialist’’. 

The Committee believes this number of positions is sufficient to 

manage the current workload, even if it requires reallocation of positions within the Financial Services organizational structure. 

HUMAN RESOURCES

The Committee recommends $69,821,600, a reduction of 

$8,838,400 below the budget estimate. The reduction reflects the 

internal realignment of certain activities to region and center operations, as previously discussed. 

Worker’s compensation.—Last year, the Committee expressed 

concern over FAA’s high payments under the worker’s compensation program. The Committee is pleased that, due to greater priority and focus on this issue by top management, the increases in 

worker’s compensation costs are beginning to moderate. A pilot ‘‘return to work’’ project by the FAA Southern Region this year resulted in 35 of 75 reviewed cases either being transitioned to disVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
20 

ability retirement or being offered other employment by the agency. 

Because of its success, this effort is now being expanded to FAA’s 

two centers and the other regional offices, which should lead to further savings in chargeback year 2005. 

REGION AND CENTER OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $149,569,800 for region and center 

operations. The increase of $61,090,800 reflects the realignment of 

activities to this budget activity, as previously discussed. 

STAFF OFFICES

The Committee recommends $139,302,000 for staff offices, a reduction of $270,454,000 below the budget estimate. The recommendation reflects restoration of offices proposed for consolidation in the President’s budget ($259,017,000) and transfer of the 

Office of System Safety to Aviation Regulation and Certification 

(¥$11,437,000). 

INFORMATION SERVICES

The Committee recommends $38,254,000 for information services, which is the same as the budget estimate and $8,849,036 

above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The additional resources 

are required to address information security requirements. 

ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS

Working capital fund costs.—The recommendation allows 

$24,857,000 for working capital fund costs, a reduction of 

$5,796,000 below the budget estimate and an increase of 

$6,689,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

Official time productivity savings.—Despite the Committee’s 

strong encouragement last year, the Committee has seen no evidence that FAA has taken effective steps to bring official time expenditures closer to the government-wide average. Clearly, FAA is 

heavily unionized, and therefore has a significant need for total 

hours of official time compared to many other federal agencies. 

However, this does not explain why FAA would require three times 

the amount of official time per bargaining unit employee as the 

government-wide average. It does not explain why FAA’s time per 

employee has increased by over 140 percent in the past 5 years, 

compared to the government-wide increase of only 5 percent. In 

fact, FAA has 90 employees who perform no duties for the government other than activities related to official time. The Committee 

recommends a reduction of $7,000,000, and assumes the agency 

will be able to achieve these savings through a more aggressive review of its official time practices. The Committee encourages FAA 

to work with the Office of Personnel Management to find ways to 

bring its practices more in line with other federal agencies. 

Unfilled executive positions.—The Committee recommends a reduction of $1,000,000, reflecting the unfilled roster of 16 executive 

positions in the agency, including 8 which were not under active 

recruitment at the time of the Committee’s budget hearing this 

year. Past hearing records indicate that, at any given time, the 

agency is likely to have between 10 and 20 unfilled executive positions. For an agency with 176 executive positions, this level of 

21 

openings may not be problematic. However, it does indicate excess 

costs are being budgeted for positions which are not likely to be 

filled in the entirety of the fiscal year. 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics studies.—The Committee denies the $2,000,000 requested for aviation statistical studies to be 

conducted by FHWA’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics. It is not 

clear to the Committee how these studies will be relevant to FAA’s 

mission. 

Executive training.—The Committee denies FAA’s proposed increase for executive training and development, a reduction of 

$3,000,000 below the budget estimate, due to budget constraints 

and higher priority needs. 

Personnel compensation and benefits.—The recommendation includes a reduction of $16,000,000 in agency-wide personnel compensation and benefits costs due to budget constraints. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Manned auxiliary flight service stations.—The Committee bill includes the limitation requested in the President’s budget prohibiting funds from being used to operate a manned auxiliary flight 

service station in the contiguous United States. The FAA budget 

includes no funding to operate such stations during fiscal year 

2005. 

Second career training program.—Once again this year, the Committee bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for the second 

career training program. This prohibition has been in annual appropriations Acts for many years, and is included in the President’s 

budget request. 

Sunday premium pay.—The bill retains a provision begun in fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually 

worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay 

(5 U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ‘‘An employee who performs work 

during a regularly scheduled 8–hour period of service which is not 

overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a part of 

which is performed on Sunday is entitled to . . . premium pay at 

a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic pay.’’ Disregarding 

the plain meaning of the statute and previous Comptroller General 

decisions, however, in Armitage v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that employees need not actually perform 

work on a Sunday to receive premium pay. The FAA was required 

immediately to provide back pay totaling $37,000,000 for time 

scheduled but not actually worked between November 1986 and 

July 1993. Without this provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded liabilities, to be financed by the agency’s annual 

operating budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for fiscal years 1995 through 2004. 

Aeronautical charting and cartography.—The bill maintains the 

provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C) activities 

through the working capital fund (WCF). Public Law 106–181 authorized the transfer of these activities from the Department of 

Commerce to the FAA, a move which the Committee supported. 

The Committee believes this work should continue to be conducted 

by the FAA, and not administratively delegated to the WCF. 

22 

Store gift cards and gift certificates.—The bill maintains the limitation in effect for fiscal year 2004 prohibiting FAA from using 

funds to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates through a government-issued credit card. This provision responds to abuses documented by the U.S. General Accounting Office last year. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $2,892,831,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 2,500,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,500,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥392,831,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account is the principal 

means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway 

facilities. The appropriation also finances major capital investments required by other agency programs, experimental research 

and development facilities, and other improvements to enhance the 

safety and capacity of the airspace system. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

for this program, a decrease of $392,831,000 (13.5 percent) below 

the level provided for fiscal year 2004 and the same as the budget 

estimate. The bill provides that of the total amount recommended, 

$2,056,300,000 is available for obligation until September 30, 2007, 

and $443,700,000 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) 

is available until September 30, 2006. These obligation availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts and the same as 

the budget request. 

BUDGET PRESENTATION

The Committee has returned the fiscal year 2005 budget presentation to the structure followed through fiscal year 2002. Beginning 

in fiscal year 2003, the Administration proposed an entirely new 

budget structure for this account. After testing this structure for 

the past two years, the Committee finds that it is inferior to the 

previous structure because it depends on overlapping budget categories and subjective judgments among agency officials concerning 

a program’s predominant purpose. In addition, it more easily obscures when a program is transitioning from development to production or implementation, among other things making it easier for 

the agency to use production funds to cover developmental cost 

overruns with little scrutiny. The Committee intends to continue 

the organizational structure as specified in this bill. To avoid confusion, the Committee encourages the agency to follow this organization in future budget requests. 

BUDGET TRANSFER

The Committee rejects FAA’s proposal to begin transferring responsibility for certain navigational aids and landing systems to 

the nation’s airports through the Grants-in-Aid for Airports program. The Committee is simply reaffirming a position taken a few 

23 

years ago, when the agency was under budgetary pressure and a 

similar proposal was made. FAA is in a partnership with the nation’s airports, and is responsible for providing navigation and 

landing services. This implies not only the people who conduct 

those activities, but the equipment necessary to accomplish that 

mission. The AIP program does not exist to supplement FAA’s capital budget. Rather, it exists to provide financial assistance to airports to help them meet their own development needs. 

The following table compares the fiscal year 2005 budget estimate to the Committee recommendation for each of the projects 

funded by this appropriation: 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

Budget 

line 

item 

Program name Fiscal year 2005 

estimate 

Committee 

recommended 

Engineering Development, Test and Evaluation: 

1A01 Advanced Technology Development & Prototyping .......................................... $37,300,000 $42,400,000 

1A02 Safe Flight 21 ................................................................................................... 40,454,000 40,454,000 

1A03 Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications ...................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 

1A04 Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communications System (NEXCOM) ............ 31,950,000 31,950,000 

1A06 Free Flight Phase 2 .......................................................................................... 92,500,000 92,500,000 

1A07 Louisville, KY technology demonstration .......................................................... – – – 3,000,000 

1A09 NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory ............................................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

1A10 Technical Center Facilities ............................................................................... 12,000,000 12,000,000 

1A11 Technical Center Building and Plant Support ................................................. 4,300,000 4,300,000 

Total Activity 1 .................................................................................... 223,504,000 231,604,000 

Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment: 

2A01 En Route Automation Program ......................................................................... 361,200,000 361,200,000 

2A02 Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) ...................................................... 4,900,000 4,900,000 

2A03 ATOMS Local Area/Wide Area Network ............................................................. 1,100,000 1,000,000 

2A04 Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) ............................................................. 4,700,000 4,700,000 

2A05 ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements ....................................... 35,000,000 35,000,000 

2A06 Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS) ................................................... 24,100,000 24,100,000 

2A07 Air Traffic Management (ATM) ......................................................................... 57,000,000 37,500,000

2A08 Critical Telecommunication Support ................................................................ 1,300,000 1,300,000 

2A09 Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure ..................................................... 13,500,000 13,500,000 

2A11 ATCBI Replacement (ATCBI–6) ......................................................................... 15,100,000 15,100,000 

2A12 ATC En Route Radar Facilities Improvements ................................................. 3,000,000 – – – 

2A13 En Route Communications and Control Facilities Improvements ................... 1,020,800 1,020,800 

2A14 Aviation Weather Services Improvements (CIWS) ............................................ 4,000,000 4,000,000 

2A15 FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) .................................................. 71,150,000 56,000,000 

2A16 Guam Center Radar Approach Control (CERAP)—Relocate ............................ 2,300,000 2,300,000 

2A17 Oceanic Automation System ............................................................................. 50,850,000 50,850,000 

Subtotal—En Route Programs ........................................................... 650,120,800 612,470,800 

2B01 Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X (ASDE–X) ............................. 51,300,000 51,300,000 

2B02 Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) ........................................................ 8,000,000 8,000,000 

2B03 Terminal Automation Program .......................................................................... 21,700,000 35,000,000

2B04 Terminal ATC Facilties Replacement ............................................................... 95,100,000 112,700,000 

2B05 ATC/TRACON Facilities Improvement ................................................................ 55,175,800 41,068,900 

2B06 Terminal Voice Switch Replacement/Enhanced TVS ........................................ 10,200,000 10,200,000 

2B07 NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance .................... 25,500,000 25,500,000 

2B08 Houston Area Air Traffic System ...................................................................... 12,000,000 12,000,000

2B09 NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS) ............................................. 16,000,000 16,000,000 

2B10 ASR–9 SLEP ...................................................................................................... 20,700,000 20,700,000 

2B11 Voice Recorder Replacement Program (VRRP) ................................................. 5,100,000 7,100,000 

2B12 Terminal Digital Radar (ASR–11) .................................................................... 107,100,000 75,000,000 

2B13 DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer .............................................................................. 1,200,000 1,200,000 

2B14 Precision Runway Monitors ............................................................................... 7,400,000 7,400,000 

2B15 Terminal Radar Improvements ......................................................................... 1,073,700 1,073,700 

2B16 Terminal Communications—Improve ............................................................... 1,129,400 1,129,400 

24 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Budget 

line 

item 

Program name Fiscal year 2005 

estimate 

Committee 

recommended 

2B22 Integrated Control and Monitoring System ...................................................... – – – 3,500,000 

Subtotal—Terminal Programs ............................................................ 438,678,900 428,872,000 

2C01 Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) ................................................. 7,300,000 7,800,000 

2C02 FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation System (OASIS) ........... 10,200,000 8,000,000 

2C03 Weather Message Switching Center Replacement ........................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 

2C06 Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization ...................................................... 1,300,000 1,300,000 

Subtotal—Flight Service Programs .................................................... 19,800,000 18,100,000 

2D01 VOR/DME ........................................................................................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 

2D02 Instrument Landing System (ILS) Establishment ............................................ 5,800,000 25,000,000 

2D03 Transponder Landing System (TLS) .................................................................. – – – 8,400,000 

2D05 Runway Visual Range ....................................................................................... 1,400,000 1,400,000 

2D07 Navigation and Landing Aids—Improve .......................................................... 4,408,700 4,408,700 

2D08 Approach Lighting System Improvement Program (ALSIP) .............................. 5,000,000 17,160,000 

2D10 DME Sustainment ............................................................................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 

2D11 Visual Navaids (PAPI/REIL) .............................................................................. 3,200,000 3,200,000 

2D12 Loran-C ............................................................................................................. – – – 27,226,900 

2D13 Instrument Approach Procedures Automation .................................................. 3,100,000 3,100,000 

2D14 Navigation and Landing Aids Service Life Extension Pgm ............................. 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Subtotal—Landing and Navigational Aids ........................................ 27,908,700 94,895,600 

2 02 Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring ............................................. 3,000,000 3,000,000 

2 02 FAA Buildings and Equipment ......................................................................... 11,027,600 11,027,600 

2 03 Electrical Power Systems—Sustain/Support ................................................... 45,000,000 45,000,000 

2 03 Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local Projects) .............................. 2,300,000 2,300,000 

2 04 Aircraft Related Equipment Program ............................................................... 12,000,000 12,000,000 

2 05 Computer Aided Eng and Graphics (CAEG) Modernization ............................. 800,000 800,000 

2 06 Airport Cable Loop Systems—Sustained Support ........................................... 4,600,000 7,100,000 

2 06 Programs being rebaselined (ITWS, STARS, WAAS) ......................................... 228,030,000 190,000,000 

Subtotal—Other ATC Facilities .......................................................... 306,757,600 271,227,600 

Total Activity 2 .................................................................................... 1,443,266,000 1,425,566,000

Non-ATC Facilities and Equipment: 

3A01 NAS Management Automation Program (NASMAP) .......................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 

3A02 Hazardous Materials Management ................................................................... 17,000,000 17,000,000 

3A03 Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS) .......................................................... 12,900,000 12,900,000 

3A04 Logistics Support Systems and Facilities (LSSF) ............................................ 6,000,000 6,000,000 

3A05 Test Equipment—Maintenance Support for Replacement .............................. 3,000,000 3,000,000 

3A06 National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center (NASDAC) ............................... 1,600,000 1,600,000 

3A07 NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM) .......................................................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 

3A08 Facility Security Risk Management .................................................................. 40,000,000 40,000,000 

3A09 Information Security ......................................................................................... 8,000,000 8,000,000 

Subtotal—Support Equipment ............................................................ 99,500,000 99,500,000 

3B01 Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization ........................................... 8,500,000 8,500,000 

3B02 National Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities ........................................ – – – 6,400,000 

3B03 Distance Learning ............................................................................................. 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Subtotal—Training Equipment & Facilities ....................................... 10,000,000 16,400,000 

Total Activity 3 .................................................................................... 109,500,000 115,900,000 

Mission Support: 

4A01 System Engineering and Development Support ............................................... 30,400,000 28,400,000 

4A02 Safety Management System ............................................................................. 1,700,000 – – – 

4A03 Program Support Leases .................................................................................. 42,600,000 42,600,000 

25 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Budget 

line 

item 

Program name Fiscal year 2005 

estimate 

Committee 

recommended 

4A04 Logistics Support Services (LSS) ..................................................................... 7,900,000 7,900,000 

4A05 Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center—Leases .................................................. 14,200,000 14,200,000 

4A06 Transition Engineering Support ........................................................................ 35,000,000 35,000,000 

4A07 Frequency and Spectrum Engineering .............................................................. 3,600,000 6,100,000 

4A08 PCS Moves ........................................................................................................ 1,530,000 1,530,000 

4A09 Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC) ................................................... 43,300,000 43,300,000 

4A10 Resource Tracking Program (RTP) ................................................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 

4A11 Center for Advanced Aviation System Development ........................................ 84,600,000 86,000,000 

4A12 NAS Aeronautical Info Management Enterprise System .................................. 13,700,000 13,700,000 

4A13 DCAA Audits ...................................................................................................... – – – 3,000,000 

Total Activity 4 .................................................................................... 280,030,000 283,230,000 

Personnel and Related Expenses: 

5A01 Personnel and Related Expenses ..................................................................... 443,700,000 443,700,000

Total Activity 5 .................................................................................... 443,700,000 443,700,000 

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

ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

The bill includes $231,604,000 for engineering development, test, 

and evaluation activities. 

Advanced technology development and prototyping.—The Committee recommends $42,400,000, to be distributed as follows: 

Amount 

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

Aviation system capacity improvement ............................................... 4,000,000 

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

GA/vertical flight technology ................................................................ 1,500,000 

Operational concept validation ............................................................. 2,000,000 

NAS requirements development ........................................................... 1,500,000 

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

Safer skies .............................................................................................. 3,000,000 

Lithium technologies to mitigate ASR ................................................. 1,000,000 

Phased array radar technology ............................................................. 4,000,000 

Airport research ..................................................................................... 6,100,000 

Fogeye ..................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

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

GPS anti-jam technology ....................................................................... 3,000,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 42,400,000 

Operations-related studies and analyses.—The Committee believes that three elements of this budget line item are predominantly related to the agency’s ongoing operations, rather than the 

development of new technologies. These include ‘‘aviation system 

capacity improvement’’, ‘‘operational concept validation’’, and ‘‘NAS 

requirements development’’. The Committee reduces funding for 

these activities (by $2,500,000, $1,000,000, and $500,000, respectively) in recognition that operations funding can be used for these 

type of studies. 

Phased array radar technology.—The bill includes $4,000,000 to 

continue the collaborative effort between FAA and NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory to continue research and testing 

of phased array radar technology and to incorporate airport/aircraft 

tracking and weather information. This is $1,000,000 above the 

amount enacted for fiscal year 2004. 

26 

Airport-related research.—Of the funds provided, $1,000,000 is 

for FAA to enter into cooperative agreements with non-profit research entities to conduct research to develop safer, more durable, 

more cost-effective airfield pavements. 

GPS anti-jam technology.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for FAA to initiate a GPS anti-jam program to 

reduce or remove GPS system vulnerabilities. 

Airport Cooperative Research Program.—The Vision-100 Century 

of Aviation Reauthorization Act authorized the establishment of a 

new Airport Cooperative Research Program, to be sponsored by the 

FAA and managed by the Transportation Research Board of the 

National Academy of Sciences. The Committee supports this effort, 

and encourages FAA to identify funds for the activity during fiscal 

year 2005. 

Louisville, KY technology demonstration.—The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to continue this demonstration program. 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

The Committee recommends $1,425,566,000 for programs and activities designed to establish, replace, modify, or otherwise improve 

air traffic control facilities and equipment. 

Air traffic management.—The Committee recommends 

$37,500,000, the same amount as provided for fiscal year 2004 and 

a reduction of $19,500,000 below the budget estimate. This large 

increase has not been forecast in previous capital investment plans. 

Given declining resources for this appropriation, the Committee believes this new initiative should be deferred. 

ATC en route radar facilities.—According to the budget justifications, responsibility for operation and maintenance of FAA’s longrange radar systems are being transferred to the Department of 

Defense in fiscal year 2005. Because of this, the FAA should not 

be funding improvements to this system in the coming year. The 

Committee’s recommendation results in a reduction of $3,000,000 

below the budget estimate. 

FAA telecommunications infrastructure (FTI).—The Committee 

recommendation provides a ten percent increase over the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level due to budget constraints. The budget proposed a 38.9 percent increase. 

ARTS sustainment.—Today, the air route tracking system 

(ARTS) is FAA’s predominant automation system at the agency’s 

largest and most critical terminal radar approach control facilities. 

Both the newer Common ARTS system and the older ARTS systems at smaller facilities require funds for software and hardware 

upgrades to meet current safety and efficiency requirements. Despite the need, FAA has historically underfunded this activity, 

leading to a shortfall of over $100,000,000 in the past six years 

alone. In last year’s budget, the Committee began an initiative to 

address this backlog. The Committee recommendation for fiscal 

year 2005 continues this effort, providing $32,300,000 for ARTS 

sustainment, an increase of $13,300,000 above the budget estimate. 

Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.—The Committee recommends $112,700,000 for the replacement of aged air 

traffic control towers. Funds shall be distributed as follows: Location Amount 

Cleveland, OH ........................................................................................ $2,025,000 

27 

Location Amount 

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

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

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

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

Deer Valley, AZ ...................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Manchester, NH ..................................................................................... 1,800,000 

Addison Field, Dallas, TX ..................................................................... 1,349,375 

Reno, NV ................................................................................................ 3,000,000 

Seattle, WA ............................................................................................ 1,300,000 

Fort Wayne, IN ...................................................................................... 2,200,000 

Port Columbus, OH ............................................................................... 700,000 

Billings, MT ............................................................................................ 3,000,000 

Savannah, GA ........................................................................................ 700,000 

Roanoke, VA ........................................................................................... 700,000 

Merrimack, NH (Tracon) ....................................................................... 834,000 

Phoenix, AZ ............................................................................................ 1,334,800 

Dulles International, Chantilly, VA ..................................................... 5,500,000 

Newport News, VA ................................................................................ 2,000,000 

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

Orlando, FL (Tracon) ............................................................................. 2,710,625 

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

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

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

Jeffco Airport, CO .................................................................................. 1,000,000 

McCarran International, NV ................................................................ 1,000,000 

Montgomery County Airport, TX .......................................................... 1,222,222 

North Bend Municipal, OR ................................................................... 2,000,000 

Pago Pago, American Samoa ................................................................ 3,000,000 

Opa Locka Airport, FL .......................................................................... 1,000,000 

Spokane International, WA .................................................................. 1,000,000 

Sacramento International, CA .............................................................. 3,000,000 

Boise International, ID .......................................................................... 3,000,000 

Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International, MI ......................................... 2,500,000 

Palm Beach International, FL .............................................................. 5,000,000 

Albert Whitted Airport, FL ................................................................... 2,280,078 

Joplin Regional Airport, MO ................................................................. 4,000,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 112,700,000 

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, AZ.—The Committee 

expects FAA to expeditiously complete the new, fully functional airport traffic control tower and affiliated parking lot at Sky Harbor 

International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona on budget and without 

delay. 

Chicago air traffic control facility.—The Committee has not approved funding for the first phase of a new terminal ATC facility 

in Chicago, Illinois, a reduction of $5,000,000 below the budget request. The agency has not presented any documentation supporting 

this new project. The Committee notes that, in those cases where 

airport development requires a new or modified air traffic control 

tower, it is FAA policy that the airport should bear those costs. The 

Committee will consider funding for this project when additional 

justification is submitted. 

Instrument landing system establishment.—The recommendation 

includes $25,800,000 for establishment of instrument landing systems (ILSs) nationwide. Funding is to be distributed as follows: 

Location Item Amount 

Nationwide ................................................................ Items in the budget estimate ................................. $5,800,000 

Middleton Municipal Airport, WI ............................... Purchase/install localizer and DME ......................... 400,000 

Arlington Municipal Airport, TX ................................ Install ILS and MALSR ............................................. 2,500,000 

San Diego International, CA ..................................... Upgrade ILS on runway 9 ........................................ 2,500,000 

Eugene Airport, OR ................................................... Install category I ILS with ALS, PAPI, & REILs ....... 1,250,000 

Clay County Regional Airport, MO ............................ Install ILS and MALSR ............................................. 950,000 

28 

Location Item Amount 

Orlando Executive Airport, FL ................................... Install ILS with MALSR ............................................ 1,900,000 

Tri-County Airport, Lone Rock, WI ............................ Install localizer, approach lights, and DME ............ 800,000 

Swainsboro-Emanuel Airport, GA .............................. Install localizer, glideslope, and MALSR ................. 1,145,000 

Sheboygan County Memorial, WI .............................. Purchase/install ILS ................................................. 1,000,000 

Fond du Lac County Airport, WI ............................... Purchase and install localizer and DME ................. 400,000 

Saline County Airport, AR ......................................... Purchase and install ILS ......................................... 1,000,000 

Nationwide ................................................................ National ILS replacement program .......................... 6,155,000 

Total ............................................................ .................................................................................. 25,800,000 

ATC/Tracon facilities improvement.—The Committee recommends $41,068,900, a reduction of $14,106,900 below the budget 

estimate. The recommendation would reduce funding for STARS facility modifications due to the uncertain status of this program 

(¥$8,000,000) and reduce funds for consolidation studies due to 

budget constraints (¥$6,106,900). 

Voice recorder replacement program.—The Committee recommends $7,100,000, an increase of $2,000,000 above the budget 

estimate. 

Terminal digital radar (ASR–11).—The Committee recommends 

$75,000,000, a reduction of $32,100,000 below the budget estimate 

and the same amount as enacted for fiscal year 2004. 

Integrated control and monitoring system.—The Committee recommends $3,500,000 for continued procurement and installation of 

the integrated control and monitoring system (ICMS). FAA is currently using ICMS in Denver, Seattle, Newark, Minneapolis, Salt 

Lake City, and Phoenix. The agency’s statement to the Committee 

that it has not ‘‘validated a requirement’’ for ICMS is curious given 

the widespread approval for use within the national airspace system. The Committee believes this system would offer significant 

benefits to other operational evolution plan (OEP) airports as well 

as others with substantial landing aids and lighting systems. The 

Committee expects the agency to obligate these funds within six 

months of enactment, and to install such systems at airports with 

the highest need. 

Automated surface observing system.—The recommendation includes $500,000 for upgrade of the automated weather sensing system (AWSS) at Corona Municipal Airport, CA. The Committee understands FAA has used fiscal year 2004 funds to install a similar 

system at Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, NY. 

FSAS operational and supportability implementation system 

(OASIS).—The Committee recommends $8,000,000, a reduction of 

$2,200,000. Given FAA’s ongoing A–76 competition for flight service station activities, the Committee believes it prudent to proceed 

more slowly in this area until decisions are announced on who will 

assume modernization responsibilities in future years. 

Loran-C.—The Committee recommendation includes $27,226,900 

for continued modernization of the Loran-C navigation system. The 

Committee directs that none of these funds be reprogrammed except through the Congressional reprogramming process. 

Transponder landing system.—The recommendation includes 

$8,400,000 for the transponder landing system (TLS), to be distributed as follows: 

Location Amount 

Fulton County Airport, IN .................................................................... $2,100,000 

McGhee Tyson Airport, TN ................................................................... 2,100,000 

29 

Location Amount 

Gatlinburg Pigeon Forge, TN ............................................................... 2,100,000 

Ukiah Municipal Airport, CA ............................................................... 2,100,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 8,400,000 

Houston area air traffic system (HAATS).—The Committee recommends $12,000,000, the same as the budget estimate. The current HAATS funding profile includes funds for installation of an 

ASR–11 surveillance radar system. The Committee directs that 

HAATS be designed and developed to provide surveillance radar 

coverage for Easterwood Airport no later than the year 2009. The 

surveillance radar information will be duplicated for Easterwood 

Airport tower so aircraft with or without electronic identification 

equipment can be detected and positively identified prior to entering airport controlled airspace. 

Approach lighting system improvement program.—The recommendation includes $17,160,000 for the approach lighting system improvement program (ALSIP), to be distributed as follows: 

Location Item Amount 

Nationwide ................................................................ Items in budget estimate ........................................ $5,000,000 

North Las Vegas Airport, NV .................................... Runway end identification lights (REILs) ................ 500,000 

Nationwide ................................................................ ALSIP nationwide program ....................................... 5,000,000 

Herbert Smart Airport, GA ........................................ Precision approach path indicators ........................ 300,000 

Washington County Airport, PA ................................ Design/install approach lighting system ................ 1,000,000 

Mena Intermountain Airport, AR ............................... Install PAPI .............................................................. 360,000 

Nationwide ................................................................ MALSR nationwide program ..................................... 5,000,000 

Total ............................................................ .................................................................................. 17,160,000 

Medium-intensity approach lighting system replacement 

(MALSR).—The Committee provides $5,000,000 for the MALSR nationwide program, and recommends that FAA continue to procure 

the latest MALSR equipment that has been approved for use in the 

national airspace system and in support of small business initiatives. 

Cable loop systems.—The increase of $2,500,000 is for cable loop 

replacement at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport, GA. 

Programs being rebaselined.—The Committee recommends 

$190,000,000 for programs being rebaselined, a reduction of 

$38,030,000 below the budget estimate. Given the uncertain approval status of these programs, the Committee believes a lower 

amount is justified at this time. Once the programs are baselined 

and justified in detail, the Committee will consider additional funding. 

GPS approaches.—The Committee understands that the fiscal 

year 2005 budget request for the wide area augmentation system 

includes funds for the development of additional approaches and 

flight procedures at the nation’s non-part 139 certified airports. 

The Committee supports this effort, and encourages the agency to 

maintain or increase the current level of effort in this area. 

Integrated terminal weather system (ITWS) prototype, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.—The Committee understands 

that FAA intends to utilize $1,200,000 during fiscal year 2005 to 

continue operation of the ITWS prototype system by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Committee believes this 

system has provided significant benefit to the Authority, and 

should be maintained throughout the coming fiscal year. If the 

30 

agency changes its plans, or is unable to finance the continuation 

of this system through the end of fiscal year 2005, the Committee 

expects to be notified in advance of the reasons for such a change. 

NON-AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

The Committee recommends $115,900,000 for programs to replace, modify, or otherwise improve facilities and equipment not directly related to the provision of air traffic control services in the 

national airspace system (NAS). 

NAS training facilities.—The Committee recommends $6,400,000 

for NAS training facilities. Of the amount provided, $2,400,000 is 

to restore funding deleted in the current Capital Investment Plan 

for upgrade of infrastructure at the FAA Academy, and $4,000,000 

is for the procurement of additional ATC training simulators, as 

discussed below. 

Air traffic control training simulators.—To upgrade their training 

capabilities, the FAA Academy has currently procured replacement 

control tower simulators under an existing Air Force contract. The 

Committee recommendation supports this effort, and includes 

$4,000,000, to be managed by the FAA Academy, for the procurement and installation of additional simulators. The deployment of 

these simulators, at the Academy or at ATC facilities in the field, 

is left to the discretion of the FAA Academy based upon projected 

training needs. The Committee believes it is imperative to shorten 

the training times for new entrant air traffic controllers to reduce 

training and overtime costs. 

MISSION SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $283,230,000 for mission support 

activities. 

Reprogrammings.—The Committee directs FAA not to reprogram 

any funding in this appropriation for the FAA Technical Center or 

the FAA Aeronautical Center which would be used for routine operations and maintenance activities, except through the Congressional reprogramming process. These activities are designated as 

items of special Congressional interest. 

System engineering and development support.—The recommendation allows an increase of 10 percent above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level, compared to the 17.8 percent increase requested. 

Safety management system.—The Committee defers this new 

project due to budget constraints and lack of justification, a reduction of $1,700,000 below the budget estimate. 

Frequency and spectrum engineering.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the NAS interference, detection, location, and mitigation (IDLM) project. This project will enable FAA to more effectively identify radio signals interfering with 

air traffic control functions and resolve them quickly. Over the past 

few years, FAA has recorded an average of over 1,500 interference 

events per year. 

Center for advanced systems development.—The recommendation 

provides $86,000,000 for the center for advanced systems development, an increase of $1,400,000 above the budget estimate. 

DCAA audit services.—The recommendation includes an additional $3,000,000 for contract audit services to be provided through 

the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). This is the same level 

31 

as provided for fiscal year 2004. Despite the Committee’s encouragement in past years, the agency has not obtained an independent 

DCAA review of contractor proposals and payment requests. In testimony last year, the DOT Inspector General said ‘‘we have consistently found a lack of basic contract administration at every stage 

of contract management from contract award to contract closeout. 

For example, we found that government cost estimates were: prepared by FAA engineers, then ignored; prepared using unreliable 

resource and cost data; or, worst of all, prepared by the contractor 

(a conflict of interest). FAA is in the process of following through 

on its commitments to address this issue’’. The Committee believes 

that an essential element of contracting oversight is to obtain expert, independent reviews by DCAA. To ensure these funds are utilized as Congress intends, the bill includes a provision making such 

funds available only for this purpose. 

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $443,700,000 for personnel and related expenses. This appropriation finances the installation and 

commissioning of new equipment and modernization of FAA facilities. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Capital investment plan.—The bill continues to require the submission of a five year capital investment plan. 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $118,734,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 117,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 117,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥1,734,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as authorized 

by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the research, engineering 

and development needed to establish or modify federal air regulations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $117,000,000, a decrease of 

$1,734,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same 

as the President’s budget request. 

A table showing the fiscal year 2004 enacted level, the fiscal year 

2005 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows: 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT 

Program Fiscal year 2004 enacted 

Fiscal year 2005 estimate Committee 

recommended 

Improve Commercial Aviation Safety: 

Fire research and safety ........................................................ $9,668,000 $5,578,000 $5,578,000 

32 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Program Fiscal year 2004 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2005 

estimate 

Committee 

recommended 

Propulsion and fuel systems ................................................. 6,607,000 3,672,000 3,672,000 

Advanced materials/structural safety ................................... 7,223,000 2,197,000 2,197,000 

Flight safety/atmospheric hazards ........................................ 4,568,000 4,119,000 4,119,000 

Aging aircraft ......................................................................... 20,498,000 18,351,000 18,351,000 

Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention ................................ 758,000 1,116,000 1,116,000 

Flightdeck safety/systems integration ................................... 8,344,000 8,294,000 8,294,000 

Aviation safety risk analysis ................................................. 7,851,000 8,640,000 8,640,000 

ATC/AF human factors ........................................................... 8,846,000 9,467,000 9,467,000 

Aeromedical research ............................................................. 8,830,000 6,660,000 6,600,000 

Weather research ................................................................... 20,729,000 20,838,000 20,838,000 

Improve Efficiency of the ATC System: 

Weather research ................................................................... 2,982,000 – – – – – – 

National plan for air transpotation ....................................... – – – 5,100,000 5,100,000 

Wake turbulence .................................................................... – – – 2,296,000 2,296,000 

Reduce Environmental Impacts: 

Environment and energy ........................................................ 7,928,000 16,008,000 16,008,000 

Improve Mission Efficiency: 

System planning and resource mgmt ................................... 497,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 

Technical laboratory facilities ............................................... 3,405,000 3,389,000 3,389,000 

Total ................................................................................... 118,734,000 117,000,000 117,000,000 

Propulsion and fuel systems.—Of the funds provided for propulsion and fuel systems, $500,000 is for continued research into technologies for modifications to existing general aviation piston engines to enable their safe operation using unleaded aviation fuel. 

Aging aircraft.—Of the funds provided for aging aircraft, 

$4,000,000 is for research and equipment at the National Institute 

for Aviation Research at Wichita State University, KS. 

Joint Planning and Development Office.—The bill includes 

$5,100,000, as requested, for FAA’s contribution to the multi-agency Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). This office involves the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and Homeland Security, FAA, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in developing a national plan for the transformation of air 

transportation. This plan is expected to establish a vision for the 

future air transportation system, set national aerospace goals, and 

provide a forum to engage industry and customer input. It is an advisory committee as defined in the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act. 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................... $3,379,940,000 ($3,379,940,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................... 2,800,000,000 (3,500,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill .................................... 3,200,000,000 (3,993,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................. ¥179,940,000 (+613,060,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................ +400,000,000 (+493,000,000) 

33 

The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of $3,200,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on obligations for grants-inaid for airport planning and development, noise compatibility and 

planning, the military airport program, reliever airports, airport 

program administration, and other authorized activities. This is 

$400,000,000 above the amount requested in the President’s budget 

and $179,940,000 below the level enacted for fiscal year 2004. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes a limitation on obligations of $3,993,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2005. This is $493,000,000 above the President’s budget 

request and $613,060,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level. 

DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, funding of 

$983,115,000 is available for discretionary grants to airports. Within this obligation limitation, the Committee directs that priority be 

given to grant applications involving further development of the 

following airports: 

State Project name Project description 

AL Roundtree Field Airport ......................... Airport improvements. 

AL Atmore Airport ....................................... Repair runway. 

AL Montgomery Airport ............................... Renovate terminal building. 

AR Jonesboro Regional Airport .................... Construct on field airport rescue station and replace runway and taxiway 

lighting and fixtures. 

AR Baxter County Regional Airport ............. Development of parallel runway. 

AR Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport ... Engineering, drainage, and design of parallel taxiway. 

AR Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport Install PAPI lights. 

AZ Chandler Municipal Airport ................... Relocation of the heliport, pursuant to the FAR Part 150 noise study for 

the airport and the approved airport master plan. 

AZ Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.Community noise reduction program; taxiway rehabilitation. 

AZ Williams Gateway Airport ...................... Construct parallel taxiway (taxiway B) and associated drainage, lighting 

and signage. 

CA March Air Reserve Base ........................ Widening of airport taxiway area. 

CA Castle Airport ........................................ Complete tower upgrade for part 139 certification; runway improvements; airfield signage; and various security enhancements. 

CA Crows Landing Air Facility .................... Repair runways. 

CA Stockton Airport Cargo Center .............. Various improvements. 

CA San Bernardino International Airport .... Various infrastructure improvements, including ongoing hangar repair, 

electrical supply delivery, and runway improvements. 

CA Southern California Logistics Airport .... Ongoing engine runup runway infrastructure improvements. 

CA Nut Tree Airport ..................................... Improved airport access, sealing of hangar taxi landings, and improvements to the parking aprons. 

CA San Francisco International Airport ...... Perimeter security fence; electronic detection. 

CA Schulz Airport ........................................ Airport master plan; acquire land for extension of runways. 

CA Robert McNamara Field ......................... Various improvements. 

CO Colorado Springs Airport ....................... Provide ILS instrument approach system to runway 35R. 

DE New Castle Airport ................................ Taxiway rehabilitation. 

FL Gainesville Airport ................................. Phase I of runway extension project, to include taxiway rehabilitation, 

airfield lighting; fiberoptic cabling, and purchase of an aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle. 

FL Immokalee Airport ................................. Resurface and repair existing runways. 

FL Miami International Airport ................... Runway strengthening, including adjacent connector taxiways and paving. 

FL Charlotte County Airport ........................ Runway extension. 

FL Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International 

Airport.

Environmental impact statements and financial planning for automated 

people mover system. 

34 

State Project name Project description 

FL Orlando International Airport ................ Elimination of wildlife attractants project. 

FL Orlando Executive Airport ...................... Runway 25 environmental assessment (EA), runway safety area upgrade; 

precision object free area. 

GA Worth County Regional Airport .............. Extension of primary runway. 

GA Augusta Regional Airport ...................... Construct new passenger terminal. 

GA Paulding County Airport ........................ Construct runway; aircraft apron; hangar space; terminal/administration 

building; rotating beacon; land acquisition; preliminary design engineering services for airfield improvements and site clearing for airfield improvements. 

GA Fitzgerald Municipal Airport .................. Extend runway; precision instrument approach equipment. 

GA St. Marys Airport ................................... Land acquisition, runway construction, weather instruments, fuel farm, 

and taxiway. 

GA Cherokee County Airport ........................ Extension of current runway to 4,100 feet; provide taxiway and hangar 

area improvements to comply with FAA standards. 

GA Eastman Airport .................................... Construction of crosswind runway. 

GA Greene County Regional Airport ............ Extend and widen runway. 

IA Mason City Airport ................................. Bituminous overlay 

IA Fort Dodge Airport ................................. Extend Runway 12/30 by 900 feet. 

IA Fairfield Municipal Airport .................... New runway and associated improvements. 

IL Waukegan Regional Airport ................... Environmental impact study for runway extension project. 

IL Aurora Municipal Airport ....................... Construct runway 27 blast pad, ILS runway, and area two general aviation apron and access taxiway. 

IL DuPage Airport ...................................... Rehabilitate, widen, relocate, and overlay existing parallel taxiway E, as 

well as taxiways A and C. 

IL DeKalb Taylor Municipal Airport ............ Widen taxiway ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘C’’ from 35 feet to 50 feet. 

IL Robinson Airport .................................... Runway widening and extension for jet runway. 

IL Will County Regional Airport ................. Feasibility study for new airport. 

IN New Castle Airport ................................ Reconstruct runway apron; widen runway; land acquisition; and grade 

correction. 

IN Richmond Airport ................................... Install edge lighting on runway and adjacent taxiway. 

KS Kansas State University Airport ............ Apron repair; hangar door repair/replacement. 

KS Forbes Field ........................................... Reconstruction and lighting improvements to taxiway B. 

KS Mid-Continent Airport ............................ Implementation of Surface Movement Area/Runway Traffic (SMART) 

Board Demonstration Project. 

KY Somerset Airport .................................... Kit Cowan Road relocation. 

KY Big Sandy Airport .................................. Begin 500 foot runway extension to a runway landing area of 5500 feet 

with pavement and surface upgrades; address animal safety and 

trespassing issues. 

KY Harlan Tucker Guthrie Airport ............... Secure and install 10,000 feet of fencing. 

KY Williamsburg/Whitley County Airport ..... Reimbursement for land purchases for airport expansion. 

KY Capital City Airport ............................... Improve runway and taxiway areas. 

KY Henderson City/County Airport .............. Development of new terminal building. 

KY Louisville International Airport .............. Various improvements. 

LA Bastrop-Morehouse Memorial Airport .... Runway extension; purchase and install ILS; acquire land for runway expansion; and address airport hanger deficiencies. 

LA Monroe Regional Airport ........................ New terminal. 

LA Baton Rouge Airport .............................. Runway 4L drainage/safety improvements: air carrier apron drainage, 

phase 1; category II runway lighting System (category II); airfield 

drainage, phase II. 

LA Lafayette Regional Airport ..................... Rehabilitation, widening, and strengthening of taxiway bravo; safety 

zone improvements for runway 4R/22L. 

LA Leesville Airport ..................................... Extend runway; parallel taxiway. 

LA Houma-Terrebonne Airport ..................... Upgrade runway, taxiways and apron. 

LA Lake Charles Regional Airport .............. Various improvements, including drainage, structure replacement, terminal apron pavement rehabilitation; and pavement marking. 

MA Westfield-Barnes Airport ....................... Various improvements. 

MD Baltimore-Washington International Airport.Runway and taxi improvements; snow removal; master plan; environmental study. 

MD Martin State Airport .............................. Various improvements. 

ME Frenchville Airport ................................. Construction of aircraft hangar, complete access road; purchase and remove existing hangars. 

MI Detroit City Airport ................................ Land acquisition and construction of primary replacement runway. 

MI Detroit Metropolitan Airport ................... Demolition of terminal and construction of new de-icing pad. 

35 

State Project name Project description 

MI Detroit Metro Airport .............................. Construction of a force main to remove glycol residue from the airfield 

to the City of Detroit Treatment Facility in accordance with state and 

federal guidelines; midfield expansion phase II, including apron and 

taxiways, airfield utilities, fuel hydrant system, and security access 

control. 

MI Manistee County Blacker Airport ........... New terminal building. 

MI Oakland County International ............... Various improvements. 

MI Willow Run Airport ................................. Design, engineer, and construct an airport rescue and fire fighting station. 

MI Kellogg Airport, Battle Creek ................. Add new parallel runway. 

MI Pellston Regional Airport ....................... Land acquisition for perimeter access road and new entrances; expansion of parking lots; de-icing facility, and new entryway signage. 

MN Marshall Municipal Airport .................... Extend runways and upgrade lighting systems. 

MO Farmington Missouri Airport .................. Construct apron, partial parallel and T-hanger taxiways. 

MO Clay County Regional Airport ................ Installation of ILS, MALSR, and AWOS systems. 

MO Kansas City International Airport .......... Terminal expansion. 

MS Jackson International Airport ................ Replacement of carrier apron; repair of connecting taxiways. 

MS Hawkins Field ........................................ Runway extension. 

MS Tupelo Airport ........................................ Terminal expansion and renovation. 

MT Harve/Hill County Airport ....................... Building repairs. 

NC Halifax-Northampton Regional Airport .. Install category I instrument landing system (ILS), including localizer, 

glideslope, approach lighting system, and related components. 

NC Hickory Regional Airport ........................ Rehabilitate main runway (6/24); renovate passenger terminal renovations to federal standards; apron pavement rehabilitation; runway 6/ 

24 re-lighting. 

NC Morganton-Lenoir Airport ....................... Rehabilitate runway pavement; partial parallel taxiway to runway 21; extend apron; partial parallel taxiway between connectors. 

NC Statesville Municipal Airport ................. Runway extension, establish ILS. 

NC Ashe County Airport ............................... Preliminary work for runway extension, including environmental assessment and initial land acquisition (with obstruction removal). 

NC Mount Airy Municipal Airport ................ Runway extension, including environmental assessment and initial land 

acquisition for first phase of construction. 

NC Rowan County Airport ............................ Acquire land in the runway protection zone. 

NC Burlington—Alamance Regional Airport Site preparation for runway and taxiway. 

NC Harnett County Airport .......................... Runway and parallel taxiway extension; apron expansion/overlay; localizer 

installation. 

NC Johnston County Airport ........................ Improve runway safety area and land acquisition for runway protection 

zone and terminal area development. 

NC Albemarle-Stanly County Airport ........... Runway extension; installation of perimeter fencing; land acquisition; 

and site preparation for future expansion. 

NC Montgomery County Airport ................... Runway extension and lighting upgrades. 

NC Concord Regional Airport ...................... Lengthening of the runway from 5,500 feet to 7,400 feet. 

NC Richmond County Airport ...................... Extend runway, install ILS; land acquisition, expand and improve ramp 

and taxiway. 

NC Currituck County Airport ........................ Expand aircraft parking apron; construct taxiway and access road; repair 

existing taxiway and apron; and install localizer/DME/outer marker. 

NC Lumberton Municipal Airport ................. Rehabilitate the primary runway. 

NC Duplin County Airport ............................ Extend the primary runway and build a parallel taxiway. 

NC Brunswick County Airport ...................... Land acquisition and runway extension. 

NC Columbus County Airport ...................... Rehabilitate runway. 

NC Wilmington Airport ................................. Rehabilitate runway. 

NC Person County Airport ............................ Construct runway extension; widen existing RSA; strengthen existing 

pavement; and complete the parallel taxiway. 

NC Burlington-Alamance Regional Airport .. Runway lengthening and strengthening. 

NC Andrews-Murphy Airport ........................ Corporate apron expansion and land acquisition. 

ND Hector International Airport ................... Reconstruct and shorten runway; bring RSA into compliance. 

ND Jamestown Airport ................................. Pavement improvements, including milling off the current surface and 

resurfacing airline runway 13/31. 

NE Central Nebraska Regional Airport ....... Pavement repair and replacement, lighting installation. 

NM Santa Teresa Airport ............................. Extension of eastern runway and taxiway to permit larger aircraft. 

NY Oneonta Airport ..................................... Tree removal; repair and upgrade of hanger doors; other facility repairs. 

NY Ithaca Tompkins Airport ........................ Relocation of parallel taxiway to meet minimum separation distance between runways. 

NY Plattsburgh International Airport .......... Develop and construct new terminal. 

NY Niagara Falls International Airport ....... Construct terminal; modifications to existing terminal area entrance and 

access roadway; expand east apron; parking. 

NY Rochester Airport ................................... Extend runway. 

36 

State Project name Project description 

NY Warren County Airport ........................... Refurbishment and building of hangars. 

NY Hancock International Airport ............... Various improvements, including funding of a double jetbridge. 

OH Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport ... Purchase development rights to land; land acquisition. 

OH Erie County-Plum Brook Airport ............ Initial engineering and design work to construct airport. 

OH Cleveland International Airport ............. Install and operate new software to ensure effectiveness of flight patterns to reduce aircraft noise. 

OH Akron-Canton Airport ............................. Construction of a de-icing fluid containment facility to collect and dispose of de-icing fluid. 

OH Dayton-Wright Brothers Airport ............. Acquisition of land, structures, and related professional services to acquire land underneath the approach to runway 20. 

OK Duncan Industrial Park Airport ............. Construction of new terminal. 

OK Chickasha Airport .................................. Continued funding for runway extension. 

OK Ada Airport ............................................ Construction of new terminal. 

OK West Woodward Airport ......................... Runway extension project involving extending runway 17/35 five hundred 

feet, installing an instrument approach, and connecting the parallel 

taxiway. 

OK Altus Quartz Mountain Regional Airport Repair of runway, improvement of taxiway, additional lengthening of the 

runway, drainage improvements, perimeter fencing and controlled access components. 

OK Sand Springs Pogue Airport .................. Various improvements. 

OK Tulsa International Airport .................... Implement recommendations in FAR part 150 study; rehabilitation of 

taxilanes and taxiway; repave taxiway; rehabilitate TIA taxilanes serving general and business aviation areas of the airport. 

OK Richard L Jones Airport ......................... Construction of drainage project. 

OR Jackson County Airport .......................... Terminal improvements. 

OR Roberts Field ......................................... Improvements to taxiway ‘‘C’’. 

PA Philadelphia International Airport ......... Runway extension for runway 17/35; resurfacing of runway 9R/27L; EIS 

for airfield capacity enhancement program for runway 17/35. 

PA Quakertown Airport ................................ Widen runway; relocate taxiway. 

PA Pittsburgh International Airport ............ Phase II of maintenance facility relocation, including funds for site 

preparation and infrastructure construction. 

PA Arnold Palmer Regional Airport ............. Extend runway 5–25. 

PA Jimmy Stewart Airport ........................... Runway extension. 

PA University Park Airport .......................... Construct aircraft deicing containment facility to allow simultaneous deicing of multiple aircraft; design/install ILS for runway 6. 

SC Aiken County Municipal Airport ............. Establish instrument landing system (ILS). 

SC Dillon County Airport ............................. New airport. 

SC Fairfield County Airport ......................... Extend runway; related improvements. 

SC Rock Hill/York County, SC Airport ......... Feasibility study for runway extension. 

SD Highmore Airport ................................... Construction of new runway, apron, and taxiway. 

SD Spearfish Airport ................................... Construction of new runway. 

TN Nashville International Airport .............. Expansion of airport rescue and fire fighting facility; rehabilitation of 

runway 13/31. 

TN John C. Tune Airport .............................. Improvements to runway safety areas. 

TN Upper Cumberland Regional Airport ..... Runway extension; parallel taxiway construction. 

TN Memphis International Airport .............. Design and construct service road structure. 

TN Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport ......... Rehabilitation of taxiway ‘‘A’’. 

TX Mid-Way Regional Airport ...................... Engineering, design, and land acquisition for runway 18–356 extension. 

TX Montgomery County Airport ................... Rehabilitate and lengthen secondary runway. 

TX Denton Municipal Airport ...................... Extend the current runway; realign taxiway; and expand apron. 

TX Alliance Airport ...................................... Lengthen runway; extend taxiway; relocate FM Road 156; relocate BNSF 

mainline; extend Eagle Parkway. 

TX Edinburg Airport .................................... Design and engineering for upgrades to add cargo capacity. 

TX Brooks County Airport ............................ Land acquisition for runway extension. 

TX Collin County Regional Airport .............. Engineering/design for future reconstruction/overlay of parallel taxiway 

and overlay of runway. 

TX Littlefield Municipal Airport .................. Refurbish main runway. 

TX Levelland Municipal Airport .................. Refurbish main runway. 

TX Brownsville-South Padre Island Airport Engineering costs associated with increasing the runway length from 

7,400 to 10,000 feet. 

TX Aransas County Airport ......................... Various improvements. 

TX Scholes International Airport ................. Engineer/design tower relocation and improve drainage. 

TX A.L. Mangham, Jr. Regional Airport ...... Improvements to runway 18–36 and runway 15–33 overlays and related 

improvements. 

TX Angelina County Airport ........................ Update master plan. 

UT Logan Cache Airport .............................. Master plan development. 

VA Virginia Highlands Airport ..................... Environmental assessment; relocation of state route 611; design of a 

runway extension. 

37 

State Project name Project description 

VA Blue Ridge Airport ................................. Land acquistion and road relocation associated with expansion of apron. 

VA Breaks Interstate Regional Airport ........ Complete site selection study and initiate environmental study for new 

airport. 

VA Mountain Empire Airport ....................... Update of airport master plan. 

VA Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport.Aircraft parking ramp. 

WI Dane County Regional Airport ............... Construct second phase of runway 13 safety area, object free space. 

and approach surface. 

WI Eagle River Union Airport ...................... Pave and extend existing turf crosswind runway to 3400 feet, light the 

runway, reconstruct and expand existing aprons and taxiways and acquire land for the runway extension. 

WI Menomonie Municipal Airport ................ Install localizer, approach lights and DME. 

WI La Crosse Municipal Airport .................. Construct parallel taxiway. 

WI John F. Kennedy Memorial Airport ......... Security fencing. 

WI L.O. Simenstad Municipal Airport ......... Reconstruct and extend primary runway to 5000 feet, construct parallel 

taxiway, install high intensity runway lighting. 

WI Rice Lake Regional Airport .................... Acquire land, strengthen and extend primary runway 1/19 to 500 feet, 

widen and extend parallel taxiway, install high intensity runway lighting. 

WI Merrill Airport ........................................ Install jet A fuel facility; install fence. 

WI Manitowoc County Airport ..................... Reconstruct runway 17/35 with high intensity lighting (HIL), precision 

approach path indicator (PAPI), and construction access road to the 

navaids and equipment. 

WI Sheboygan County Memorial Airport ..... Purchase, install, own and maintain an instrument landing system (ILS), 

to include a localizer with Distance Measuring Equipment, glideslope 

and locator outer marker, and approach lighting system. 

WI Kenosha Regional Airport ...................... Develop east side hangar area, additional hangar area on west apron, 

and perimeter road. 

San Diego Airport.—The Committee remains concerned that the 

San Diego Air Transportation Action Plan (ATAP) site selection 

process continues to target several active military installations 

which are unavailable for civilian use. Military officials have stated 

that these facilities are incompatible for joint civilian-military use, 

and in the case of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, it is strictly 

prohibited by law. The Committee is concerned about the expenditure of limited federal resources to study the feasibility of sites 

which are not available, and prohibits the expenditure of funds to 

study active military installations or to influence the Department 

of Defense base closure and realignment process. 

ADMINISTRATION

The bill provides that, within the overall obligation limitation, 

$69,302,000 is available for administration of the airports program 

by the FAA, as requested. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.—Consistent 

with the provisions of Public Law 106–181 and the DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, the bill allows funds 

under this limitation to be used for airports to procure and install 

runway incursion prevention systems and devices. 

Small community air service pilot program.—The bill specifies 

that $20,000,000 of the total amount limited is available to continue the small community air service pilot program. This is the 

same funding level as enacted for fiscal year 2004. The bill further 

specifies that, of the funds provided for this program, $4,000,000 

shall be set aside for airports that have been discontinued from the 

essential air service (EAS) program since January 1, 2001. These 

38 

funds will help those communities address the recent loss of air 

service and potentially enable them to re-qualify for EAS service at 

some point in the future. The Committee also believes it is time for 

an independent review of the status and accomplishments of the 

small community air service pilot program, and directs the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office to perform such an assessment. 

This review should be completed by June 1, 2005, and provided to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

The Committee recommendation includes a rescission of contract 

authorization of $758,000,000. The proposed rescission is composed 

of two parts, both relating to section 107 of AIR–21 (P.L. 106–181). 

This section specified that, in the event appropriations for the facilities and equipment program were less than authorized in a 

given fiscal year, additional contract authorization would automatically be made available for the grants-in-aid for airports program. 

The Committee understands that the legislative committees intended to provide flexibility in meeting the funding guarantees, by 

allowing the Appropriations Committees to meet the guarantee by 

providing a single, combined total of funding for the F&E and 

grants-in-aid programs rather than hitting the precise authorized 

amounts for each as specified in the authorization Act. Because the 

Appropriations Committees are not provided an allocation of budget authority for the grants-in-aid program, section 107 provided 

automatic budget authority for this purpose. 

In fiscal year 2004, $265,000,000 in additional contract authorization was automatically made available by section 107. However, 

this amount is above the obligation limitation available for that 

year, and consequently is available for rescission without effect on 

any grants-in-aid program. In addition, because this bill has met 

the funding guarantees specified for aviation capital programs in 

the Vision-100 Act, the bill triggers a section 107 automatic contract authorization of $493,000,000, and the Congressional Budget 

Office has scored the bill with that additional amount of budget authority. The Committee believes that is inconsistent with the intent 

of section 107. However, in order to bring the bill back into the 

Subcommittee’s 302(b) allocation for budget authority, a provision 

is included which rescinds the additional contract authorization. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

The bill retains a provision (sec. 101) requiring FAA to accept 

landing systems, lighting systems, and associated equipment procured by airports, subject to certain criteria. 

The bill retains, with modification, a provision (sec. 102) limiting 

the number of technical staff-years at the Center for Advanced 

Aviation Systems Development. The modification raises the limitation from 350 in fiscal year 2004 to 375 in fiscal year 2005. 

The bill retains a provision (sec. 103) prohibiting funds for engineering work related to an additional runway at Louis Armstrong 

International Airport in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

The bill retains a provision (sec. 104) prohibiting FAA from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency ‘‘without cost’’ building construction, maintenance, utilities and expenses, or space in 

sponsor-owned buildings, except in the case of certain specified exceptions. 

39 

The bill retains a provision (sec. 105) prohibiting funds to change 

weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro Airport, 

Teterboro, New Jersey. 

The bill includes a new provision (sec. 106) extending the current 

terms and conditions of FAA’s aviation insurance program, commonly known as the ‘‘war risk insurance’’ program, for one additional year, from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2005. Although the underlying program is authorized until March 2008, 

certain provisions including premium price caps were set to expire 

at the end of this calendar year. The Committee recommendation 

preserves the status quo under this program, a savings of 

$50,000,000 from the budget estimate. Savings accrue because the 

bill’s provisions result in additional revenue from insurance premiums, which were assumed to be zero in the budget estimate for 

fiscal year 2005. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides financial 

assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and highways, and provides technical assistance to other agencies and organizations involved in road building activities. Title 23 and other 

supporting legislation provide authority for the various activities of 

the Federal Highway Administration. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations in Appropriations Acts. 

The most recent long-term surface transportation reauthorization 

act, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21), 

expired on September 30, 2003. Since that time, Congress has 

passed several short-term extension bills providing contract authority for FHWA. The current extension will expire on July 31, 2004. 

Because reauthorization actions have not yet been completed, the 

Committee has continued the fiscal year 2004 program structure 

and funding levels as if authorized through fiscal year 2005. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, fiscal year 2004 ............................................................... ($335,612,136) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... (349,594,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (346,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Limitation, fiscal year 2004 ........................................................ (+10,387,846) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ (¥3,594,000) 

This limitation controls spending for the salaries and expenses of 

the Federal Highway Administration required to conduct and administer the federal-aid highways programs and most other federal 

highway programs. 

The Committee recommends a limitation of $346,000,000. This 

level is sufficient to fund six additional full time equivalent staff 

years (FTEs) to oversee major projects, for a total of 2,430 FTEs. 

The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to the 

budget request: 

Reduce funding for information technology consolidation .................. ¥$750,000 

Reduce funding for electronic government .......................................... ¥100,000 

Reduce funding for multidisciplinary employee program ................... ¥1,600,000 

Undistributed reduction ........................................................................ ¥1,144,000 

40 

Reductions from the budget request.—The Committee reduces 

funding for information technology consolidation (¥$750,000) and 

electronic government (¥$100,000) due to inadequate justification, 

and reduces the level of employee training (multidisciplinary employee program) by $1,600,000, which results in funding at the fiscal year 2003 level. An undistributed reduction of $1,144,000 is 

also included to control the growth of the program. 

Staff for oversight of major projects.—The Committee provides 6 

FTEs for oversight of major projects. The Inspector General has 

recommended, and the Committee agrees, that FHWA needs to 

have better oversight of its program, specifically the major projects. 

Major projects, with a total cost of $10,000,000 or more, have a history of significant cost overruns and schedule slippage. 

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

This limitation controls spending for the transportation research 

and technology contract programs of the Federal Highway Administration. It includes a number of contract programs including intelligent transportation systems, surface transportation research, 

technology deployment, training and education, and university 

transportation research. 

Limitation, fiscal year 2004 ............................................................... ($462,500,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 1 ..................................................... – – – Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (478,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Limitation, fiscal year 2004 ........................................................ (+15,500,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ (+478,000,000) 1 An unspecified amount for fiscal year 2005 is assumed within the federal-aid obligation limitation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation includes an obligation limitation for trans- portation research of $478,000,000 for the following transportation 

research programs. 

Program Amount 

Surface transportation research, development and deployment program .................................................................................................... $105,000,000 

Technology deployment program .......................................................... 55,000,000 

Training and education ......................................................................... 21,000,000 

Bureau of transportation statistics ...................................................... 31,000,000 

ITS standards, research, operational tests and development ............ 115,000,000 

ITS deployment ...................................................................................... 124,000,000 

University transportation research ...................................................... 27,000,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 478,000,000 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Within the funds provided for surface transportation research, 

the Committee recommends the following: 

Program Amount 

Environment, planning, and real estate .............................................. $17,000,000 

Research and technology program support ......................................... 8,000,000 

International research ........................................................................... 500,000 

Structures ............................................................................................... 15,000,000 

Safety ...................................................................................................... 12,000,000 

Operations .............................................................................................. 13,000,000 

Asset management ................................................................................ 2,500,000 

Pavements research ............................................................................... 16,250,000 

Policy research ....................................................................................... 9,000,000 

Long-term pavement project ................................................................. 10,000,000 

41 

Program Amount 

Advanced research ................................................................................. 1,000,000 

R&D strategic planning/performance measures ................................. 750,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 105,000,000 

Environment, planning, and real estate research.—The environment research and technology program develops improved tools for 

assessing highway impacts on the environment; techniques for the 

avoidance, detection, and mitigation of those impacts and for the 

enhancement of the environment; and expertise on environmental 

concerns within FHWA and state and local transportation agencies. 

The planning and real estate research and technology program advances cost effective methods to evaluate transportation strategies 

and investments; develops and disseminates improved planning 

methods; develops more effective planning and data collection techniques for intermodal passenger and freight planning and programming; improves financial planning tools for use in developing transportation plans and programs; evaluates the characteristics of the 

National Highway System; and develops improved analytical tools 

to support metropolitan and statewide planning and for information and data sharing with state and local governments. The Committee has provided $17,000,000. 

Research and technology program support.—The Committee has 

provided $8,000,000. Funds provided under this category support a 

variety of programs, including the Transportation Research Board 

core program; the small business innovative research program; and 

marketing, publication and communication activities. 

International research.—The Committee has provided $500,000, 

the level authorized under TEA–21 and continued by the extension 

Acts for international research activities. FHWA is directed to consult the Committee before any international agreements are consummated that are likely to require financial support. 

Structures.—The structures research and technology program develops technologies, advanced materials and methods to efficiently 

maintain and renew the aging transportation infrastructure, improve existing infrastructure performance, and enable efficient infrastructure response and quick recovery after major disasters. The 

committee has provided $15,000,000 for structures research. Funds 

provided will help FHWA make progress towards its performance 

goal to reduce deficiencies on NHS bridges as well as reduce deficiencies on all bridges. This funding will ensure continued progress 

on high performance materials and engineering applications to efficiently design, repair, rehabilitate, and retrofit bridges. 

Safety.—The safety research and technology program develops 

engineering practices, analysis tools, equipment, roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway fatalities and injuries. The Committee has provided $12,000,000 for safety research 

programs. 

Operations and asset management.—The Committee has provided $15,500,000 for operations research and asset management. 

The highway operations research program is designed to develop, 

deliver, and deploy advanced technologies and administrative 

methods to provide pavement and bridge durability, and to reduce 

construction and maintenance-related user delays. Funds provided 

under this category support a variety of research projects seeking 

42 

to improve highway operations, including work to improve the 

manual on uniform traffic control devices, work zone operations, 

technologies that facilitate operational responses to changes in 

weather conditions, and freight management operations. 

The Committee has not included any funds for statistical analysis of the National Quality Initiative under any FHWA research 

program. Such analysis shall be performed by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 

Pavements research.—The pavement research and technology 

program identifies engineering practices, analytic tools, equipment, 

roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information 

that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway fatalities and injuries. Activities include work on asphalt, Portland cement concrete pavements, and recycled materials. The Committee 

has provided $16,250,000 for pavement research. Pavement research amounts, along with the $10,000,000 provided for long-term 

pavement performance, will allow FHWA to undertake research 

projects to improve the nation’s infrastructure. 

Policy research.—The policy research and technology program 

supports FHWA policy analysis and development, strategic planning, and technology development through research in data collection, management and dissemination; highway financing, investment analysis, and performance measurement; and enhancement of 

highway program contributions to economic productivity, efficiency, 

and other national goals. The Committee has provided $9,000,000 

for policy research. 

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

Under the FHWA appropriation, the accompanying bill provides 

$31,000,000 for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the 

amount authorized in TEA–21 and continued by the extension 

Acts. The Committee does not provide additional amounts requested from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The Committee 

notes that BTS has undergone significant increases in staffing 

since 1993, the year BTS was established. In fiscal year 1993, onboard positions totaled 5, in 2001 total staff stood at 101. Concern 

about these staff increases in general, but particularly when the 

staffing level exceeded the budget request to Congress, led the 

Committee to limit BTS staff to a total of 136 in fiscal years 2003 

and 2004. The Committee continues this limitation in fiscal year 

2005. 

ITS STANDARDS, RESEARCH, OPERATIONAL TESTS AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends the $115,000,000 provided in TEA– 

21 for ITS research be allocated in the following manner: 

Amount 

Research and development ................................................................... $52,000,000 

Operational tests ................................................................................... 13,500,000 

Evaluation .............................................................................................. 8,000,000 

Architecture and standards .................................................................. 18,000,000 

Integration .............................................................................................. 12,000,000 

Program support .................................................................................... 11,500,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 115,000,000 

Joint Program Office.—In the early 1990s, the Appropriations 

Committees expressed strong support for the formulation of a Joint 

43 

Program Office (JPO) within the DOT to oversee the federal role 

in the national Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) effort. This 

office, which is located within the Federal Highway Administration, 

now provides overall program direction and budget coordination 

among the multiple DOT offices conducting ITS activities. The 

Committee believes the JPO has successfully managed the ITS program. For example, the JPO’s close association with FHWA’s research, headquarters staff, and regional offices has ensured a unified approach to providing training, implementation and testing of 

standards, and adherence to a national systems architecture. The 

Committee maintains that the JPO’s positive working relationship 

with the FMCSA and FTA has facilitated progress in advancement 

of technologies and the deployment of systems. 

The appropriation for ITS provided herein is predicated on the 

continuation of the JPO conducting the functions identified previously. Maximum efficiencies are most likely to be obtained by retaining the current administrative structure of the JPO within the 

FHWA with a reporting function to the Deputy Secretary. If there 

is any change in the administrative structure or responsibilities of 

the JPO, the Secretary is directed to inform the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations and to justify in detail such 

changes. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization Limitation on obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ............. $34,000,000,000 ($33,643,326,300) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ........... 34,000,000,000 (33,643,326,300) 

Recommended in the bill ........................ 35,000,000,000 (34,641,000,000) 

Bill compared with: .................................. ..................................

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......... +1,000,000,000 (+997,673,700) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....... +1,000,000,000 (+997,673,700) 

Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain ownership 

and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new construction of 

roads. State highway departments have the authority to initiate 

federal-aid projects subject to FHWA approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The federal government provides financial support for construction and repair through matching grants, 

the terms of which vary with the type of road. 

There are almost four million miles of public roads in the United 

States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The Federal Government provides grants to states to assist in financing the construction and preservation of about 958,000 miles (24 percent) of these 

roads, which represents an extensive interstate system plus key 

feeder and collector routes. Highways eligible for federal aid carry 

about 85 percent of total U.S. highway traffic. 

44 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of 

$35,000,000,000. This is the required amount to pay the outstanding obligations of the various highway programs at levels provided in this Act and prior appropriations Acts. 

The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal year 

2005 federal-aid highways obligations to $34,641,000,000, an increase of $997,673,700 from the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and 

the budget request. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS

Although the following table reflects an estimated distribution of 

obligations by program category, the bill includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain categories of federal-aid spending. The following table indicates estimated obligations by state 

within the $34,641,000,000 provided by this Act: 

ESTIMATED FY 2005 OBLIGATION LIMITATION 

[In thousands of dollars] 

State 

Estimated FY 

2005 formula limitation 

FY 2005 minimum 

guarantee 

Appalachian development highways 

Total 

Alabama ................................................................. $532,474 $37,131 $48,986 $618,590 

Alaska ..................................................................... 263,849 64,273 0 328,122 

Arizona .................................................................... 504,343 50,133 0 554,475 

Arkansas ................................................................. 371,145 26,175 0 397,320 

California ............................................................... 2,825,400 151,288 0 2,976,688 

Colorado ................................................................. 396,138 22,202 0 418,340 

Connecticut ............................................................ 400,037 46,828 0 446,864 

Delaware ................................................................. 134,736 8,554 0 143,290 

District of Columbia .............................................. 132,135 339 0 132,474 

Florida .................................................................... 1,338,903 167,866 0 1,506,768 

Georgia ................................................................... 982,479 104,328 19,340 1,106,147 

Hawaii .................................................................... 152,397 10,390 0 162,787 

Idaho ...................................................................... 206,372 19,527 0 225,898 

Illinois ..................................................................... 1,029,186 38,554 0 1,067,740 

Indiana ................................................................... 645,653 60,665 0 706,318 

Iowa ........................................................................ 374,644 10,787 0 385,431 

Kansas .................................................................... 365,569 9,808 0 375,377 

Kentucky ................................................................. 477,635 27,132 45,099 549,865 

Louisiana ................................................................ 460,136 26,899 0 487,035 

Maine ...................................................................... 160,936 8,153 0 169,089 

Maryland ................................................................. 495,909 26,245 7,751 529,904 

Massachusetts ....................................................... 576,801 20,202 0 597,003 

Michigan ................................................................. 909,211 66,576 0 975,788 

Minnesota ............................................................... 442,389 16,199 0 458,588 

Mississippi ............................................................. 358,305 17,603 5,415 381,323 

Missouri .................................................................. 694,603 31,034 0 725,636 

Montana ................................................................. 266,539 32,823 0 299,363 

Nebraska ................................................................ 253,316 6,888 0 260,204 

Nevada ................................................................... 211,605 17,938 0 229,543 

New Hampshire ...................................................... 149,041 9,382 0 158,423 

New Jersey .............................................................. 813,296 38,156 0 851,451 

New Mexico ............................................................ 279,474 20,945 0 300,419 

New York ................................................................ 1,474,617 89,817 10,540 1,574,973 

North Carolina ........................................................ 784,369 70,216 28,653 883,238 

North Dakota .......................................................... 199,628 10,635 0 210,263 

Ohio ........................................................................ 985,141 59,262 21,852 1,066,256 

Oklahoma ............................................................... 491,146 13,770 0 504,916 

Oregon .................................................................... 353,633 16,428 0 370,061 

Pennsylvania .......................................................... 1,318,241 59,080 121,302 1,498,623 

Rhode Island .......................................................... 180,702 10,627 0 191,329 

45 

ESTIMATED FY 2005 OBLIGATION LIMITATION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

State 

Estimated FY 

2005 formula limitation 

FY 2005 minimum 

guarantee 

Appalachian development highways 

Total 

South Carolina ....................................................... 473,352 44,185 2,330 519,868 

South Dakota .......................................................... 206,695 13,134 0 219,829 

Tennessee ............................................................... 592,157 36,330 54,056 682,542 

Texas ...................................................................... 2,287,137 221,437 0 2,508,574 

Utah ........................................................................ 242,166 7,665 0 249,831 

Vermont .................................................................. 142,562 5,778 0 148,339 

Virginia ................................................................... 721,615 55,530 11,316 788,461 

Washington ............................................................. 545,861 19,370 0 565,231 

West Virginia .......................................................... 240,112 9,781 67,059 316,952 

Wisconsin ............................................................... 557,546 54,099 0 611,646 

Wyoming ................................................................. 211,445 7,834 0 219,279 

Subtotal .................................................... 29,212,776 2,000,000 443,700 31,656,476 

Allocation Reserve .................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... 2,984,524 

Total .......................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 34,641,000 

Federal-aid highways funds are made available through the following major programs: 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATION LIMITATION BY PROGRAMS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Programs FY 2003 

Limitation 

FY 2004 Est. 

Limitation 

FY 2005 Est. 

Limitation 

Subject to limitation: 

Surface Transportation Program .................................................. $6,926,449 $7,353,128 $8,595,933 

National Highway System ............................................................ 5,919,355 6,262,224 7,341,075 

Interstate Maintenance ................................................................ 4,847,219 5,062,396 6,010,339 

Bridge Program ............................................................................ 4,141,748 4,349,337 5,161,869 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement .................. 1,689,819 1,793,217 2,103,561 

Minimum Guarantee .................................................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seat Belts ............................ 100,145 105,327 110,432 

ITS Standards, Research and Development ................................ 98,357 103,446 108,460 

ITS Deployment ............................................................................ 109,086 114,731 120,292 

Transportation Research .............................................................. 208,880 217,849 227,707 

Federal Lands Highways .............................................................. 772,919 663,936 696,116 

National Corridor Planning and Coordinated Border Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 377,313 131,659 138,040 

Administration .............................................................................. 1 314,071 1 335,612 346,000 

Other Programs ............................................................................ 1,538,748 2,790,573 3 1,109,297 

High Priority Program .................................................................. 1,821,583 0 0 

Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (Special) ................................ 230,467 0 0 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation ............... 50,496 122,254 128,180 

Appalachian Development Highway System ................................ 446,645 484,830 443,700 

Total Obligation Limitation 2 ................................................... 31,593,300 31,890,519 34,641,000 

Emergency Relief Program .................................................................... 78,509 159,580 100,000 

Minimum Allocation/Guarantee ............................................................. 512,861 657,253 646,301 

Demonstration Projects ......................................................................... 128,277 126,187 88,331 

Total Exempt Programs, Estimated Obligations ..................... 719,647 943,020 834,632 

Emergency Relief Supplemental ........................................................... 285,248 252,119 0 

Grand Total, Federal-Aid Highways (Direct) ........................... 32,598,195 33,085,658 35,475,632 

1 Net of the .65% across-the-board reduction contained in Div. N, Sec. 601 of P.L. 108–7 for FY 2003 and net of the .59% across-the- board reduction contained in Div. H, Sec. 168(b) of P.L. 108–199 for FY 2004. Does not reflect FHWA’s share of the WCF reduction. 2 Distribution of the obligation limitation for the core programs are estimated. 

3 Includes carryover balances related to allocated programs. 

46 

The Committee’s recommendations are based on current law, 

under which Federal-aid highways funds are made available 

through the following major programs: 

National highway system.—The ISTEA of 1991 authorized—and 

the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 subsequently established—the National Highway System (NHS). This 

163,000-mile road system serving major population centers, international border crossings, intermodal transportation facilities and 

major travel destinations, is the culmination of years of effort by 

many organizations, both public and private, to identify routes of 

national significance. It includes all Interstate routes, other urban 

and rural principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and major strategic highway connectors, and is estimated to 

carry up to 76 percent of commercial truck traffic and 44 percent 

of all vehicular traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of its NHS funds to the surface transportation program category. If the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. 

The federal share of the NHS is 80 percent, with an availability period of 4 years. 

Interstate maintenance.—The 46,567-mile Dwight D. Eisenhower 

National system of Interstate and Defense Highways retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program finances projects to 

rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges, interchanges, and over-crossings 

along existing interstate routes is also an eligible activity if it does 

not add capacity other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes. 

All remaining federal funding to complete the initial construction 

of the interstate system has been provided through previous highway legislation. TEA–21 and the extension Acts provide flexibility 

to states in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of prior 

Interstate construction authorizations. States with no remaining 

work to complete the interstate system may transfer any surplus 

Interstate construction funds to their interstate maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on Interstate gaps or 

open-to-traffic segments may relinquish interstate construction 

fund eligibility for the work and transfer the federal share of the 

cost to their interstate maintenance program. 

Surface transportation program.—The surface transportation program (STP) is a flexible program that may be used by the states 

and localities for any roads (including NHS) that are not functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors. These roads are 

collectively referred to as Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects 

paid with STP funds are not restricted to Federal-aid highways but 

may be on any public road. Transit capital projects are also eligible 

under this program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee funds under TEA–21 and the extension Acts, 

which may be used as if they were STP funds. Once distributed to 

the states, STP funds must be used according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50 percent divided among areas of over 

200,000 population and remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are 

guaranteed an amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent 

47 

of the amounts reserved for these areas may be spent on rural 

minor collectors. The federal share for the STP program is 80 percent with a 4-year availability period. 

Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.—This program 

provides assistance for bridges on public roads including a discretionary set-aside for high cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit 

of bridges. Fifty percent of a state’s bridge funds may be transferred to the NHS or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer 

is deducted from national bridge needs used in the program’s apportionment formula for the following year. 

Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.— This program provides funds to states to improve air quality in 

non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range of transportation activities are eligible, provided DOT, after consultation with 

EPA, determines they are likely to help meet national ambient air 

quality standards. TEA–21 provides greater flexibility to engage 

public-private partnerships, and expands and clarifies eligibilities 

to include programs to reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance 

areas, and particulate matter (PM–10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state has no non-attainment or maintenance 

areas, the funds may be used as if they were STP funds. 

On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be appropriate 

candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both sectors are 

critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ program, including 

reducing regional emissions and verifying new mobile source control techniques. 

Federal lands highways.—This program provides funding 

through four major categories—Indian reservation roads, parkways 

and park roads, public lands highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways category), and Federally-owned public roads 

providing access to or within the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

TEA–21 also established a new program for improving deficient 

bridges on Indian reservation roads. 

Minimum guarantee.—Under TEA–21 and the extension Acts, 

after the computation of funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are distributed to ensure that each state receives an 

additional amount based on equity considerations. This minimum 

guarantee provision ensures that each State will have a return of 

90.5 percent on its share of contributions to the highway account 

of the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee 

each fiscal year, $2.8 billion nationally is available to the States as 

though they are STP funds (except that requirements related to 

set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety, and sub-State 

allocations do not apply), and any remaining amounts are distributed among core highway programs. 

Emergency relief.—This program provides for the repair and reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned roads 

which have suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA–21 restates the program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds can be used only 

for emergency repairs to restore essential highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds from other highway programs. 

48 

Appalachian development highway system.—This program makes 

funds available to construct highways and access roads under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. 

Under TEA–21, funding is authorized at $450,000,000 for each of 

fiscal years 1999–2004; is available until expended; and distributed 

based on the latest available cost-to-complete estimate. 

National corridor planning and border infrastructure programs.—TEA–21 established a new national corridor planning and 

development program that provides funds for the coordinated planning, design, and construction of corridors of national significance, 

economic growth, and international or interregional trade. Allocations may be made to corridors identified in section 1105(c) of 

ISTEA and to other corridors using considerations identified in legislation. The coordinated border infrastructure program is established to improve the safe movement of people and goods at or 

across the U.S./Canadian and U.S./Mexican borders. 

Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.—Section 1207 of TEA– 

21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats and 

ferry terminal facilities. TEA–21 also included a new requirement 

that $20,000,000 from each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 be set 

aside for marine highway systems that are part of the National 

Highway System for use by the states of Alaska, New Jersey and 

Washington. The extension Acts continue these set-asides and provide $38,000,000 for this program. 

National scenic byways program.—This program provides funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic Byways 

(NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. A total of 

$26,500,000 is available for this program. 

Transportation and community and system preservation pilot program.—TEA–21 established a new transportation and community 

and system preservation program that provides grants to states 

and local governments for planning, developing, and implementing 

strategies to integrate transportation and community and system 

preservation plans and practices. These grants may be used to improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce the need for 

costly future investments in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. 

Environmental streamlining.—The Committee recommendation 

includes a total of $4,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 for environmental 

streamlining initiatives within the administrative takedown balances. The Committee directs FHWA to determine the costs associated with the environmental process on a representative sample of 

projects. Analysis should include information on environmental 

costs associated with the project itself, such as wetlands mitigation 

and 4(f); costs associated with preparing the document; and other 

related costs associated with the time it takes to complete the environmental process. 

Inactive obligations.—This Committee has noted that highway 

investment needs far exceed available resources, and therefore, it 

is important to ensure that every transportation dollar is put to its 

highest and best use. However, a March 2004 audit completed by 

the Inspector General identified $224,000,000 in inactive obligaVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
49 

tions in 10 states. This was the third such audit that identified 

hundreds of millions in inactive obligations in the states. To ensure 

that funds are not sitting idle, the Committee requires FHWA to 

implement the IG’s recommendations to more aggressively review 

inactive obligations. In addition, the Committee directs the Inspector General to review records in 10 additional states to identify inactive obligations associated with completed, reduced in scope, or 

cancelled projects; and to provide the results of the review to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by June 1, 2005. 

Benefits of ITS.—The Committee recognizes that well designed 

intelligent transportation systems (ITS) can play a major role in 

improving highway safety, relieving traffic congestion, and improving the quality of life of the public. This is particularly true on the 

I–91 Corridor in western Massachusetts (from the Connecticut border, north to Vermont) where the Commonwealth has embarked on 

an aggressive program to invest in a high-speed fiber-optic network 

to realize these benefits. 

Rest needs of the motoring public.—The Committee encourages 

the Federal Highway Administration to consider initiatives that 

provide for the rest needs of the motoring public without jeopardizing existing small businesses. 

Performance-based outcomes.—The Committee recognizes the impact that performance-based outcomes can have on the road building industry by allowing contractors the freedom and flexibility to 

focus on quality and long term performance, and encourages the 

Department of Transportation to further explore their use. 

Sacramento area transportation.—The Committee is concerned 

that litigation involving the Shingle Springs Racheria in El Dorado 

County, California may cause the Sacramento area’s metropolitan 

transportation plan (MTP) to fall out of compliance with federal 

clean air requirements. Such a lapse would result in significant 

transportation project delays and would increase costs for 160 

projects in the region. The Committee directs the FHWA to work 

with the state and regional transportation planners to resolve this 

issue as quickly as possible. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, fiscal year 2004 ............................................................... ¥$207,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... ¥300,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥386,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Rescission, fiscal year 2004 ........................................................ ¥179,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥86,000,000 

The bill rescinds $272,000,000 in contract authority balances 

from the five core programs. These resources cannot be obligated 

by the states, as they were apportioned at levels above annual obligation limitations. The Committee directs FHWA to administer the 

rescission by allowing each state maximum flexibility among the 

five programs in making these adjustments. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

The bill includes a provision (sec. 121) that distributes obligation 

authority among Federal-aid highways programs. 

50 

The bill includes a provision (sec. 122) that credits funds received 

by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the Federal-aid highways account. 

The bill includes a provision (sec. 123) that amends section 1602 

of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to allow 

changes to a project in Massachusetts. 

The bill includes a provision (sec. 124) that amends P.L. 102–143 

to allow changes to projects in New Jersey. 

The bill includes a provision (sec. 125) that amends Section 115, 

division F, title I of Public Law 108–199. 

The bill includes a provision (sec. 126) that prohibits funds to require a state or local government to post a traffic control device or 

variable message sign, or any other type of traffic signs, in a language other than English, except in certain specified situations. 

The bill includes a provision (sec. 127) that provides funding for 

environmental streamlining activities from title 23, section 

104(a)(1)(A) ‘‘takedown’’. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The primary mission of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to improve the safety of commercial vehicle operations on our nation’s highways. To accomplish this mission, the 

FMCSA is focused on reducing the number and severity of large 

truck crashes. Agency resources and activities contribute to ensuring safety in commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, 

including the use of stronger enforcement measures against safety 

violators; expedited safety regulation; technology innovation; improvements in information systems; training; and improvements to 

commercial driver’s license testing, record keeping, and sanctions. 

To accomplish these activities, FMCSA works closely with federal, 

state, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, 

highway safety organizations, and individual citizens. In addition, 

FMCSA has the responsibility to ensure that Mexican commercial 

vehicles, entering the U.S. in accordance with the North American 

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), meet all U.S. hazardous material 

and safety regulations. 

FMCSA’s scope was expanded in fiscal year 2003 by the U.S.A. 

Patriot Act (P.L. 107–56), which called for new security measures. 

In addition, beginning in fiscal year 2002, Appropriations Acts 

(P.L. 107–87, P.L. 108–7, and P.L. 108–199) have funded border 

enforcement and safety related activities associated with implementation of NAFTA, and activities associated with permitting of 

hazardous materials. 

Since TEA–21 expired on September 30, 2003, Congress has 

passed a series of short-term extension bills providing funding for 

FMCSA. The current extension will expire on July 31, 2004. Because reauthorization actions have not yet been completed, the 

Committee has continued the fiscal year 2004 program structure 

and funding levels as if authorized through fiscal year 2005. 

Similar to past years, the authorization Acts leave current onboard personnel severely underfunded, and critical safety programs 

unauthorized and/or unfunded. TEA–21 and its extensions were not 

written to allow any adjustments for new national safety and programmatic needs, or even new programs required by the authorization Acts. This inflexibility forces the Committee to either irresponVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
51 

sibly compromise safety by reducing and eliminating important 

programs, or, as in past years, reduce other programs to find the 

necessary resources. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation on administrative expenses 

Limitation, fiscal year 2004 1 ............................................................. ($175,031,187) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... (265,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (248,480,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Limitation, fiscal year 2004 ........................................................ (+73,448,813) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ (¥16,520,000) 

1Does not include $64,119,450 provided under Federal Highway Administration appropriation. 

The motor carrier safety account provides funding for salaries 

and operating expenses and for administering motor carrier safety 

programs and motor carrier research for the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration. 

Assuming continuation of the TEA–21 authorization level would 

allow only $176,070,000 for motor carrier safety. This level would 

not fund new national safety and programmatic needs, such as 

emergent safety enforcement on our Southern border due to 

NAFTA, implementation of authorized safety programs and regulations, and security changes required to protect our nation as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Therefore, the Committee recommends $248,480,000 for motor carrier safety, a reduction of $16,520,000 from the budget request. 

Of the total provided, $125,229,000 is for operating expenses and 

$8,500,000 is for research and technology initiatives. In response to 

recent safety and security issues, the Committee provides funding 

for grant programs under this limitation. This includes $33,000,000 

for southern border state operations grants and northern border 

state truck inspection grants, $20,000,000 for state commercial 

driver’s license (CDL) program improvement grants, and 

$16,200,000 for new entrant program state grants and administration. These are provided under the administrative account because 

no flexibility exists to fund these priorities elsewhere. 

The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to the 

budget request: 

New entrant program ............................................................................ ¥$211,000 

Administrative infrastructure .............................................................. ¥3,058,000 

Working capital fund desktop services ................................................ ¥327,000 

Research and technology ....................................................................... ¥2,291,000 

Information management ...................................................................... ¥8,974,000 

Regulatory development ........................................................................ ¥143,000 

Education and outreach ........................................................................ ¥1,513,000 

Telephone hotline .................................................................................. ¥3,000 

A discussion of programs and funding levels follow: 

New entrant program.—The interim final rule for the new entrant safety assurance process was published on May 13, 2002, 

with an effective date of January 2003. This rule requires all new 

entrants to pass a safety audit within the first 18 months of operations in order to receive permanent DOT registration. This ComVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
52 

mittee provides a total of $33,200,000 in this program, of which 

$16,200,000 is funded within the motor carrier safety account, and 

$17,000,000 is within the national motor carrier safety program. 

This Committee provided funding for this program for the first 

time in fiscal year 2004. In less than one year, 44 states have implemented a state new entrant program. According to FMCSA, an 

additional four states plan on limited implementation in fiscal year 

2005. Consistent with this success, the Committee continues the 

program structure that limits federal responsibility to program 

oversight and to respond to the rare case where a state does not 

have the authority or ability to implement the program by managing third party contracts. 

Therefore, the Committee denies the request of 20 federal FTE 

for the new entrant program. Because the Committee has not received the report regarding use of new entrant funds requested last 

year, a total of $2,000,000 is provided for federal responsibilities 

associated with the new entrant program. In addition, the Committee limits the number of federal employees associated with this 

program to 5.5 FTE, or if lower, the current number of personnel 

on-board. The remaining $14,200,000 provided under this account 

shall be provided to states to hire safety auditors and contract personnel as needed. 

Administrative infrastructure.—The Committee provides a total 

of $7,500,000 to augment its current administrative infrastructure. 

This level is $541,000 over the fiscal year 2004 level. The Committee makes a reduction from the request in order to control the 

growth of this program. 

Working capital fund (WCF) desktop services.—The Committee 

provides $650,000 for WCF desktop services, a reduction of 

$327,000. The Committee has not received adequate justification 

from the Department regarding its information technology consolidation request. 

Research and technology.—The Committee provides $8,500,000 

for research and technology, a reduction of $2,291,000 from the 

budget request and $1,541,000 over the fiscal year 2004 level. Of 

the amount provided, $500,000 is for testing and evaluation of a radiation detection device. 

Information management.—The Committee provides $17,000,000 

for information management, an increase over last year, but 

$8,974,000 lower than the budget request. 

Regulatory development.—The Committee provides $11,000,000 

for regulatory development, $143,000 below the budget request. 

This level represents an increase of $1,556,000 from the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level. 

Education and outreach.—The Committee provides $2,000,000 

for outreach and education. The $1,751,475 increase above the fiscal year 2004 level is required to fund new initiatives proposed by 

FMCSA that the Committee believes are important. Within the 

funding provided, $500,000 is provided for a program to increase 

the commercial motor vehicle safety belt usage rate from its dismal 

48 percent; $100,000 is provided to continue the ‘‘safety is good 

business’’ program; $150,000 is provided for the new motorcoach 

transportation service selection, and $1,250,000 is provided for the 

household goods outreach program. 

53 

Similar to last year, funding for the ‘‘share the road safely’’ program is provided under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) appropriation due to FMCSA’s ineffective 

use of funds over the years for this program. Because this is the 

final year that the Committee expects NHTSA to manage the 

‘‘share the road safely’’ program, the Committee directs FMCSA to 

provide one FTE, on detail, to NHTSA to help oversee the program 

and to help promote the program’s seamless transition back to 

FMCSA in fiscal year 2006. 

For each of these initiatives and all other outreach initiatives, 

FMCSA must first develop a goal, message, and coherent and explicit program strategy that clearly and directly link FMCSA’s outreach and education program initiatives to each program’s goal. 

FMCSA shall provide information regarding the goals and strategies to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 

February 10, 2005. The Committee encourages FMCSA to combine 

its outreach efforts with other interactions it has with motor carrier companies, such as security sensitivity visits, compliance reviews, and safety audits. 

Further, the Committee directs the U.S. Government Accountability Office to monitor and evaluate FMCSA’s education and outreach programs, including the non-entrant outreach program, during the development and implementation phases and provide the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations several updates 

on the status of these programs, including recommendations, as 

sufficient planning and development progress is being made. 

Telephone hotline.—The Committee provides $375,000 for FMCSA’s telephone hotline, a $3,000 reduction from the budget request to reflect the assumed authorization level. 

Commercial drivers license program.—The Committee includes 

$22,000,000, consistent with the budget request, for the commercial 

drivers license (CDL) program. A total of $20,000,000 of this funding is from the office of motor carrier safety and $2,000,000 is from 

the national motor carrier safety program. This funding is to support safety and security initiatives that improve the accuracy and 

completeness of driver conviction and disqualification data. Funding is necessary to meet the needs of state computer systems and 

data reporting improvements, to maintain the central depository of 

Mexican and Canadian commercial drivers license convictions, and 

to fund state compliance program reviews. 

Within the funds provided for the CDL program, FMCSA should 

continue working with the American Association of Motor Vehicle 

Administrators, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, lead 

MCSAP agencies, and licensing agencies to improve all aspects of 

the CDL program. In addition, FMCSA should consider sponsoring 

another pilot project involving law enforcement and driver licensing 

agencies to explore new and innovative ways to ensure that drivers 

who have been convicted of a disqualifying offense do not operate 

during the period of suspension or revocation. Finally, FMCSA 

should continue to support the judicial and prosecutorial outreach 

effort. 

Consistent with the IG’s recommendation in an October 2003 

audit and a letter dated June 4, 2004, the Committee directs 

FMCSA to implement procedures that strengthen controls over the 

process for obtaining a commercial driver’s license. Specifically, the 

54 

IG recommends that all CDL applicants demonstrate that they are 

a U.S. citizen, a permanent legal resident, or are otherwise legally 

present in the U.S. Although FMCSA has completed a rulemaking 

requiring CDL drivers with hazardous material endorsements to 

provide proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residence, it has 

continued to delay a rulemaking that requires drivers applying for 

a CDL without a hazardous materials endorsement to provide similar documentation. The Committee is concerned that continued 

delay will result in increased risk exposure, as 70 percent of the 

CDLs issued since 1989 do not carry a hazardous material endorsement. 

Further, consistent with the IG’s recommendation, the Committee directs FMCSA to consider establishing a requirement for 

social security number (SSN) verification, fingerprinting, or use of 

digital image exchange when issuing a CDL. Currently, 40 states 

have established a SSN verification process. The Committee directs 

FMCSA to encourage states to apply for CDL grants for SSN 

verification, fingerprinting, or digital image exchange, and to educate states as to each of these system benefits in curtailing fraud 

and enhancing national security. 

Compliance reviews.—The Committee notes the negative effect 

that the implementation of the new entrant safety assurance program and the security site visits and security components of the 

compliance reviews adopted since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have taken on the number of compliance reviews 

the FMCSA has completed. The number has fallen from a high of 

11,340 in 2001 to 8,924 in 2002. This means that more motor carriers are operating either without a safety rating or with an outdated safety rating. The Committee expects the number of reviews 

to significantly increase as states implement the new entrant program, first funded in fiscal year 2004. The Committee directs 

FMCSA to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations detailing the reasons for the decline in compliance reviews since 2001, and including specific contributions and 

the degree of each contribution. In addition, the report should include descriptions of issues or policies that may impact the number 

of compliance reviews in the future, and a plan to overcome current 

problems. 

SafeStat.—The Committee directs the FMCSA to implement the 

IG’s recommendations in its February 13, 2004 report, ‘‘Improvements Needed in the Motor Carrier Safety Status Measurement 

System.’’ These recommendations are designed to correct the weaknesses in the ‘‘SafeStat’’ data reported by states and motor carriers 

and improve FMCSA’s processes for correcting and disclosing data 

problems. The IG recommends that FMCSA: (1) revalidate the 

SafeStat model; (2) improve systems for correcting inaccurate data 

and tracking of corrective actions; (3) expand cautions on the internet regarding SafeStat’s use; and (4) establish a plan to improve 

and ensure the quality of SafeStat data. 

Form M.—The Committee notes that the budget request transfers responsibility of form M from BTS to FMCSA. It is not clear 

to the Committee how form M is relevant to FMCSA’s mission, 

therefore the request is denied. 

55 

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

(Liquidation of contract authorization) (Limitation on obligations) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................... $190,000,000 ($188,879,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................... 190,000,000 (190,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill .................................... 190,000,000 (190,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................. – – – (+1,121,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................ – – – (– – –) 

The FMCSA’s national motor carrier safety program (NMCSP) 

was authorized by TEA–21, amended by the Motor Carrier Safety 

Improvement Act of 1999, and continued into 2004 by a series of 

short-term extension Acts. This program consists of two major 

areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and 

the information systems and strategic safety initiatives (ISSSI) program. MCSAP provides grants and project funding to states to develop and implement national programs for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules and regulations concerning motor 

carrier safety. The major objective of this program is to reduce the 

number and severity of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to qualified states for the development of 

programs to enforce the federal motor carrier safety and hazardous 

materials regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

of 1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle safety 

inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic. ISSSI provides funds to develop and enhance data-related motor carrier programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $190,000,000 in liquidating cash for 

this program. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$190,000,000 for the national motor carrier safety program. This is 

the current authorized level, and is $1,121,000 greater than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends the following allocation of funds: 

Amount 

Motor carrier safety assistance program ............................................. $169,000,000 

Basic motor carrier safety grants .................................................. 133,350,000 

Performance-based incentive grant program ............................... 7,100,000 

High-priority activities 1 ................................................................. 26,450,000 

State training and administration ................................................ 2,100,000 

Crash causation (sec. 224(f) MCSIA) ................................................... 1,000,000 

Information systems and strategic safety initiatives .......................... 20,000,000 

Data analysis and information systems ....................................... 14,000,000 

56 

Amount 

PRISM ............................................................................................. 5,000,000 

Driver programs (CDL grants) ...................................................... 1,000,000 

1 Up to $17,000,000 is for the implementation of the new entrant program required under section 210 of MCSIA. 

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... $450,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ............................

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥450,000 

The Committee has not received sufficient justification for the 

Department regarding its electronic government request. Therefore, 

the request is denied. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

The bill includes a provision (sec. 141) subjecting funds appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions of section 350 of 

Public Law 107–87, including a requirement that the Secretary 

submit a report on Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. 

The bill includes a provision (sec. 142) which prohibits the use 

of funds in this Act to implement or enforce any provision of the 

final rule issued on April 16, 2003 as it applies to operators of utility service vehicles. 

The bill includes a provision (sec. 143) which prohibits the use 

of funds in this Act to implement or enforce any hours of service 

regulations on operators of utility service vehicles. It also clarifies 

that states are precluded from using FMCSA grant funds for this 

purpose. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March 1970. It succeeded the National 

Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic 

and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration. 

To date, the administration’s current programs are currently authorized in five major laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act; (2) the Highway Safety Act; (3) the Motor Vehicle 

Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA); (4) the National 

Driver Register; (5) the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21); and (6) the Transportation Recall Enhancement, 

Accountability, and Documentation Act (TREAD). 

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century is the current authorization for the full range of NHTSA programs. The current extension of this law is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2004. 

Because conference of the surface reauthorization legislation has 

not yet been completed, the Committee has continued the fiscal 

year 2004 program levels as if authorized through fiscal year 2005. 

57 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 1 ....................................................... ($224,790,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 233,300,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 223,114,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥1,676,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥10,186,000 

1Derived from the Highway Trust Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends new budget authority and obligation 

limitations for a total program level of $223,114,000. Of this total, 

$129,514,000 is for operations and research from the general fund, 

$90,000,000 is for 23 U.S.C. 403 activities from the highway trust 

fund, and $3,600,000 is for the national driver register. The funding shall be distributed as follows: 

Amount 

Salaries and benefits ............................................................................. $72,200,000 

Travel ...................................................................................................... 1,385,000 

Operating expenses ............................................................................... 23,572,000 

Contract programs: 

Safety performance (rulemaking) .................................................. 11,183,000 

Safety assurance (enforcement) ..................................................... 18,279,000 

Highway safety programs .............................................................. 44,465,000 

Research and analysis .................................................................... 67,657,000 

General administration .................................................................. 679,000 

Grant administration reimbursements ................................................ ¥16,306,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 223,114,000 

The recommendation assumes the following major adjustments to 

the budget request: 

Reduce funding for crash causation study ........................................... ¥$3,200,000 

Reduce funding for computer technology increase .............................. ¥2,260,000 

Increase funding for FARS data collection .......................................... +850,000 

Increase funding for non-compliant vehicle inspectors ....................... +250,000 

Increase funding for national EMS system ......................................... +500,000 

Reduce funding for harmonization of vehicle safety standards ......... ¥203,000 

Reduce funding for workforce planning ............................................... ¥427,000 

Reduce funding for crash avoidance initiative .................................... ¥5,000,000 

Increase funding for share the road safely .......................................... +100,000 

OPERATING EXPENSES

Computer support.—The Committee is troubled at the proposed 

increase in fiscal year 2005 funds for NHTSA’s information technology (IT) program. NHTSA is proposing a 50% increase for IT activities, more than any other program under the agency’s jurisdiction. The Committee understands that the new activities that are 

proposed could increase customer support and IT security. However, under the strict fiscal constraints that the entire Federal Government confronts this year, it is imperative that NHTSA prioritize 

these functions to make the most of its critical funding. Further, 

to label 30% of these funds as a mandatory increase also concerns 

the Committee, as it is clearly not a mandatory action to increase 

funding for computer investment, unless the Congress places this 

mandatory requirement upon an agency. Therefore, not more than 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level, $2,620,000, of funds provided in 

this Act may be used for information technology, computer support 

or E-gov activities. 

58 

Administrative grant reimbursements.—The Committee notes 

with alarm the growing pace in which NHTSA is requesting a reduction from the highway safety grant programs to reimburse the 

agency for its administrative expenses. In just two years, NHTSA 

has increased this request by 64%. The Committee reminds 

NHTSA that increases to grant administration reduce the amount 

of grant funds that go to the states to improve highway safety, and 

the Committee will not allow this trend to continue. Funds totaling 

$16,306,000, the same as the fiscal year 2004 enacted level, are 

therefore provided as reimbursements to NHTSA for administering 

the grant programs. 

Harmonization of vehicle safety standards and workforce planning and development.—Due to budget constraints, funding is not 

provided for the harmonization of vehicle safety standards initiative and the workforce planning and development program. 

SAFETY ASSURANCE

Non-compliant vehicle products.—The Committee is aware that 

the United States is facing a growing number of imports of motor 

vehicle products, primarily in the lighting sector, that do not meet 

U.S. federal motor vehicle safety standards. These imports pose a 

serious risk to highway safety and to the American public. NHTSA 

has conducted only 24 compliance-related investigations in this 

area since 1999 (15 of which involved replacement visibility and 

signaling devices that were imported from overseas markets) and 

the number of existing product violations in the domestic market 

is rapidly rising. To assist NHTSA’s ongoing enforcement actions 

against non-compliant vehicle products, the Committee believes it 

is necessary for NHTSA to hire additional staff to work exclusively 

in NHTSA’s office of vehicle safety compliance. The Committee has 

provided $250,000 for an additional two full-time equivalent staff 

years in fiscal year 2005. NHTSA should move expeditiously to ensure that these positions are filled and shall notify both the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations when hiring is complete. 

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

Emergency medical services (EMS).—Effective EMS systems are 

necessary for post crash injury control; however local EMS systems 

vary considerably. NHTSA serves as a lead federal agency to ensure continual advancement of the performance of all EMS systems, by providing national leadership and guidance for systems 

administrators. In October 2001, the GAO published a report on 

emergency medical services that emphasized the need for consistent information for improving performance at the local level, 

setting and monitoring national level policy, and improving researchers’ ability to assess EMS outcomes. NHTSA has helped to 

develop a National EMS Information System (NEMSIS), but the 

next and most important step will be implementation of NEMSIS. 

The Committee has provided $500,000 in fiscal year 2005 for 

NHTSA to begin the implementation of this important program. 

Motorcycle-related fatalities.—There was a continuous decline in 

motorcycle crash fatalities from the mid–1980’s through 1997. 

Since 1997, however, motorcycle fatalities have increased annually, 

making 2003 the sixth year in a row for an increase in fatalities. 

New and innovative ideas to approach this issue are urgently needVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
59 

ed, and it is imperative that NHTSA focus more attention on this 

problem. The Committee has provided $744,000 under Highway 

Safety Programs for motorcycle programs. An examination of the 

effectiveness of motorcycle education should be undertaken by 

NHTSA in fiscal year 2005, as well as initial studies concerning the 

possibility of a motorcycle crash causation study. 

Share the road safely.—The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2004, included a legislative provision directing that the share the 

road safely program be administered by NHTSA for fiscal year 

2004 and prohibiting NHTSA from transferring funds to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for this program. Language was also included that encouraged NHTSA to work with 

FMCSA and state highway safety representatives to determine the 

best avenues for educating both the motoring public and commercial motor vehicle drivers, including incorporating such information 

in driver education courses. 

The Committee is aware that internal disputes have been ongoing between NHTSA and FMCSA about the role of each agency 

under the current structures. The Committee wants it clearly stated that due to NHTSA’s experience in educational outreach issues, 

the Committee directs NHTSA to lead the implementation of this 

program. FMCSA must work with NHTSA to ensure that FMCSA 

is learning how NHTSA carries out their campaigns and must detail one position to work with NHTSA staff to assist in the program’s implementation and to gain knowledge of NHTSA’s educational outreach programs. Assuming FMCSA’s cooperation in fiscal year 2005, this should be the final year that NHTSA would administer the program. Funding is provided for this program to 

NHTSA and the funding shall not be transferred to FMCSA for any 

reason. 

Impaired driving.—The Committee continues to be concerned by 

the lack of progress to reduce alcohol-related fatalities and injuries 

on the nation’s roadways. According to NHTSA’s 2003 Early Assessment Estimates of Motor Vehicle Crashes, alcohol-related fatalities remained essentially unchanged from 2002. Despite the 

combined efforts of federal and state safety officials, the 2003 data 

represent the sixth consecutive year with no discernable progress. 

60 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General to explore whether federal and 

state efforts to reduce alcohol-related fatalities and injuries could 

be improved. This review should compare the scope and direction 

of programs and activities conducted by states with the highest and 

lowest rates of alcohol-related fatalities and the highest and lowest 

percentages of drinking drivers involved in fatal crashes using a 

five-year average of fatality data. In particular, the Committee 

would like a review of: the defining characteristics that constitute 

an alcohol-related crash; state and federal resources dedicated to 

reducing alcohol-impaired driving and an analysis of expenditures; 

state law enforcement efforts, including the use of sobriety checkpoints or other high-visibility enforcement methods; law enforcement officer training standards; the use of paid and earned media; 

and an overview of current state laws. 

Underage drinking.—In division E of the statement of the managers accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 

(Public Law 108–199), the conferees expressed concern about underage drinking trends and the need to take immediate steps to 

better coordinate federal efforts to address this problem. The report 

also directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish an Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of 

Underage Drinking and to issue an annual report summarizing all 

federal agency activities concerning this important issue. The Committee emphasizes the magnitude of the underage drinking issue 

and the importance of remaining active in combating it. The Committee is pleased to see NHTSA taking an active approach to 

HHS’s interagency committee and asks NHTSA to keep both the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations informed of the 

agency’s participation in the committee. 


Insert offset folio 06 here HR671.001
61 

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Crash avoidance initiative.—The NHTSA budget request indicates an increasing emphasis on crash avoidance measures, particularly technologies that reduce the chances of having a vehicle 

accident or reducing the severity of a crash if it occurs. This emphasis is evident in a $5,000,000 request in the NHTSA budget 

proposal for a new crash avoidance initiative and a $126,000 increase in current crash avoidance programs. Unfortunately, this 

proposed increase lacks a detailed justification. Budget document 

statements contain broad generalities that lack specific details of 

what will actually be accomplished in the next fiscal year and do 

not substantiate specifically how NHTSA intends to use this research to achieve the stated goal of 1.0 fatalities per 100 million 

vehicle-miles traveled by 2008. This is especially troubling when 

programs like crashworthiness and highway safety face steep cuts 

in the proposed budget. It is imperative that funding is spent on 

activities that save the most lives and little information has been 

provided that these types of technologies will achieve this goal. 

There is also little information in the budget document regarding 

specific technologies the agency is reviewing or considering, as well 

as the costs and feasibility for the use of this technology in passenger vehicles. The request of $5,000,000 for the new initiative is 

unjustified and is therefore denied. 

Fatality analysis reporting system (FARS).—The Committee is 

aware that the proposed budget for the fatality analysis reporting 

system (FARS) data collection for fiscal year 2005 is insufficient to 

pay state FARS analysts for the entire data collection year. As a 

result, states will be unable to continue to employ well-trained 

staff. If this occurs, the FARS data collection system would be in 

jeopardy of not completing the timely and accurate database that 

supports all of NHTSA’s highway safety programs. The Committee 

is therefore providing an increase of $850,000 to the base FARS 

program to ensure that sufficient funding is available to all 50 

States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico so that States 

will be able to continue uninterrupted fatal crash data collection 

throughout calendar year 2005. 

National tire efficiency.—In the statement of the managers accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 

108–199), the conferees directed the Secretary of Transportation, 

through a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, to develop and perform a national tire fuel efficiency study and literature review to consider the relationship low rolling resistance 

replacement tires designed for use on passenger cars and light 

trucks have on fuel consumption and tire wear life. The Committee 

urges NHTSA to support this very important study. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 1 ....................................................... ($149,657,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 139,300,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 129,514,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥20,143,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥9,786,000 

1Derived from the Highway Trust Fund. 

62 

The Committee recommends a total of $129,514,000 for operations and research funding from the general fund, which is 

$9,786,000 below the request. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $71,575,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 90,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 90,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +18,425,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

The Committee recommends $90,000,000 from the highway trust 

fund for authorized activities associated with operations and research. 

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $3,558,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 4,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,600,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +42,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥400,000 

The National Driver Register Act (chapter 303 of Title 49, 

U.S.C.) provides for the operation of the national driver register, 

which facilitates the interstate exchange of driver licenses due to 

concerns regarding problem drivers whose licenses to drive have 

been suspended or revoked for cause. The Committee recommends 

$3,600,000 from the highway trust fund for activities associated 

with the national driver register. 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on obliga- tions 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................... $225,000,000 ($223,673,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................... 456,000,000 (456,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill .................................... 225,000,000 (225,000,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................. ............................ (+1,327,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................ ¥231,000,000 (¥231,000,000) 

TEA–21 authorized four state grant programs: the highway safety program, the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grant 

program, the occupant protection incentive grant program, and the 

63 

state highway safety data improvement grant program. The Committee recommends $225,000,000 for liquidation of contract authorization, which is the same as the fiscal year 2004 level. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

As in past years, the bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants 

programs. These obligations are set in TEA–21, and the Committee 

continues this funding at its current level until reauthorization actions have been completed. The bill includes separate obligation 

limitations with the following funding allocations: 

Highway safety programs ..................................................................... $165,000,000 

Occupant protection incentive grants .................................................. 20,000,000 

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures ......................................... 40,000,000 

The fiscal year 2005 budget submission reflected NHTSA’s reauthorization proposal, which restructures the highway safety grant 

programs into a consolidated program, funded at the combined 

level of TEA–21 section 402, 410, 405, 411, 2003(b), and 163 and 

157 of title 23 of the United States Code. The Committee has continued to fund the 157 and 163 programs at their authorized level, 

which requires $122,000,000 from the highway trust fund. 

Highway safety formula grants.—These grants are awarded to 

states for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries. The states may use the grants to implement programs to reduce deaths and injuries caused by exceeding posted speed limits; 

encourage proper use of occupant protection devices; reduce alcohol-and drug-impaired driving; reduce crashes between motorcycles 

and other vehicles; reduce school bus crashes; improve police traffic 

services; improve emergency medical services and trauma care systems; increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety; increase safety 

among older and younger drivers; and improve roadway safety. The 

grants also provide additional support for state data collection and 

reporting of traffic deaths and injuries. The national occupant protection survey is also funded within this total. Language is included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants 

administration from this program to $10,000,000. 

Occupant protection incentive grants.—The Committee has funded the section 405 occupant protection incentive grant program at 

$20,000,000. States may qualify for this grant program by implementing 4 of the following 6 laws and programs: (1) a law requiring 

safety belt use by all passengers in the vehicle; (2) a safety belt use 

law providing for primary enforcement; (3) minimum fines or penalty points for seat belt and child seat use law violations; (4) special traffic enforcement programs for occupant protection; (5) a 

child passenger protection education program; and (6) a child passenger protection law which requires minors to be properly secured. 

Language is included in the bill that limits funding available for 

federal grants administration from this program to $2,306,000. 

In addition to the occupant protection incentive grant program, 

TEA–21 established a safety incentive grant program (section 157) 

to encourage states to increase seat belt usage. The grant program 

totaled $500,000,000 over the past six fiscal years and, as previously stated, the Committee has extended this funding at its current levels. Allocations of federal grants require determinations of: 

(1) seat belt use rates and improvements; and (2) federal medical 

64 

cost savings attributable to increased seat belt use. States that 

meet the section 157 requirements can use funds for any purpose 

under title 23, including highway construction, highway safety, and 

intelligent transportation systems. NHTSA and FHWA are jointly 

administering this program. NHTSA will collect the state data and 

determine the allocation of funds. In addition, $10,000,000 is to be 

allocated for national paid media to support national safety belt 

mobilizations under section 157. Language is included in the bill 

that limits funding available for federal grants administration from 

this program to $1,000,000. 

Alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants.—The Committee has 

funded the section 410 alcohol incentive grant program at 

$40,000,000 in fiscal year 2005. This program offers two-tiered 

basic and supplemental grants to reward states that pass new laws 

and start more effective programs to attack drunk and impaired 

driving. States may qualify for basic grants in two ways. First, they 

can become eligible by implementing 5 of the following 7 laws and 

programs: (1) administrative license revocation; (2) programs to 

prevent drivers under age 21 from obtaining alcoholic beverages; 

(3) intensive impaired driving law enforcement; (4) a graduated licensing law with night-time driving restrictions and zero tolerance; 

(5) programs to address drivers with high blood alcohol content 

(BAC); (6) young adult programs to reduce impaired driving by individuals ages 21–34; and (7) an effective system for increasing the 

rate of testing for BAC of drivers in fatal crashes. Second, they can 

reach eligibility by demonstrating a reduction in alcohol-related fatality rates in each of the last three years for which Fatal Accident 

Reporting System data is available and demonstrating rates lower 

than the national average for each of the last three years. Supplemental grants are provided to states that adopt additional measures, including videotaping of drunk drivers by police; self-sustaining impaired driving programs; laws to reduce driving with 

suspended licenses; use of passive alcohol sensors by police; a system for tracking information on drunk drivers; and other innovative programs. Language is included in the bill that limits funding 

available for federal grants administration from this program to 

$2,000,000. 

In addition to the alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant program, TEA–21 authorized $500,000,000 in grants over six years for 

states that have enacted and are enforcing a 0.08 BAC law (section 

163). The Committee has continued this funding for fiscal year 

2005 at its current level. For each fiscal year in which a state 

meets this criterion, it will receive a grant in the same ratio in 

which it receives section 402 funds. States may use these funds for 

any project eligible for assistance under title 23 (e.g. highway construction, bridge repair, highway safety). This grant program encourages states to adopt and enforce significant anti-drunk driving 

legislation. In addition, $20,000,000 under section 163 is to be allocated for national paid media to support national safety belt mobilizations. Language is included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants administration from this program to 

$1,000,000. 

Bill language.—The bill maintains language that prohibits the 

use of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling costs 

or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, local, or private buildVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
65 

ings or structures. Language is also continued that limits the 

amount available for technical assistance to $500,000 under section 

410. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

The Committee continues a provision (sec. 151) that allows states 

to use funds provided under section 402 of title 23, U.S.C., to 

produce and place highway safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema, print media, and on the internet. The provision provides that any state that uses funds for such purposes 

must submit a report to the Secretary, who in turn is directed to 

submit the reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The provision allocates $10,000,000 for national paid 

media to support national safety belt mobilizations under section 

157 and $20,000,000 under section 163 to include: $7,000,000 to 

support state impaired driving mobilization enforcement efforts 

and $12,000,000 for paid media to support national law enforcement mobilizations on impaired driving. No more than 60% of 

funds provided for impaired driving media support may go to the 

thirteen strategic states. 

The Committee includes a provision (sec. 152) that directs 

NHTSA to administer the share the road safely program for fiscal 

year 2005. 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for 

planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve safe 

operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry, as well 

as managing the high-speed ground transportation program. 

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

and other financial assistance programs serving to rehabilitate and 

improve the railroad industry’s physical plant are also administered by the FRA. 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $130,053,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 142,396,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 137,738,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +7,685,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥4,658,000 

The safety and operations account provides support for FRA’s 

rail safety and passenger and freight program activities. Funding 

also supports salaries and expenses and other operating costs related to FRA staff and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

A total of $137,738,000 has been allocated to safety and oper- ations, which is a $7,685,000 increase from the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. Of this total, $15,350,000 is available until expended. 

The following adjustments have been made to the budget request: 

Deny funding for additional staffing .................................................... ¥$1,322,000 

Deny funding for central training facility ........................................... ¥550,000 

Deny funding for unjustified E-gov initiatives .................................... ¥193,000 

66 

Reduce funding for track geometry vehicle ......................................... ¥2,000,000 

Deny funding for fatigue study ............................................................. ¥500,000 

Staffing.—The Committee approves funding for eight operating 

practices inspectors and has included funding totaling $593,000 for 

this purpose. 

Student inspector trainee program.—Funding for sixteen student 

inspector trainees is requested for recruitment and succession planning. The Committee denies funding for the trainee program, as it 

is not fiscally justifiable at this time. 

E-gov.—The Committee denies funding for E-gov initiatives initiated by the Office of the Secretary for lack of adequate justification. 

Budget justifications.—The Committee has stated that it is troubled by the serious decline in the quality of budget justification material. However, the Committee must note that the Federal Railroad Administration, while including a hundred pages of text regarding performance achievements and goals, has continued to provide breakouts of requested funds by office and activity. The Committee commends FRA for continuing to provide the Committee 

with justification for their budgetary needs in an appropriate format. 

Intermodal Transportation Center at Union Station.—The Committee is aware of the current venture for proposed improvements 

to the Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) at Union Station. 

The modernization of the ITC is to be undertaken in conjunction 

with the Congressionally-mandated development of the air rights 

above the rail yard at Union Station. The winning bidder for the 

air rights purchase was selected and the project has been delayed 

for nearly two years by protracted negotiations related to the sale. 

It is the Committee’s understanding that the Federal Railroad Administration, with its fiduciary responsibility for Union Station, 

has been working for the past year to resolve the issues among the 

parties, and that some progress has been made to that end. The 

Committee appreciates the efforts of all involved parties to resolve 

this matter and encourages these parties to continue working to arrive at a fair solution as expeditiously as possible. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $33,824,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 36,025,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 33,289,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥535,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥2,736,000 

The railroad research and development appropriation finances 

FRA contract research activities. The objectives of this program are 

to reduce the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to 

provide technical support for rail safety rulemaking and enforcement activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,289,000, 

which is a $2,736,000 decrease from the amount requested. 

The recommendation assumes the following reductions to the 

budget request: 

67 

Deny funding for high-speed/freight configurable locomotive simulator ..................................................................................................... ¥$500,000 

Deny funding for discontinued fiscal year 2004 programs ................. ¥2,236,000 

Grade crossing accidents.—Accidents at grade crossings account 

for the second highest number of fatalities in the railroad industry 

and motorist behaviors are clearly a major factor. Yet few resources 

have been directly targeted to understanding why motorists make 

bad decisions at grade crossings. The Committee supports FRA’s 

accident causation and driver behavior projects and has provided 

$500,000 for research on human factors issues at grade crossings. 

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

TEA–21 established a railroad rehabilitation and improvement 

financing loan and loan guarantee program. The aggregate unpaid 

principal amounts of the obligations may not exceed $3,500,000,000 

at any one time. Not less than $1,000,000,000 is reserved for 

projects primarily benefiting freight railroads other than class I 

carriers. The funding may be used: (1) to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track, 

components of track, bridges, yards, buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or (3) to develop and establish new intermodal 

or railroad facilities. No federal appropriation is required, since a 

non-federal infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy 

amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of 

a credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals and necessary determinations and findings. 

The Committee has included bill language specifying that no new 

direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made using 

federal funds for the payment of any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2005. 

The Committee has included bill language that directs Amtrak to 

make full payment of all principal and interest to the Federal Railroad Administrator in satisfaction of the Corporation’s July 3, 2002 

direct loan within 30 days of enactment of this Act. 

The Committee has not included bill language requested by FRA 

authorizing FRA to charge and collect a fee from applicants for a 

direct loan or guaranteed loan. 

NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $37,179,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 11,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥26,179,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ +1,000,000 

The next generation high-speed rail program funds the development, demonstration, and implementation of high-speed rail technologies. It is managed in conjunction with the program authorized 

in TEA–21. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $11,000,000 for the next generation 

high-speed rail program, which is a $1,000,000 increase to the 

budget request. Total program funding is allocated as follows: 

68 

Committee recommendation 

Train control systems: 

North American joint PTC project ........................................................................................................... $4,000,000 

Train control-TTC ..................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Non-electric locomotives: 

Advanced locomotive propulsion system ................................................................................................ 700,000 

Prototype non-electric locomotive ........................................................................................................... 800,000 

Diesel mutiple units compliance and demonstration ............................................................................. 1,000,000 

Grade crossing and innovative technologies: 

Mitigating hazards .................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Low-cost technologies ............................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Track and structures ............................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 11,000,000 

Diesel multiple units (DMU) compliance and demonstration program.—There is an interest from both commuter and intercity rail 

passenger service providers to use diesel multiple units on commuter and future high-speed rail corridors. Until recently, this 

form of rail technology had not been produced in the United States 

since the Federal Railroad Administration issued passenger equipment safety regulations. The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to 

validate the compliance of diesel multiple units with existing passenger car safety standards and to make a grant to up to two public bodies for the purpose of initiating a demonstration in daily revenue service of a compliant DMU during calendar years 2004 and 

2005. Federal funding shall only be made available if funds are 

matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis from non-federal sources and 

shall only be used for activities related to establishing the compliance of the DMU design with passenger safety standards and for 

the acquisition of DMUs (through a conventional competitive procurement process) and service facilities necessary for revenue service demonstration. All other expenses, including the cost of passenger facilities and any net operating expenses are not eligible for 

funding under this appropriation. In making the grant award decision, FRA shall consider among its criteria: the extent that the 

award would develop or facilitate the domestic rail passenger car 

manufacturing industry and the extent that it is compatible with 

DMU technology acquired pursuant to the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Nothing shall preclude FRA from making funds available 

to the recipient of the fiscal year 2004 award. 

Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.—Under section 1003 

of TEA–21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year is made 

available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing hazards. A 

limited number of corridors are eligible for these funds. Of the 

funds distributed under this program for fiscal year 2005: 

$700,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards on 

Assembly Street in Columbia, South Carolina; 

$1,650,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards associated with an intersection at Hamilton Boulevard over the CSX 

rail line near US 90, Mobile, Alabama; 

$1,500,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards for 

a rail crossing in the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina; $650,000 shall be used for a grade crossing rail relocation in 

Auburn, Maine; and 

$750,000 shall be used for grade crossing safety improvements 

in Transportation Center CorridorOne, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

69 

Magnetic levitation technologies.—Section 1218 of TEA–21 established a magnetic levitation deployment program to be administered by the FRA. In fiscal yar 2004, the Committee requested that 

FRA perform a cost-benefit comparison report of magnetic levitation to other modes of travel. Although FRA has not completed the 

report, early indications show that the costs far outweigh the benefits of this program. FRA has not requested support in their fiscal 

year 2005 request for maglev technologies, and the Committee has 

provided no funding. 

PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

In the early 1990s, conditions at Pennsylvania Station in New 

York coupled with projected growth in passenger traffic prompted 

Amtrak to consider alternatives for expanding Pennsylvania Station. The station, located beneath the Madison Square Garden 

Arena, had no practical alternative for growth except to expand 

across the street to the underutilized Farley Post Office Building, 

situated above the railroad tracks and passenger platforms serving 

Pennsylvania Station. 

In 1992, Amtrak recommended that the Farley Building be redeveloped to accommodate new Amtrak facilities, at an estimated cost 

of $315,000,000. As plans developed, more than one-third of the 

Farley Building was slated for conversion into a new railroad passenger station and new retail space, and the existing Pennsylvania 

Station was to be renovated to include additional retail services 

and support facilities. Amtrak was to shift its operations to the 

Farley Building, while the Long Island Rail Road and the New Jersey Transit Corporation would continue to operate from Pennsylvania Station. 

In fiscal year 2000, the Congress provided a $60,000,000 advance 

appropriation to the Federal Railroad Administration, appropriated 

over a three-year period for a final amount of $59,827,000, specifically for the renovation of the Farley Building in anticipation of 

Amtrak’s move to the Postal Service facility. Of this funding, 

$20,000,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001 specifically for fire 

and life safety initiatives. Given the continuous local changes in 

the leadership, scope, and financial outlook of the project in New 

York, the Federal Railroad Administration has not obligated any of 

these funds to date, leaving a large balance in the Treasury. 

The latest twist to the new station’s chronicle is that after years 

of delays in New York, Amtrak is now declining to move to the new 

building. Completion dates for the project have come and gone; 

from initial anticipation of completion by 1999 to a date now estimated in 2010. Costs have continued to skyrocket, from a total expected cost of $315,000,000 in 1992 to a cost now estimated to be 

over $1,000,000,000. 

To Amtrak’s credit, it is reluctant to move to this new building 

as it appears that Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation (PSRC) is going to require Amtrak to pay annual rent for the 

new space. Amtrak currently owns Pennsylvania Station, although 

it is leased, but pays no rent. Given the financial outlook Amtrak 

faces, the railroad is quite reasonably saying that it does not want 

to incur new obligations. The Committee commends Amtrak for reVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
70 

alizing that incurring new and recurring financial requirements is 

not in the best interests of the company, as the Committee has ardently and consistently emphasized this message to Amtrak over a 

period of years. The Committee strongly urges Amtrak to fully 

weigh all current options before agreeing to any actions that would 

increase temporary or long-term fiscal obligations for the railroad 

at Penn Station. 

The purpose for the initial appropriation—for Amtrak’s move to 

the Farley Building—now looks as if it will not be achieved, and 

there are far more pressing fiscal constraints that the Committee 

currently faces for which this funding can be utilized. Given the 

unpredictable nature of the current situation and a possible collapse of the project in New York, together with the difficult fiscal 

constraints the Committee faces this year, a provision has been included in the bill that transfers the unobligated balances from fiscal year 2002 and 2003 of $39,827,000. Portions of these funds 

have remained unobligated for up to three fiscal years. The 

$20,000,000 appropriation for fire and life safety initiatives appropriated in fiscal year 2001 is still available for obligation for those 

purposes. The City of New York has requested funding from the 

Committee this year for many capital transportation projects that 

are either currently under construction or are scheduled to begin 

construction within the next year. Therefore, the funding is to be 

transferred to the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Grants and allocated to the New York Long Island Rail Road 

East Side Access project. 

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

(AMTRAK)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $1,217,773,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 900,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 900,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥317,773,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was created by the Rail Passenger Service Act in 1970 and incorporated 

under the laws of the District of Columbia. Operations began on 

May 1, 1971. Amtrak’s purpose was to operate a national rail passenger system to relieve the freight railroads of the burden of 

money-losing passenger operations and to preserve rail passenger 

service over a national system. It was created as a for-profit government corporation that was granted the right of access to the 

tracks owned by the freight railroads at incremental cost and with 

operating priority over freight trains. Amtrak was also granted jurisdiction to provide intercity rail transportation over its route system and was to receive federal subsidies for the first few years, but 

then it was expected to make a profit and operate free of government assistance. 

STATUS OF AMTRAK

This summer, Americans who travel by train can ride without 

having to fear, as they did in June 2003, that Amtrak may be out 

of business by Labor Day. Although Amtrak continues to operate 

with substantial losses each and every day at the expense of AmerVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
71 

ican taxpayers, the railroad is finally approaching a place of financial accountability where accounting is not done behind closed 

doors, but in cooperation with, and oversight of, the Department of 

Transportation. This greater transparency has created an environment where Amtrak is not threatening to shut down train operations every few months, which, for the travelers who use Amtrak, 

should produce relief. 

This progress has been made with the passage of the last two appropriations Acts and DOT’s management and oversight. As a result of increased DOT involvement through the grant-making process, better financial controls are in place. This has been a substantial achievement that could not have been accomplished without 

the cooperation of both the Department of Transportation and Amtrak. 

Even though progress has been made at reining in Amtrak’s accounting measures, a decrease has not been achieved in the large 

taxpayer subsidization that Amtrak continues to digest. Few people 

would argue that Amtrak has been either a transportation or financial success. After over 30 years of operation and an expenditure of over $40 billion in federal subsidies, Amtrak still only provides one half of one percent of all intercity transportation, with 

half of Amtrak’s passenger trips taking place in the Northeast Corridor. Appropriations subsidies have risen by 71.2 percent in five 

years. In the same time period, ridership has increased by 11.6 percent, facilitated by ‘‘buy one, get one free’’ ticket offers, or ticket 

sales like those seen in April, where tickets could be purchased 

from Washington, DC to Orlando, FL for $17.10. 

Nevertheless, the Committee is facing almost the exact funding 

situation for Amtrak as it did at this time last year. The Administration has included a request of $900 million for Amtrak operating 

and capital grants for fiscal year 2005. Amtrak has again asked for 

$1.8 billion from Congress for activities that it claims it needs. Amtrak continues the rhetoric heard for two years now that any appropriation less than $1.8 billion is a ‘‘shut down level’’. There continues to be no serious attempts to reauthorize Amtrak, so the appropriation remains an unauthorized one. So the same situation is 

presented again: to provide an amount of financial assistance to a 

railroad that is not authorized and where the concurrent budget requests are almost $1 billion apart. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $900,000,000 for grants to Amtrak 

in fiscal year 2005, consistent with the budget request. Of this 

total, not less than $500,000,000 is provided for capital improvements to Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and other general capital 

improvements. Beginning in fiscal year 2003, Congress provided 

new guidelines for the Department of Transportation to follow in 

administering its grants to Amtrak. The Department of Transportation, on numerous occasions, has called these ‘‘important reforms’’ that provide ‘‘oversight with teeth, placing the relationship 

between DOT and Amtrak on a footing similar to the oversight 

DOT exercises with respect to other transportation modes’’. Funding is provided to the Secretary of Transportation, subject to the 

grant oversight and management reforms. Amtrak has had to pace 

itself on expenditures, with DOT oversight, to ensure that their 

72 

funding would last throughout the fiscal year. These reforms promise financial accountability for Amtrak, and as a result, the Committee bill retains them for fiscal year 2005. 

Capital grants.—The Secretary is directed to continue to ensure 

that any funds provided to Amtrak be spent in a prudent manner, 

on projects where positive results can be seen. Funding should be 

spent on projects that maximize operational efficiencies and promote those lines with the highest ridership and cost sharing agreements in place. Amtrak shall not begin any new projects unless 

they can be fully funded with the fiscal year 2005 appropriation 

and Amtrak-generated revenues unless such projects are critical for 

safety or infrastructure repairs. 

Operating and capital plans.—Bill language has been continued 

that prohibits funding to Amtrak until after an operating and capital plan has been developed for fiscal year 2005. This plan must 

be approved by the Board of Directors and the Secretary of Transportation and submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations no later than: (1) 60 days after enactment of a final 

Amtrak appropriation, or (2) at the time the Department submits 

its fiscal year 2006 budget request to Congress, whichever comes 

first. Development and approval of the operating and capital plan 

should minimize the number of stopgap measures Amtrak has to 

employ, particularly relating to capital projects, in those cases 

where the Corporation is unable to commit funding to complete an 

entire project. 

Amtrak financial information.—In addition to the submission of 

an operating and capital plan for fiscal year 2005, the Secretary 

must continue to vouch for the accuracy of Amtrak’s financial information. As a member of the Board of Directors, this is a reasonable 

expectation of the Secretary. This must be in the form of a signed 

letter that accompanies the operating and capital plans that must 

be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. In doing so, the Secretary must certify in writing, that based 

on his knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information prepared by Amtrak for Congress (e.g. capital and operating plans and business plans that are attached to annual grant 

requests) fairly present in all material respects the financial condition of the Corporation. Specifically, the Secretary’s letter should 

attest that: 

1. Amtrak’s financial information and reports are prepared using 

generally accepted accounting standards. 

2. Amtrak has corrected any material weaknesses or inaccuracies 

identified by a publicly registered accounting firm using practices 

sanctioned by generally accepted accounting principles. 

3. Amtrak has disclosed to the Secretary any and all material offbalance sheet transactions, arrangements, and obligations that 

may have a current or future material effect on the Corporation’s 

financial condition, changes in financial condition, results in operations, liquidity, capital expenditures, capital resources, or any significant components of revenues or expenses. 

4. Amtrak has designed internal controls to ensure that material 

information is made known to the Board of Directors and the Secretary of Transportation in a timely fashion. 

5. The Secretary has evaluated the effectiveness of Amtrak’s internal controls to ensure that deficiencies are not occurring and all 

73 

significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls that could adversely affect the Corporation’s ability to record, 

process, summarize, or report financial data and identify fraud, 

have been corrected. 

6. Amtrak’s financial information does not contain untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 

for the Board of Directors and the Secretary of Transportation to 

make informed financial decisions. 

The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations must continue to approve all variations to the base operating and capital 

plans according to the Department’s reprogramming process. 

Monthly reporting requirements.—The monthly performance reports that Amtrak is required to submit to DOT and the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations shall include the following: 

• All revenue and expenses associated with rail operations 

by route, grouped by the following service types or regions: (a) 

Northeast Corridor intercity; (b) Corridor services reported individually for the Empire, Keystone, Midwest, California, and 

North Carolina Corridors; (c) long-distance services, with profit 

and loss visibility on individual trains; and (d) remaining services, with profit and loss visibility on individual services or 

groups of services; 

• Budgeted and actual expenditures for all capital investments, including categories for high-speed rail activities; 

• Monthly performance reports, including cash flow information, revenues, and expenses; 

• A comprehensive business plan for the upcoming fiscal 

year that includes targets for ridership, revenues, capital, and 

operating expenses for each business unit; 

• A quarterly assessment explaining the extent to which 

each goal identified in the comprehensive business plan has 

been achieved or deviated from and the reasons for such deviation; 

• A current listing of all debt including assets, long-term liabilities, and the repayment schedule for those liabilities; and 

• A detailed report on all operating relationships between 

Amtrak and commuter rail systems that highlights the manner 

and extent each commuter operation and state could be impacted if a suspension of Amtrak operations occurred. 

Capital asset valuation.—The Committee is disturbed that there 

is currently no verifiable method that gives clear details describing 

the avoidable and fully allocated costs for each Amtrak train route. 

It is difficult to comprehend that this is not possible for a railroad 

that has been in operation for over 30 years. Further, as the Congress continues to look at ways to improve and reform Amtrak, it 

is essential that this information be available. 

Therefore, the Secretary is directed to retain a third-party consultant to perform a comprehensive valuation of Amtrak’s capital 

assets, especially those valuable assets in the Northeast Corridor. 

This valuation shall then be used to develop, to the Secretary’s satisfaction, a methodology for determining a definition of an Amtrak 

route and the avoidable and fully allocated costs of each route. 

Once this methodology is complete, Amtrak shall then apply that 

methodology in compiling an annual report to Congress on the 

74 

avoidable and fully allocated costs of each of Amtrak’s train routes. 

The Secretary may use up to $4,000,000 for these purposes. 

The Secretary and FRA should ensure that the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are kept apprised of this process, from the retention of consultants to the methodology to be used 

in the assessments. At the completion of this appraisal, the Department should prepare a comprehensive report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation Committee. 

State-assisted intercity rail service.—The Secretary, working with 

affected states, is directed to continue the development and implementation of a fair competitive bid procedure to assist states in introducing carefully managed competition to demonstrate whether 

competition will provide higher quality rail service at reasonable 

prices. The goal is to give the states, at their option, the ability to 

conduct a fair competition for state-assisted operations, commonly 

known as 403(b) trains. The bill provides a dispute resolution process for the Secretary to resolve disputes between states and Amtrak regarding the provision of facilities, equipment, and services 

by Amtrak at reasonable terms and compensation to enable service 

by a non-Amtrak operator. This process is similar to the one Amtrak now uses under 49 U.S.C. 24308 to resolve disputes with 

freight railroads for their provision of facilities and services to enable passenger rail service by Amtrak. The objective of this provision is to allow states the option of providing competitive intercity 

rail service. 

The Secretary may reprogram up to $2,500,000 from Amtrak operating grant funds to make grants to the states for implementation of this provision. The Secretary should administer the process, 

monitor its progress, and ensure frequent updates to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request.—The Committee is troubled that 

Amtrak, in statute, may submit an annual budget request to both 

the Congress and the Department of Transportation for yearly appropriations, without any type of third-party oversight or opinion. 

Amtrak is one of a small number of private, for-profit corporations 

that is afforded this authority. The Committee is concerned that 

Amtrak may continue to ask for more and more Federal dollars 

every year, without constraints or a third-party review for accuracy 

of information or validation of need. Therefore, a provision has 

been included that prohibits Amtrak from submitting a concurrent 

budget submission and directs the railroad to submit the budget request through the Department of Transportation’s normal budget 

request process. 

Amtrak reform proposals.—The Committee is aware of current 

proposals that are under review to restructure Amtrak by separating infrastructure operations from transportation operations. 

These proposals would include a private sector infrastructure management organization to manage the railroad infrastructure. The 

Committee encourages an ongoing dialogue with regard to this proposal. 

75 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

The Committee continues a provision (sec. 161) that requires the 

Secretary of Transportation to continue development and implementation of a fair competitive bid procedure to assist states in introducing carefully managed competition to demonstrate whether 

competition will provide higher quality rail service at reasonable 

prices. 

The Committee includes a provision (sec. 162) that allows for 

FRA to provide reimbursement to employees for home internet connections related to safety inspections. 

The Committee includes a provision (sec. 163) that prohibits Amtrak from submitting a concurrent budget submission and directs 

the railroad to submit the budget request through the Department 

of Transportation’s normal budget request process. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as a 

component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 1968, 

when most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were transferred from 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Known as the 

Urban Mass Transportation Administration until enactment of the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit Administration administers federal financial assistance programs for planning, developing, and improving comprehensive mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban 

areas. 

Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration is 

provided by annual limitations on obligations provided in appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are required for specific portions of programs. 

Authorization for the programs funded by the Federal Transit 

Administration is contained in the Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century (TEA–21). The extension of this law will expire 

on July 31, 2004. Because a conference of the surface transportation reauthorization legislation has not yet been completed, the 

Committee has continued the fiscal year 2004 program levels as if 

authorized through fiscal year 2005. 

TEA–21 also amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide 

two additional discretionary spending categories, the highway category and the mass transit category. The mass transit category is 

comprised of transit formula grants, transit capital funding, Federal Transit Administration administrative expenses, transit planning and research and university transportation center funding. 

The Budget Enforcement Act amendments expired on September 

30, 2003. 

76 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation (general fund) Limitation on obligations (trust fund) Total funding 

Appropriation, fiscal year 

2004 .................................. $15,011,000 $60,044,000 $75,055,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 

2005 .................................. 79,931,000 0 79,931,000 

Recommended in the bill .... 15,100,000 60,400,000 75,500,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal 

year 2004 ......................... +89,000 +356,000 +445,000 

Budget request, fiscal 

year 2005 ......................... ¥64,831,000 +60,400,000 ¥4,431,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $75,500,000 

for FTA’s salaries and expenses. The recommendation is a $455,000 

increase from the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The recommendation is comprised of an appropriation of $15,100,000 from the general fund and $60,400,000 from limitations on obligations from the 

mass transit account of the highway trust fund. 

Administrative expenses.—Funding is specified in the bill for the 

administrative offices of FTA at the following levels: 

Office of the administrator .................................................................... $424,565 

Office of chief counsel ............................................................................ 4,061,000 

Office of civil rights ............................................................................... 2,750,000 

Office of communicaitons & congressional affairs ............................... 1,200,000 

Office of budget and policy .................................................................... 6,700,000 

Office of planning and environment ..................................................... 4,000,000 

Office of program management ............................................................ 7,600,000 

Office of administration ........................................................................ 6,715,000 

Central account ...................................................................................... 19,557,000 

Regional offices ...................................................................................... 19,982,000 

National transit database ..................................................................... 2,500,000 

The administrator is authorized to transfer funding between offices. Any transfers totaling more than three percent of the initial 

appropriation from this account must be approved by the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations. No new positions have 

been approved. 

The Committee has found it increasingly difficult to work with 

the FTA Region 4 office, located in Atlanta, Georgia. No more than 

$2,000,000 is provided for this office in fiscal year 2005. 

E-gov.—The Committee denies funding for E-gov initiatives by 

the Office of the Secretary for lack of adequate justification. 

Budget justifications.—It is important for the department and 

the Congress to have the ability to analyze the needs of FTA on 

an office-by-office basis consistent with other DOT agencies. The 

Committee directs FTA to submit its fiscal year 2006 congressional 

budget justification for administrative expenses itemized by office, 

with material detailing salaries and expenses, staffing increases, 

and programmatic initiatives of each office. The initiatives for each 

should be clearly stated, and include a justification for each new 

position or full-time equivalent, should FTA seek any next year. 

Staff resources.—FTA is directed to take all means necessary to 

limit unnecessary staff resources or expenses on technical assistance to projects that are not advancing in the new starts pipleine 

or that are not seeking a full funding grant agreement. FTA shall 

77 

provide a breakout of staff resources spent per new fixed guideway 

project in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. 

Office of research, demonstration, and innovation.—In the Committee’s fiscal year 2004 Transportation and Treasury Appropriations report, the Committee expressed concern with the effectiveness of the office of research, demonstration, and innovation and 

directed FTA to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the activities of the office, including all 

expenditures for the past three fiscal years and planned expenditures for fiscal year 2005. This report was due by September 30, 

2003. 

This vital report has not yet been provided to the House Committee on Appropriations and the Committee is very troubled by 

this lack of responsiveness. In the past, the Committee had difficulty receiving the annual report on new starts in a timely manner and was forced to place a monetary incentive in the annual appropriations bill to compel FTA to deliver this report by the required date. Therefore, the Committee directs FTA to produce the 

report no later than October 1, 2004. Because FTA has been unable 

to explain the activities of this office or the absence of this report, 

no funding has been provided for the office of research, demonstration, and innovation. 

Transit security.—FTA has been praised for taking an early lead 

in transit security issues in the wake of the increased terrorist 

threat following September 11, 2001. With funding provided in a 

supplemental appropriations Act, FTA conducted a number of security-related activities such as security assessments of transit agencies, outreach conferences, and technical assistance to transit agencies. 

In June 2003, after creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Deputy Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary’s designated liaison with Transportation Security Administration (TSA), wrote a letter to the U.S. General Accounting Office 

about DOT’s reorganization of internal security responsibilities and 

the division of responsibilities with DHS. In this letter, the Deputy 

Secretary stated: 

The Department of Transportation recognizes that the 

Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration has primary responsibility for transportation security policy. DOT now plays only a supporting 

role, assisting DHS as requested with implementation of security policies, and as allowed by DOT statutory authorities and available resources. 

The letter continues: 

As TSA works to strengthen its capabilities beyond aviation . . . DOT has continued for now a few of our pre-existing programmatic efforts. For example, we continue to work 

with transit operators and state transportation executives to 

inform and educate them regarding security awareness and 

best practices to enhance security. These efforts are not policy-making activities. Instead, they are intended during the 

transition to augment and complement TSA’s work, as the 

new agency continues to grow its staff, programs, and experiences in working with diverse transportation sectors. In 

78 

the months ahead, DOT’s role in security educational efforts will likely decrease. 

Despite the clear policy statement enunciated by the Deputy Secretary, this limited role is apparently not the course that FTA has 

set upon. FTA lacks statutory authority for the regulation of transit security, yet the agency continues to try to grow their security 

functions, sometimes at the expense of their core safety activities. 

FTA is attempting to blend these one-time security initiatives immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, with 

their more traditional activities, such as training, public awareness, and emergency preparedness drills. 

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act and enabling statutes creating the TSA make clear that transportation security capital improvements, operational oversight, and security policy matters are properly the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. Yet, the Committee continues to see 

FTA attempting to establish itself as the lead federal agency in the 

transit security arena and to institutionalize this role for the foreseeable future. FTA’s own website states that they have ‘‘undertaken an aggressive nationwide security program’’, and that the 

agency ‘‘is enhancing its strategies and moving forward to further 

enhance transit security . . . We will continue many of our current 

programs, and add new initiatives to meet a variety of needs that 

we have identified . . .’’ 

Since fiscal year 2003, FTA has increased their request for administrative and research activities related to security by 

$1,000,000, an increase of 50%. Safety, FTA’s stated primary goal, 

saw a slight increase in funding from fiscal year 2003; however, administrative and research functions of mobility, FTA’s secondary 

goal, has decreased from $238,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 to 

$86,000,000 in the fiscal year 2005 request. 

In April 2003, a new office of transit safety and security (TSS) 

was created administratively by detail of FTA employees and new 

hires to play a supporting role in the transition of handing over 

programmatic efforts to the TSA. This office was created without 

the benefit of a reprogramming request to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations. Prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the safety and security office which was within 

the office of program management totaled 8 full-time equivalent 

staff years. Today, TSS has 12 FTEs. In addition, FTA is requesting a 25% increase in funding for this office for fiscal year 2005. 

Meanwhile, the overall FTA program has seen an increase of only 

1.5% since 2003. FTA requests no growth for the overall program 

in fiscal year 2005. 

A further example of FTA’s attempts was seen in April 2004, 

when FTA submitted a reprogramming request to reorganize their 

current office structure. Within this request was a proposal to institutionalize a new, and supposedly temporary office, of transit safety and security as a separate office within FTA. The Secretary later 

withdrew this reprogramming request; however, it is clear that 

FTA, by seeking to hire new positions related to security oversight 

and seeking permanent responsibilities with regard to security policy, is attempting to exercise control in transit security matters 

that should be within the jurisdiction of TSA. 

79 

The Committee believes that FTA should retrench its plans and 

defer to the expertise of TSA and DHS in security matters. To ensure that this occurs, bill language has been included that prohibits 

FTA from taking any steps to make the office of transit safety and 

security a permanent separate office at FTA. Funds for this office 

are also limited to no more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level 

and no new positions are to be hired or added for the office of safety and security. In addition, the Committee directs the Office of Inspector General to perform an audit of FTA’s efforts to enlarge its 

responsibility for transit security and FTA efforts, if any, to turn 

over these responsibilities to TSA since 2003. 

Project management oversight activities.—The Committee directs 

that FTA submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO reports for each project with 

a full funding grant agreement. 

To further support oversight activities, the bill continues a provision requiring FTA to reimburse the Department of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General $3,000,000 for costs associated with audits and investigations of transit-related issues, including reviews 

of new fixed guideway systems. This reimbursement must come 

from funds available for the execution of contracts. Over the past 

several years, the IG has provided critical oversight of numerous 

major transit projects and FTA activities, which the Committee has 

found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that the Inspector 

General will continue such oversight activities in fiscal year 2005. 

Antideficiency Act violations.—In February 2002, the Office of Inspector General released its fiscal year 2001 financial statement 

audit, which involved a negative obligation balance in FTA’s accounting records. The material weakness was a result of improper 

accounting for obligations by FTA from the mass transit account of 

the highway trust fund. DOT, in cooperation with the OIG, began 

an immediate investigation to determine the extent of the obligations. The balance of this over-obligation is $76,818,457. To correct 

this problem, the Committee includes a provision that will allow 

the restoration of obligational authority to formula grants funds 

that were reduced due to this deficiency. 

To help prevent a recurrence of this type of incident, FTA shall 

report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing how the agency has modified its accounting procedures and 

practices to ensure that this type of accounting violation will not 

occur in the future. In addition, the Office of Inspector General 

shall perform a review of FTA’s new procedures and report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the sufficiency 

of these procedures. 

Transit agency advertising.—The Committee remains concerned 

that transit agencies accepting federal grant funds may be providing their advertising space to organizations that encourage the 

public to break the law. While the Committee supports the efforts 

of many transit agencies to prevent ads that promote marijuana 

use, the Committee remains concerned that the opportunity exists 

nationwide for transit properties to run similar advertising. Therefore, the bill includes a provision (section 174) that prohibits Federal transit grantees from obligating or expending funds that would 

otherwise be available in the Act, if the grantee is involved directly 

or indirectly with any activity, including displaying or permitting 

80 

to be displayed advertisements on its land, equipment, or in its facilities, that promotes the legalization or medical use of substances 

listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act. 

Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).—TEA–21, as amended, 

requires that the FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking sixty 

days before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the 

Committee directs the FTA to include the following: (1) a copy of 

the proposed full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual 

federal appropriations required for that project; (3) yearly and total 

federal appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2005; (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated 

FFGAs against the program authorization; (5) an evaluation of 

whether the alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the 

project’s cost and sponsor’s ability to finance the project, which 

shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and the finance 

plan; (7) the source and security of all public- and private-sector financial instruments; (8) the project’s operating plan, which enumerates the project’s future revenue and ridership forecasts; and 

(9) a listing of all planned contingencies and possible risks associated with the project. 

The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations in writing thirty days before approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full funding grant 

agreement. Correspondence relating to changes shall include any 

budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the 

project as originally stipulated in the full funding grant agreement, 

including any proposed change in rail car procurements. 

FTA has not done all it can to keep the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations appraised of new start project development and progression, despite Congressional direction to do so in 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004. FTA is directed to submit a monthly new start project update to the Committees, detailing the status of each project, including all projects with a full 

funding grant agreement, as well as those projects with at least a 

rating of ‘‘recommended’’ that are in the new starts pipeline. This 

update must include FTA’s plans and specific milestone schedules 

for advancing projects, especially those within two years of a proposed full funding grant agreement. In addition, the Committee directs FTA to formally notify the Committees thirty days before any 

project in the new starts process is given approval by FTA to advance to preliminary engineering or final design. 

Interpreting Congressional intent.—The Committee reiterates to 

FTA that it is improper for the agency to take actions changing the 

Congressionally approved scope of programs and projects without 

receiving the approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. FTA is directed to consult with the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations before making any decisions clarifying Congressional intent. 

81 

FORMULA GRANTS

Appropriation (general fund) Limitation on obligations 

(trust fund) Total funding 

Appropriation, fiscal year 

2004 .............................. $763,270,000 ($3,053,080,000) $3,816,350,000 

Budget request, fiscal 

year 2005 ..................... ............................ (5,622,871,000) 5,622,871,000 

Recommended in the bill 767,800,000 (3,271,200,000) 4,039,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal 

year 2004 ..................... +4,530,000 (+218,120,000) +222,650,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................ ¥600,000,000 (¥2,351,671,000) ¥1,583,871,000 

Formula grants to states and local agencies funded under the 

Federal Transit Administration fall into four categories: urbanized 

area formula grants; clean fuels formula grants; formula grants 

and loans for special needs of elderly individuals and individuals 

with disabilities; and formula grants for other than urbanized 

areas. In addition, set asides of formula funds are directed to a 

grant program for intercity bus operators to finance Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility costs and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its passenger operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The accompanying bill provides $4,039,000,000 for transit formula grants. The recommended level is comprised of an appropriation of $767,800,000 from the general fund and $3,271,200,000 

from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the 

highway trust fund. 

The proposed increase in the set-aside for project oversight is denied for the second year. Within the total funding level, the Committee recommendation includes the following distribution: 

Urbanized areas ..................................................................................... $3,633,249,556 

Elderly and disabled .............................................................................. 95,452,801 

Non-urbanized areas ............................................................................. 253,347,643 

Over-the-road bus accessibility program ............................................. 6,950,000 

Clean fuels program .............................................................................. 50,000,000 

Alaska Railroad ..................................................................................... 4,825,700 

Major project alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering 

and design.—Funds in the bill can be used, among other activities, 

for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering and design 

(PE&D) of new rail systems, extensions, or busways. The Committee continues to assert that local project sponsors of new rail 

systems, extensions, or busways must use these formula funds (or 

those provided under section 5303 metropolitan planning) for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering and design activities 

rather than seek section 5309 discretionary set-asides. Moreover, 

the Committee expects FTA, when evaluating the local financial 

commitment of a given project, to consider the extent to which the 

project’s sponsors have used these formula grant apportionments 

for alternatives analysis and PE&D activities of proposed new systems. 

Intercity bus service.—The Committee is concerned that the significant cutbacks in intercity bus service in the midwest and upper 

midwest have created a situation in which many small communities are completely lacking intercity mass transportation options. 

82 

Current law requires each state to spend 15 percent of its annual 

apportionment of federal non-urbanized funds to support rural 

intercity bus service unless the state’s governor certifies that the 

state’s intercity bus needs are adequately met. As noted in a 2002 

report by the Transit Cooperative Research Program, however, 

many states have struggled to find effective ways to support and 

improve rural intercity bus transportation. 

The Committee directs the Federal Transit Administration, in 

light of this dire situation, to conduct a study of the problem of 

dwindling intercity bus service, especially in rural areas, and report, no later than 120 days after enactment of this Act, to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with recommendations as to how this problem could be addressed by Congress. 

The following table displays the state-by-state distribution of formula funds within each of the program categories: 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2005 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA 

PROGRAMS (BY STATE) 

State Section 5307 

urbanized area 

Section 5311 

nonurbanized area 

Section 5310 

elderly & persons 

with disabilities 

State total 

Alabama ......................................................... $16,026,947 $7,047,234 $1,666,431 $24,740,612 

Alaska ............................................................. 8,701,049 982,218 246,907 9,930,174 

American Samoa ............................................ ............................ 161,118 60,666 221,784 

Arizona ............................................................ 46,993,959 3,437,908 1,740,358 52,172,225 

Arkansas ......................................................... 8,320,310 5,097,662 1,081,700 14,499,672 

California ........................................................ 619,843,992 10,832,851 10,025,258 640,702,101 

Colorado ......................................................... 49,748,556 3,060,550 1,219,292 54,028,398 

Connecticut .................................................... 47,511,545 1,566,623 1,186,130 50,264,298 

Delaware ......................................................... 6,503,619 710,288 366,052 7,579,959 

District of Columbia ....................................... 73,002,417 ............................ 319,583 73,322,000 

Florida ............................................................ 175,037,059 7,065,182 6,405,102 188,507,343 

Georgia ........................................................... 71,105,819 8,932,701 2,419,965 82,458,485 

Guam .............................................................. ............................ 435,353 159,073 594,426 

Hawaii ............................................................ 27,923,813 1,056,357 496,260 29,476,430 

Idaho .............................................................. 6,003,209 1,940,871 474,714 8,418,794 

Illinois ............................................................. 231,698,777 7,541,991 3,721,071 242,961,839 

Indiana ........................................................... 37,017,699 7,507,493 1,971,553 46,496,745 

Iowa ................................................................ 13,462,611 5,094,515 1,029,884 19,587,010 

Kansas ............................................................ 10,441,732 4,163,801 926,049 15,531,582 

Kentucky ......................................................... 19,616,229 6,960,383 1,538,409 28,115,021 

Louisiana ........................................................ 31,055,154 5,437,128 1,531,764 38,024,046 

Maine .............................................................. 3,224,120 2,702,506 556,458 6,483,084 

Maryland ......................................................... 73,093,521 2,809,527 1,626,840 77,529,888 

Massachusetts ............................................... 132,356,435 2,007,868 2,151,181 136,515,484 

Michigan ......................................................... 70,770,930 9,448,839 3,100,018 83,319,787 

Minnesota ....................................................... 45,079,088 6,208,721 1,437,088 52,724,897 

Mississippi ..................................................... 5,339,482 6,087,796 1,084,712 12,511,990 

Missouri .......................................................... 39,805,155 7,043,508 1,884,107 48,732,770 

Montana ......................................................... 2,718,093 1,878,594 399,347 4,996,034 

N. Mariana Islands ........................................ 711,778 21,165 61,628 794,571 

Nebraska ........................................................ 8,754,778 2,548,340 623,516 11,926,634 

Nevada ........................................................... 25,312,276 905,403 756,131 26,973,810 

New Hampshire .............................................. 4,888,768 1,923,472 476,917 7,289,157 

New Jersey ...................................................... 227,188,569 1,857,665 2,728,834 231,775,068 

New Mexico ..................................................... 9,556,730 2,690,500 685,575 12,932,805 

New York ........................................................ 576,216,434 9,763,731 6,432,842 592,413,007 

North Carolina ................................................ 39,193,280 12,060,239 2,703,405 53,956,924 

North Dakota .................................................. 3,217,458 1,156,975 321,363 4,695,796 

Ohio ................................................................ 91,590,192 11,366,748 3,620,564 106,577,504 

Oklahoma ....................................................... 15,204,028 5,531,772 1,270,452 22,006,252 

Oregon ............................................................ 38,354,098 4,064,498 1,179,647 43,598,243 

83 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2005 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA 

PROGRAMS (BY STATE)—Continued 

State Section 5307 

urbanized area 

Section 5311 

nonurbanized area 

Section 5310 

elderly & persons 

with disabilities 

State total 

Pennsylvania .................................................. 158,469,006 11,446,071 4,268,928 174,184,005 

Puerto Rico ..................................................... 45,323,072 933,444 1,472,720 47,729,236 

Rhode Island .................................................. 9,643,547 338,034 482,363 10,463,944 

South Carolina ............................................... 14,803,868 6,013,162 1,455,331 22,272,361 

South Dakota .................................................. 2,472,209 1,575,600 351,580 4,399,389 

Tennessee ....................................................... 29,858,712 7,662,190 2,017,346 39,538,248 

Texas .............................................................. 206,665,925 17,030,965 5,960,693 229,657,583 

Utah ................................................................ 30,262,999 1,364,199 619,088 32,246,286 

Vermont .......................................................... 1,099,143 1,415,869 304,131 2,819,143 

Virgin Islands ................................................. ............................ 305,446 152,248 457,694 

Virginia ........................................................... 56,397,524 6,651,608 2,126,107 65,175,239 

Washington ..................................................... 99,617,056 4,472,397 1,812,341 105,901,794 

West Virginia .................................................. 5,211,988 3,637,072 822,095 9,671,155 

Wisconsin ....................................................... 41,213,731 7,090,231 1,657,423 49,961,385 

Wyoming ......................................................... 1,454,819 1,034,523 263,561 2,752,903 

Subtotal ............................................ 3,615,083,308 252,080,905 95,452,801 3,962,617,014 

Oversight ........................................................ 18,166,248 1,266,738 ............................ 19,432,986 

Total .................................................. 3,633,249,556 253,347,643 95,452,801 3,982,050,000 

Over-the-Road Bus Program .......................... 6,950,000 

Clean Fuels .................................................... 50,000,000 

Grand Total ....................................... 4,039,000,000 

Note:—Alaska 5307 amount includes $4,825,700 to Alaska Railroad for improvements to passenger operations. 

UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Appropriation (general fund) Limitation on obligations (trust fund) Total funding 

Appropriation, fiscal year 

2004 .................................. $1,193,000 ($4,772,000) $5,965,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 

2005 .................................. – – – (– – –) – – – 

Recommended in the bill .... 1,200,000 (4,800,000) 6,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal 

year 2004 ......................... +7,000 (+28,000) +35,000 

Budget request, fiscal 

year 2005 ......................... +1,200,000 (+4,800,000) +6,000,000 

Grants for university transportation research are awarded to 

non-profit institutions of higher learning by the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) using funds appropriated to 

FTA. This program focuses on the transfer of knowledge relevant 

to national, state, and local transit issues, and builds the professional capacity of the transportation workforce. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The accompanying bill provides a total of $6,000,000 for university transportation research. 

The recommended program level is comprised of an appropriation 

of $1,200,000 from the general fund and $4,800,000 from a limitation on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway 

trust fund. 

84 

TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH

Appropriation (general fund) Limitation on obligations (trust fund) Total funding 

Appropriation, fiscal year 

2004 .................................. $25,051,000 ($100,205,000) $125,256,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 

2005 .................................. – – – (– – –) – – – 

Recommended in the bill .... 25,200,000 (100,800,000) 126,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal 

year 2004 ......................... +149,000 (+595,000) +744,000 

Budget request, fiscal 

year 2005 ......................... +25,200,000 (+100,800,000) +126,000,000 

The transit planning and research program provides financial assistance to states for statewide planning and other technical assistance activities, planning support for metropolitan areas, nonurbanized areas, research, development and demonstration projects, fellowships for training in the public transportation field, university 

research, and human resource development. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The accompanying bill provides $126,000,000 for transit planning 

and research. 

The recommended level is comprised of an appropriation of 

$25,200,000 from the general fund and $100,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway 

trust fund. 

The bill contains language specifying the following program recommendations: 

Metropolitan planning ........................................................................... $60,386,000 

State planning ........................................................................................ 12,614,000 

National planning and research ........................................................... 35,500,000 

Transit cooperative research ................................................................. 8,250,000 

National transit institute ...................................................................... 4,000,000 

Rural transportation assistance ........................................................... 5,250,000 

National planning and research.—Within the funds for national 

planning and research, support is provided for a number of important initiatives including the following: 

Project ACTION ..................................................................................... $2,000,000 

National Technical Assistance Center for Senior Transportation ..... 2,000,000 

CALSTART/WestStart Advanced Transit Technology ........................ 2,000,000 

Transportation Research Program, Wichita State University ........... 1,000,000 

Community Transportation Association of America Joblinks ............ 500,000 

PVTA Electric Bus ................................................................................. 640,000 

Automation Alley BuSolutions ............................................................. 550,000 

Oklahoma Transportation Center ........................................................ 2,000,000 

Advanced Transportation Technology Institute .................................. 125,000 

Northern Wisconsin Rural Transportation Study ............................... 60,000 

Center for Transportation and the Environment ................................ 125,000 

Hennepin County Community Works .................................................. 1,200,000 

85 

TRUST FUND SHARE OF EXPENSES

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $5,812,702,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 5,951,877,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 6,047,200,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +234,498,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ +95,323,000 

This account provides the portion of funds for each of FTA’s programs derived from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway 

Trust Fund. For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has provided 

$6,047,200,000 for liquidation of contract authorization. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriation (general fund) Limitation on obligations (trust fund) Total funding 

Appropriation, fiscal year 

2004 .................................. $623,798,000 ($2,495,191,000) $3,118,989,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 

2005 .................................. 1,234,192,000 (329,006,000) 1,563,192,000 

Recommended in the bill .... 342,647,000 (2,510,000,000) 2,852,647,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal 

year 2004 ......................... ¥281,151,000 (+14,809,000) ¥266,342,000 

Budget request, fiscal 

year 2005 ......................... ¥891,545,000 (+2,180,994,000) +1,289,455,000 

The transit capital investment program provides capital assistance for three primary activities: new and replacement buses and 

facilities; modernizing existing rail systems; and new fixed guideway systems. Eligible recipients for capital investment funds are 

public bodies and agencies (transit authorities and other state and 

local public bodies and agencies thereof) including states, municipalities, other political subdivisions of states; public agencies and 

instrumentalities of one or more states; and certain public corporations, boards, and commissions established under state law. Buses 

and bus facilities funds are allocated on a discretionary basis, as 

are new starts funds. Fixed guideway modernization funds are allocated by statutory formula to urbanized areas with rail systems 

that have been in operation for at least seven years. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The accompanying bill provides a total of $2,852,647,000 to be 

available for capital investment grants. 

The recommended level is comprised of an appropriation of $342,647,000 from the general fund, which includes $39,827,000 

transferred from the Federal Railroad Administration, and 

$2,510,000,000 from a limitation on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. 

Funds provided for capital investment grants shall be distributed 

as follows: 

Amount 

Bus and bus facilities ............................................................................ $607,400,000 

Fixed guideway modernization ............................................................. 1,214,400,000 

86 

Amount 

New starts .............................................................................................. 1,030,827,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 2,852,647,000 

Availability of section 5309 funds.—In past years, the Committee 

has included bill language that permits the administrator to reallocate discretionary new start and bus and bus facilities funds from 

projects which remain unobligated after three years. However, as 

stated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, the Committee remains concerned with the increasing number of project 

funds that are not obligated in a three-year period and consequently become available for reallocation. As of June 2004, over 

$155,000,000 in bus and bus facilities funding for 146 projects from 

fiscal year 2002 remains unobligated, which is over one-quarter of 

the total funds originally made available for these purposes. Meanwhile, over $350,000,000 from fiscal year 2003 remains unobligated, over half of the total funding originally made available for 

that year. Oversight of grant funds is a vital function of FTA. Likewise, so is adequate planning and forecasting. When funds are 

committed to one project, only to lie idle, it deprives other projects 

and delays those projects needlessly. In addition, transit agencies 

are urged not to seek discretionary grants where the work cannot 

be completed within a three-year time period. Transit agencies 

must work with FTA to obligate grant funds promptly. Last year, 

the conferees directed FTA to set new goals for the timeliness of 

grant obligations. The Committee has not yet been notified by FTA 

what these new goals are or how the agency plans to meet them. 

Consistent with past years, the Committee directs FTA to reprogram funds from recoveries and previous appropriations that have 

remained available since fiscal year 2002. For those projects where 

Congress extends the availability of funds that remain unobligated 

after three years, such funds are extended. FTA is reminded that 

they must notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 15 days prior to any such reallocation, consistent with reprogramming guidelines. 

BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES

The accompanying bill provides $607,400,000 for bus purchases 

and bus facilities, including maintenance garages and intermodal 

facilities. Bus systems play a vital role in the mass transportation 

systems of virtually all cities. FTA estimates that 95 percent of the 

areas that provide mass transit service do so through bus transit 

only and over 60 percent of all transit passenger trips are provided 

by bus. 

The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided in 

the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, or previous Acts for the following bus and bus facilities projects: 

Anaheim Resourt transit project, CA 

Attleboro intermodal facilities, MA 

Binghamton Intermodal Transportation Center, NY 

Bronx Zoo Intermodal Transportation Facility, NY 

Brookhaven multi-modal facility, MS 

Cab Care paratransit facility, MO 

City of Monrovia natural gas vehicle fueling facility, CA 

Costa Mesa CNG facility, CA 

County of Amador bus replacement, CA 

87 

County of Calaveras bus fleet replacement, CA 

Greater Minnesota Transit Authority bus, paratransit and transit hub, MN 

Greater New Haven Transit District CNG vehicle project, CT 

Hershey intermodal transportation center, PA 

Indiana bus consortium buses and bus facilities 

Wilkes-Barre Intermodal Facility, PA 

King County Transit Oriented Development Projects, WA 

Leslie County parking structure, KY 

Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority buses and facility, CA 

Macon terminal intermodal station, GA 

Memphis International Airport intermodal facility, TN 

Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (Amesbury) buses and bus facilities, MA 

Metro transit buses and bus facilities, MN 

MetroWest buses and bus facilities, MA 

Missouri Pacific Depot, MO 

Monterey-Salinas Transit facility, CA 

Montgomery County intermodal facility, PA 

North County Transit District, CA 

Oglala Sioux Tribe buses and bus facilities, SD 

Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System, CA 

Pelham trolley, NY 

Salem/Beverly intermodal Center, MA 

San Bernardino CNG/LNG buses, CA 

Sierra Madre Villa & Chinatown intermodal transportation centers, CA 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority trackless trolleys, PA 

Springfield Union Station intermodal facility, MA 

Statewide buses and bus facilities, MD 

Statewide buses and bus facilities, NC 

Statewide buses and bus facilities, TN 

Station Plaza commuter parking lot, NY 

Sullivan County Coordinated Public Transportation Service bus facility, NY 

Sullivan County buses, bus facilities and related equipment, NY 

Sunline Transit hydrogen refueling station, CA 

TALTRAN intermodal center, FL 

Tompkins consolidated area transit center, NY 

Transportation hub at the Village of Indian Hills, CA 

The Committee makes these exceptions based on FTA information that these funds are likely to be awarded by the fourth quarter 

of fiscal year 2004 or soon thereafter. 

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, California.—Amounts 

made available in fiscal year 2004 to Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, California, for expansion buses shall be available for 

rapid bus improvements. 

Barry County Transit, Michigan.—Amounts made available in 

fiscal year 2004 to Barry County Transit for replacement maintenance equipment shall be available for bus diagnostic equipment, 

service equipment, and computer hardware, software, and related 

equipment. 

Cab Car, St. Louis, Missouri.—Funds made available in fiscal 

year 2002 for Cab Care, St. Louis, Missouri, shall be made available for St. Louis Metro Transit Agency, St. Louis, Missouri. The 

availability for such funds for obligation shall be extended through 

fiscal year 2005. 

Clinton County Transit, Michigan.—Amounts made available in 

fiscal year 2004 to Clinton County Transit, Michigan for a bus purchase shall be available for the purchase of scheduling software. 

Manistee County Transportation, Inc.—Amounts made available 

in fiscal year 2004 to Manistee County Transportation, Inc. for replacement buses shall be made available for a replacement service 

truck and facility renovations. 

88 

Detroit, Michigan buses and bus facilities.—Funds provided to 

Detroit, Michigan for transfer terminal facilities under buses and 

bus facilities in Public Law 106–109 and Public Law 108–199 may 

be available to Detroit for the replacement, rehabilitation, or construction of bus-related facilities. 

Philadelphia, Regional Transportation System for Elderly and 

Disabled.—The Department of Transportation and Related Agen- cies Appropriations Act, 1999, provided $750,000 for the Philadelphia, Regional Transportation System for Elderly and Disabled. 

The Committee understands that the original grant recipient has 

been unable to use the funds provided. Therefore, the Committee 

directs that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) shall serve as grant recipient and administering agency for the purpose of carrying out the original intent of this project. 

Greater New Haven Transit District.—The Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 provided 

$1,000,000 for the Greater New Haven Transit District CNG vehicle project. The Committee directs that these funds shall be used 

for alternative fuel vehicles for the Greater New Haven Transit 

District. 

City of Monrovia, California.—Amounts made available to the 

City of Monrovia, California, for a natural gas vehicle fueling facility in fiscal year 2002 shall be made available for the construction 

of a bus transit facility along the Gold Line Foothill Extension. 

Funds shall be extended for obligation for one year. 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).—Last year, 

the Committee provided funding to the Sacramento Area Council 

of Governments (SACOG) for its regional blueprint plan. The Committee has since heard concerns that the Council is using this plan 

to undermine its member jurisdictions’ locally-adopted land use 

plans. The Committee strongly supports local control and disapproves of any effort by SACOG to condition the allocation of federal funding for any project on compliance with its blueprint or any 

other regional land-use plan that is in any way inconsistent with 

a member jurisdiction’s locally-adopted land use plans. 

FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

The accompanying bill provides $1,214,400,000 from the capital 

investment grants program to modernize existing rail transit systems. 

These funds are to be redistributed, consistent with the provisions of TEA–21, as follows: 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION 

APPORTIONMENTS 

State 

Fiscal year Change from fiscal 

year 2004 2004 2005 estimate 

Alaska ............................................................................................. $2,039,405 $2,115,870 $76,465 

Arizona ............................................................................................ 2,300,373 2,361,176 60,803 

California ........................................................................................ 144,938,975 147,724,101 2,785,126 

Colorado .......................................................................................... 3,041,909 3,126,150 84,241 

Connecticut ..................................................................................... 40,667,777 40,942,085 274,308 

District of Columbia ....................................................................... 48,962,813 50,261,990 1,299,177 

Florida ............................................................................................. 17,746,299 18,197,629 451,330 

Georgia ............................................................................................ 26,718,394 27,429,753 711,359 

89 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION 

APPORTIONMENTS—Continued 

State 

Fiscal year Change from fiscal 

year 2004 2004 2005 estimate 

Hawaii ............................................................................................. 1,118,490 1,150,273 31,783 

Illinois ............................................................................................. 133,443,961 134,603,901 1,159,940 

Indiana ............................................................................................ 8,621,999 8,713,586 91,587 

Louisiana ......................................................................................... 2,843,412 2,855,997 12,585 

Maryland ......................................................................................... 27,828,336 28,254,850 426,514 

Massachusetts ................................................................................ 74,035,320 74,715,321 680,001 

Michigan ......................................................................................... 591,335 608,258 16,923 

Minnesota ........................................................................................ 5,993,572 6,144,908 151,336 

Missouri ........................................................................................... 4,221,411 4,328,750 107,339 

New Jersey ....................................................................................... 103,066,218 103,893,255 827,037 

New York ......................................................................................... 365,168,115 368,538,253 3,370,138 

Ohio ................................................................................................. 17,658,039 17,826,760 168,721 

Oregon ............................................................................................. 4,181,173 4,293,510 112,337 

Pennsylvania ................................................................................... 100,605,056 101,222,045 616,989 

Puerto Rico ...................................................................................... 2,252,934 2,310,745 57,811 

Rhode Island ................................................................................... 80,773 82,724 1,951 

Tennessee ........................................................................................ 284,836 294,402 9,566 

Texas ............................................................................................... 9,982,228 10,253,005 270,777 

Virginia ............................................................................................ 16,135,255 16,559,531 424,276 

Washington ..................................................................................... 22,120,743 22,684,306 563,563 

Wisconsin ........................................................................................ 744,588 762,866 18,278 

Total Apportioned .............................................................. 1,187,393,739 1,202,256,000 14,862,261 

Oversight (1 percent) ...................................................................... 11,993,876 12,144,000 150,124 

Grand Total ........................................................................ 1,199,387,615 1,214,400,000 15,012,385 

NEW STARTS

The accompanying bill provides $1,030,827,000 for the new starts 

program. Funds from the general fund are supplemented with 

$39,827,000 from a Federal Railroad Administration transfer included in this Act. 

These funds are available for preliminary engineering, right-ofway acquisition, project management, oversight, and construction 

of new systems and extensions. 

The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided in 

the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 or previous Acts for the following new start 

projects: 

Des Moines, Iowa-DSM Bus Feasibility Project 

Dulles Corridor Project, VA 

Johnson County, Kansas-Kansas City, Missouri-I–35 Commuter Rail Project 

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Rail Extension Project, WI 

Maryland (MARC) Commuter Rail Improvements Projects 

Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail Project 

Northeast Indianapolis, Indiana, Downtown Corridor Project 

Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County Metro Project,PA 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-Schuylkill Valley Metro Project 

Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sounder Commuter Rail Project 

Raleigh, North Carolina Triangle Transit Project 

Stockton, California, Altamont Commuter Rail Project 

The Committee makes these exceptions based on FTA information that these funds are likely to be awarded by the fourth quarter 

of fiscal year 2004 or soon thereafter. 

New starts rating and evaluation process.—Transit use is important in a number of the nation’s major urban centers. However, 

90 

many cities have built or are building systems that are overpriced 

or underutilized. A better process implemented by FTA for the new 

starts program and a more aggressive management of the existing 

process by FTA may prevent wasteful spending. The Committee 

has encouraged FTA to continually and consistently improve the 

evaluation and decision-making process for the new starts process. 

All parties involved, including FTA, the Congress, and local transit 

agencies, need to be able to assess projects based on a capable ratings and evaluation system, and the FTA needs to be more adept 

at weeding out projects that do not relieve the most congestion, 

move the most people and have the greatest cost-benefit ratio. As 

part of the Committee’s work, the Office of Inspector General was 

asked to perform an audit of FTA’s evaluation process in fiscal year 

2004. The Committee continues to direct FTA to develop a new 

starts process that better emphasizes cost-effectiveness and congestion relief. 

Reducing congestion on the roads must be one of the most critical 

elements for justification of building a new fixed guideway system 

or extending a current one. Congestion has spread to more cities 

and has become more pervasive. According to the latest Texas 

Transportation Institute report, annual delays suffered by the average driver due to traffic congestion have increased by four hours 

over the last five years. The vast majority of federal transit funding 

is paid for by American taxpayers who purchase gasoline, and it is 

imperative that FTA be able to measure how spending this funding 

on transit will, in fact, benefit those taxpayers. The IG’s audit has 

found that highway congestion benefits were largely missing from 

FTA’s evaluation process. This is unacceptable. The IG has recommended a joint evaluation be conducted by the Federal Highway 

Administration and the FTA, with the goal of understanding the 

extent to which transit provides highway congestion relief. This 

should be a critical departmental initiative in the next year. Therefore, the Committee directs FTA and FHWA to immediately begin 

this review and, beginning on October 1, 2004, FTA shall report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by the first 

of every month on the progress. By June 1, 2005, FTA, using the 

information and data collection proposals from this review, should 

submit a final report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations showing how congestion relief could be implemented 

as an evaluation procedure and rating in the new starts process. 

Ridership estimates are also very important in supporting project 

justification. According to the IG, there have been notable problems 

with locally developed ridership forecasts over the years. This has 

presented problems for FTA in evaluating the user benefits of proposed projects, even preventing FTA from rating some projects. The 

obvious benefits of a project will fall short if ridership estimates 

are not materially attained. According to the IG’s audit, FTA has 

improved its ability to identify problems with ridership forecasts; 

however, without more reliable and up-to-date ridership analysis, 

project justification will continue to be problematic. The Committee 

directs FTA to continue to identify these issues. In addition, the 

Committee directs FTA to ensure that, as projects progress through 

planning and development phases, forecasts reflect changes in 

scope and service levels and any other factors that materially impact ridership. 

91 

A separate measurement that FTA uses in a new start project 

evaluation is the land use rating, which targets economic development opportunities around the project. The IG has found that in 

some cases, even if a project has received a low cost-effectiveness 

rating, a high land use rating could result in a total project rating 

of medium. Therefore, FTA may be promoting projects where the 

cost effectiveness does not support continuation of the project, yet 

possible development opportunities around the project may allow it 

to continue forward. This is the case in six of FTA’s recommended 

projects for fiscal year 2005. Positive secondary benefits of a new 

rail line should not be able to change the measurement of its costeffectiveness. In evaluating projects, the direct transportation benefits need to be the most significant measurements. To local communities, it is understandable that non-transportation criteria may be 

important in local decision-making. However, before the local community decides to seek scarce federal transportation funding for 

the project, they must be able to emphasize the direct transportation benefits that the project will demonstrate. FTA is directed 

to perform a review of this ratings imbalance and report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by December 10, 

2004, on how this balance could be better reflected in FTA’s process. This report should include an analysis of every project in the 

new starts pipeline that compares a land use rating to their cost 

effectiveness rating and the project’s overall rating. 

As local communities develop their own preferred transportation 

alternatives, the Committee must insist that these communities 

use federal standards and procedures in their local analysis if they 

are to seek federal transportation funding through the new starts 

program. Further, FTA shall not approve the entry of any project 

into preliminary engineering if the project’s alternatives analysis 

does not clearly espouse the federal new starts criteria and standards, by showing that the project will attract and move more riders, at lower cost, than other transportation alternatives. FTA is directed to work with FHWA to ensure that proper procedures are 

in place whereby FTA can distinguish the criteria which place the 

federal benefits of a transit alternative above those of other 

projects. FTA shall report to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations by June 1, 2005, on the implementation of this direction. 

Appropriations for full funding grant agreements.—Before passage of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

(ISTEA), there were less than 10 new starts projects with full funding grant agreements (FFGAs). Since 1992, a total of 49 FFGAs 

have been signed or recommended in Presidential budgets. The 

number of potential new starts projects continues to expand rapidly, outpacing realistic federal funding capabilities. There are currently 27 projects with existing full funding grant agreements and 

another 38 projects in preliminary engineering, final design, or otherwise proposed for funding, which collectively are seeking $24.3 

billion in Federal funding. In addition, FTA is tracking approximately 140 current transit capital investment planning studies. 

However, the funds available for new starts projects over the next 

six years can support only a small fraction of these projects. For 

example, the House-passed reauthorization bill designated a total 

of $9.5 billion for new starts for fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Of 

92 

the $9.5 billion, the bill provides $3.1 billion for the 27 transit 

projects with existing full funding grant agreements. This leaves 

$6.4 billion to fund other projects over the reauthorization period. 

Of this amount, $4.0 billion is proposed for the six projects FTA 

recommended for multi-year grant agreements in the fiscal year 

2005 annual new starts report. If these projects are approved, only 

$2.4 billion would be left to fund the $17.2 billion in estimated 

costs for the 32 projects remaining in the pipeline. 

As this demand continues to outstrip available resources, the 

Committee has had to make difficult decisions in this area. The 

Committee recommendation for new starts projects for fiscal year 

2005 adheres to the following guidelines: (1) The Committee has 

tried to fund every project that has a current FFGA, at the scheduled amount as set in the grant agreement; (2) Specific allocations 

have been provided for other new start projects, with priority given 

to those projects that are farthest along in the new starts process. 

No funding has been provided for projects that have received a rating in the annual new starts report that is lower than ‘‘recommended’’; (3) The Committee reiterates its direction originally 

agreed to in the fiscal year 2002 conference report that FTA should 

not sign any FFGAs that have a maximum federal share of higher 

than sixty percent. Less funding, or in some instances, no funding 

has been provided for those projects in preliminary engineering or 

final design that have a federal share above sixty percent. The 

Committee agrees with the administration that statutory law 

should be changed to prohibit a federal share of no more than fifty 

percent. The Committee strongly encourages the impacted projects 

to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute and 

find ways to increase their local share; (4) The Committee has continued to provide no funding for projects currently in the alternatives analysis phase, as in previous years, due to budget constraints. Local project sponsors of new rail extensions or busways 

can use section 5307 formula funds or section 5303 metropolitan 

planning funds for these activities rather than seek section 5309 

discretionary funds. In total, the $1,030,827,000 provided in this Act, together with $157,914,105 in unobligated bus and bus facilities funds and new 

start funds, is to be distributed as follows: 

Project name Amount 

Atlanta, Georgia, North Springs Extension ........................................ $260,000 

Baltimore, Maryland, Central Light Rail Double Track .................... 29,010,000 

Chicago, Illinois, Douglas Branch Reconstruction .............................. 85,000,000 

Chicago, Illinois, Metra Commuter Rail Expansions and Extensions 52,000,000 

Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood Line Extension .................................... 40,000,000 

Denver, Colorado, Southeast Corridor LRT ......................................... 80,000,000 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, South Florida Commuter Rail Upgrades 11,210,000 

Las Vegas, Nevada, Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway Project ........... 36,800,000 

Los Angeles, California, Eastside Light Rail Transit Project ............ 60,000,000 

Los Angeles, California North Hollywood Extension .......................... 660,000 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, Hiawatha Light Rail Project ...................... 33,110,000 

New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street Corridor Project .................... 16,460,000 

New York, New York Long Island Rail Road East Side Access ........ 92,000,000 

Northern New Jersey Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS 1 .................. 310,000 

Northern New Jersey Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS 2 .................. 100,000,000 

Northern New Jersey Newark-Elizabeth Rail Line MOS 1 ............... 1,340,000 

Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail ................ 69,000,000 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Stage II Light Rail .................................... 1,121,000 

Portland, Oregon, Interstate Max Light Rail Extension .................... 23,480,000 

Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT ................................... 1,130,000 

93 

Project name Amount 

Salt Lake City, Utah, Medical Center Extension ............................... 8,680,000 

San Diego, California, Mission Valley East Light Rail Extension .... 81,640,000 

San Diego, California, Oceanside-Escondido Rail Corridor ................ 55,000,000 

San Francisco, California, BART Extension to San Francisco International Airport .................................................................................. 100,000,000 

San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano Rapid Transit System ............. 54,820,000 

Seattle, Washington, Central Link Initial Segment ........................... 80,000,000 

St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair Extension ............................ 60,000 

Washington, DC/MD, Largo Metrorail Extension ............................... 75,430,000 

Dulles corridor project.—The Committee has directed FTA not to 

reallocate funding totaling $87,300,000 provided in the Department 

of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 

and previous Acts for the Dulles Corridor Project. The Committee 

takes special note that this project is important to its region and 

the Committee continues to anticipate further consideration and attention to this project. 

New starts report.—The Committee is satisfied with the timely 

submission of FTA’s fiscal year 2005 annual report on new starts 

projects, although the document is still being delivered as a looseleaf copy instead of a formal document submission. TEA–21 required this report to be submitted in conjunction with the budget, 

yet for several years, this report was submitted months late. Without a timely submission of this information, the Committee cannot 

make well-informed decisions about new starts projects. To ensure 

that this report continues to be submitted on time, the Committee 

has continued bill language included in fiscal year 2004 that requires FTA to submit its annual new starts report with the initial 

submission of the President’s budget request. In addition, the Committee encourages FTA to continue to improve the timeliness of the 

official report’s delivery and urges FTA to work to complete the finalized document in a more prompt manner. 

San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano project.—The construction 

of the San Juan, Puerto Rico Tren Urbano project is almost complete. This project has seen many difficulties since its inception. In 

March 1996, FTA entered into the initial FFGA for the Tren 

Urbano project. Since 1996, the project budget has almost doubled. 

The revenue operation date has been delayed three times in three 

years and the date when it may open is still unclear. A recovery 

plan was implemented in November 2001 to address management 

and construction quality issues. The construction of the project is 

now 98% complete; however, there are 196 significant safety and 

performance issues. Of these, 74 are classified as safety-critical and 

should be resolved before Tren Urbano opens for passenger service. 

Further, construction problems and contract irregularities surround the project. Until the problematic construction and safety-related issues can be corrected in cooperation with the project’s contractor, the system does not appear to be safe for passenger transport. The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority has 

correctly delayed the operational launch of the rail system due to 

these issues. 

The Office of Inspector General has remained closely involved in 

the oversight of this project and the Committee commends the OIG 

for their persistence in ensuring that this project is safe for public 

use and that any illegalities that have occurred are duly resolved. 

The Committee encourages the OIG to continue their diligent work 

94 

in monitoring this project and to keep the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations appraised of any new developments. 

The Committee is troubled that the Federal Transit Administration’s oversight program was not able to distinguish the difficulties 

this project was facing at critical construction points. The Committee expects that FTA has learned critical lessons from this 

project in recognizing the signs of critical obstacles or breakdowns 

during a project’s inception and construction phases and expects 

that the agency has incorporated the lessons-learned into the oversight process. FTA is directed to monitor this project more diligently and ensure that any future recovery plans ensure the correction of all safety-related issues prior to the opening of this rail system. 

JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS

Appropriation (general fund) Limitation on obligations (trust fund) Total funding 

Appropriation, fiscal year 

2004 .................................. $24,853,000 ($99,410,000) $124,263,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 

2005 .................................. – – – (– – –) – – – 

Recommended in the bill .... 50,000,000 (100,000,000) 150,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal 

year 2004 ......................... +25,147,000 (+590,000) +25,737,000 

Budget request, fiscal 

year 2005 ......................... +50,000,000 (+100,000,000) +150,000,000 

The purpose of the job access and reverse commute grant program is to develop services designed to transport welfare recipients 

and low income individuals to and from jobs and to develop transportation services for residents of urban centers and rural and suburban areas to suburban employment opportunities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2005, the job access and reverse commute (JARC) 

grants program is funded at a total level of $150,000,000, with 

$50,000,000 derived from the general fund and $100,000,000 derived from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

The Committee continues a provision (sec. 171) exempting previously made transit obligations from limitations on obligations. 

The Committee continues a provision (sec. 172) allowing funds 

for discretionary grants of the Federal Transit Administration for 

specific projects, except for fixed guideway modernization projects, 

not obligated by September 30, 2007, and other recoveries to be 

used for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309. 

The Committee continues a provision (sec. 173) allowing transit 

funds appropriated before October 1, 2004 which remain available 

for expenditure to be transferred. 

The Committee continues a provision (sec. 174) that modifies the 

calculation of the non-New Starts share of funding for the San 

Francisco Muni Third Street Light Rail Project and states that if 

the new calculation results in a ‘‘not recommended’’ rating, funds 

provided may not be obligated. 

95 

The Committee continues a provision (sec. 175) prohibiting Federal transit grantees from obligating or expending funds after October 1, 2004, that would otherwise be available in the Act, if the 

grantee is involved directly or indirectly with any activity, including displaying or permitting to be displayed advertisements on its 

land, equipment, or in its facilities, that promotes the legalization 

or medial use of substances listed in schedule I of section 202 of 

the Controlled Substance Act. 

The Committee includes a provision (sec. 176) that allows the 

restoration of obligation authority to formula grant funds that were 

reduced due to FTA violations of the Antideficiency Act. 

The Committee includes a provision (sec. 177) that allows unobligated funds made available to the Oklahoma Transit Association in 

Public Law 108–11 to instead be made available to the Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority and the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority for any project or activity authorized 

under the JARC program. 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $14,315,040 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 15,900,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 15,900,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +1,584,960 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ – – – 

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the Corporation) is a wholly owned Government corporation established by 

the St. Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. The corporation is 

responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of the 

United States portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie, including the two Seaway locks located in 

Massena, NY and vessel traffic control in areas of the St. Lawrence 

River and Lake Ontario. The mission of the corporation is to serve 

the United States intermodal and international transportation system by improving the operation and maintenance of a safe, secure, 

reliable, efficient, and environmentally responsible deep-draft waterway. The corporation’s major priorities include: safety, reliability, trade development, management accountability, and bi-national collaboration with its Canadian counterpart. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $15,900,000 

to fund the operations and maintenance of the corporation, which 

is equal to the requested amount, and $1,584,960 above the fiscal 

year 2004 level. Within the funds provided, $1,500,000 shall be for 

the concrete replacement project at the Eisenhower and Shell 

Locks. Appropriations from the harbor maintenance trust fund and 

revenues from non-federal sources finance the operation and maintenance of the Seaway for which the corporation is responsible. 

The Committee maintains a strong interest in maximizing the 

commercial use and competitive position of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The general language under this heading is the same as the 

96 

language provided in previous years. Continuation of this language 

in addition to that under the operations and maintenance appropriation will provide the corporation the flexibility and access to 

available resources needed to finance costs associated with unanticipated events, which could threaten the safe, secure, and uninterrupted use of the Seaway. The language permits the corporation 

to use sources of funding not designated for the harbor maintenance trust fund by Public Law 99–662—derived primarily from 

prior-year revenues received in excess of costs, unused borrowing 

authority, and miscellaneous income—for emergency purposes. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support of the 

nation’s security and economic needs, as authorized by the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. MARAD’s mission is to promote the development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced United 

States merchant marine, sufficient to carry the Nation’s domestic 

waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its waterborne 

foreign commerce, and capable of serving as a naval and military 

auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. MARAD, working 

with the Department of Defense (DOD), helps provide a seamless, 

time-phased transition from peacetime to wartime operations, 

while balancing the defense and commercial elements of the maritime transportation system. MARAD establishes DOD’s prioritized 

use of ports and related intermodal facilities during DOD mobilizations to ensure the smooth flow of military cargo through commercial ports. MARAD also manages the Maritime Security Program, 

the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement Program and the 

Ready Reserve Force, which assure DOD access to commercial and 

strategic sealift and associated intermodal capability. Further, 

MARAD’s education and training programs through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six state maritime schools help provide 

skilled U.S. merchant marine officers. 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $98,117,670 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 98,700,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 98,700,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +582,330 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $98,700,000 for the Maritime Security Program (MSP), consistent with the budget request. This recommendation provides funding directly to MARAD and assumes 

that MARAD will continue to administer the program with support 

and consultation of the Department of Defense. The purpose of the 

MSP is to maintain and preserve a U.S. flag merchant fleet to 

serve the national security needs of the United States. The MSP 

provides direct payments to U.S. flag ship operators engaged in 

U.S.-foreign trade. Participating operators are required to keep the 

vessels in active commercial service and are required to provide 

intermodal sealift support to the Department of Defense in times 

97 

of war or national emergency. The Committee’s recommendation 

provides funding for payments to U.S. carriers for 47 ships, limited 

to $2,100,000 per ship, per year. The recommendation will provide 

the necessary resources for the operation of the MSP through fiscal 

year 2005. 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $106,365,718 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 109,300,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 106,400,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +34,282 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥2,900,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $106,400,000 to 

fund programs under the operations and training account of 

MARAD, an increase of $34,282 above the fiscal year 2004 appropriation and $2,900,000 below the budget request. Funds provided 

for this account are to be distributed as follows: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Activity Fiscal year 2005 request 

Committee 

recommended 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy: 

Salary and Benefits ................................................................................................ $23,753 $23,753 

Midshipmen Program .............................................................................................. 6,303 6,303 

Instructional Program ............................................................................................. 3,448 3,448 

Program Direction and Administration ................................................................... 2,945 2,945 

Maintenance, Repair, & Operating Requirements ................................................. 6,327 6,327 

Capital Improvements ............................................................................................ 13,138 13,138 

Subtotal, USMMA ................................................................................................ 55,914 55,914 

State Maritime Schools: 

Student Incentive Payments ................................................................................... 1,200 1,200 

Direct Schoolship Payments ................................................................................... 1,200 1,200 

Schoolship Maintenance and Repair ...................................................................... 8,090 8,090 

Subtotal, State Maritime Academies ................................................................. 10,490 10,490 

MARAD Operations: 

Base Operations ..................................................................................................... 36,560 36,560 

Enterprise Architecture & IT Security Upgrades .................................................... 150 150 

DOT Working Capital Fund (IT Consolidation) ....................................................... 5,926 3,200 

GSA Space .............................................................................................................. 94 94 

DOT electronic government ..................................................................................... 166 100 

Subtotal, MARAD Operations .............................................................................. 42,896 40,104 

Total, Operations and Training .......................................................................... 109,300 106,400 

Under the United States Merchant Marine Academy, the Com- mittee recommendation includes $55,914,000 for the operation and 

maintenance of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA), 

consistent with the budget request. Of these amounts, the Committee recommendation includes $13,138,000 for the USMMA’s 

major design and construction projects, consistent with the facilities master plan. Under the State Maritime Schools, the Committee recommendation includes $10,490,000 for the six State Maritime Schools (SMS), consistent with the budget request. The ComVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
98 

mittee provides $106,400,000 for MARAD operations, a reduction of 

$2,900,000 from the budget request. This level will support the current number (888) of full-time equivalent staff years (FTEs), consistent with the budget request after correcting for errors in the 

budget justifications. Within the operations total, the Committee 

provides a total of $3,450,000 for IT related activities. Of this total, 

the Committee provides $3,200,000 for DOT working capital fund 

(information technology consolidation), a reduction of $2,726,000 

from the budget request; $100,000 for electronic government, a reduction of $66,000 from the budget request; and $150,000 to complete enterprise architecture and IT security and infrastructure enhancements, consistent with the budget request. Although total information technology funding is below the request level, the Committee reduced funding due to lack of sufficient justification. Further, the Committee notes that the fiscal year 2005 level is 

$618,000 higher than last year’s level. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $16,115,355 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 21,616,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 19,116,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +3,000,645 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥2,500,000 

The ship disposal program provides resources to dispose of obsolete merchant-type vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet 

(NDRF), which the Maritime Administration is required by law to 

dispose of by the end of 2006. There are currently 145 vessels located in three fleet sites in the NDRF, designated as obsolete. In 

fiscal year 2003, MARAD removed two ships for disposal and 

projects that it will remove another 20 in 2004 and 15 in 2005. 

These vessels pose a significant environmental threat due to the 

presence of hazardous substances such as asbestos and solid and 

liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The list includes a nuclear 

ship, the SAVANNAH, which contains remnants of a nuclear reactor. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Commitee recommends $19,116,000 for ship disposal, 

$2,500,000 below the budget request, and $3,000,645 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. Within the funds provided for ship disposal, the Committee provides $2,000,000 to begin the decommissioning process for the SAVANNAH, consistent with the budget request. 

The Committee encourages MARAD to continue to seek a comprehensive solution to the challenging problem of disposing of the 

obsolete vessels of the NDRF and to first focus on the vessels with 

the lowest hull condition rating. MARAD’s application of various 

disposal options will provide the best value to the taxpayer while 

ensuring the swift, responsible removal of obsolete NDRF vessels 

that threaten the environment. The Committee supports international disposal of vessels to the extent that similar standards of 

domestic disposal are applied at international facilities. Further, 

the Committee notes the recent increased competitiveness of domestic scrapping operations and encourages MARAD to promote 

99 

aggressive competition among the domestic scrapping industry and 

international disposal facilities for funds appropriated for disposal. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $4,471,462 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 4,764,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,764,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +292,538 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

The maritime guaranteed loan account as provided for by title XI 

of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, provides for guaranteed loans 

for purchasers of ships from the U.S. shipbuilding industry and for 

modernization of U.S. shipyards. Funds for administrative expenses for the title XI program are appropriated to this account, 

and then transferred by reimbursement to operations and training 

to be obligated and outlayed. 

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantee 

commitments made in 1992 and beyond (including modifications of 

direct loans or loan guarantees that resulted from obligations or 

commitments in any year), as well as administrative expenses of 

this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on a net present 

value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a cash 

basis. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee notes that MARAD is in the process of implementing the Inspector General’s recommendations to the Title XI 

program and has developed and established internal policies consistent with the recommendations. The Committee provides 

$4,764,000 for the program, and approves the request of 3 FTE to 

improve administration and oversight of the Title XI loan process, 

as recommended by the IG. 

SHIP CONSTRUCTION

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, fiscal year 2004 ............................................................... ¥$4,107,056 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... ............................

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥1,979,000 

Bill compared with: 

Rescission, fiscal year 2004 ........................................................ ¥2,128,056 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥1,979,000 

The Committee rescinds $1,979,000 from the ship construction 

account. This account is currently inactive except for determinations regarding the use of vessels built under the program, final 

settlement of open contracts, and closing of financial accounts. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

The bill continues a provision (sec. 185) that authorizes the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving government 

100 

property under the control of MARAD and rental payments shall 

be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

The bill continues a provision (sec. 186) that prohibits obligations 

incurred during the current year from construction funds in excess 

of the appropriations contained in this Act or in any prior appropriations Act. 

The bill includes a new provision (sec. 187) that prohibits funding for implementation or award concerning the national defense 

tank vessel construction assistance program request for proposals 

issued by the Maritime Administration on February 20, 2004. 

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was 

originally established by the Secretary of Transportation’s organizational changes dated July 20, 1977. The agency received statutory authority on October 24, 1992. RSPA has a broad portfolio. Its 

jurisdictions include hazardous materials, pipelines, international 

standards, and university research. As the department’s only 

multimodal administration, RSPA provides research, analytical and 

technical support for transportation programs through headquarters offices and the Volpe National Transportation Systems 

Center. 

Reorganization of transportation research programs.—As stated 

above, the diverse jurisdictions of the Research and Special Programs Administration were authorized in statute just twelve years 

ago. This spring, the Department of Transportation gave notice to 

the appropriate Congressional committees of an initiative to reorganize this agency. As part of the proposal, the Research and Special Programs Administration would be abolished and reinvented 

as the Research and Technology Innovation Administration, an entity built around the Department’s Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center and devoted to transportation research and development. 

The status of this proposal is still being examined internally 

within the administration and no formal reorganization proposals 

have been submitted to the Congress. However, despite this status, 

DOT did submit an amendment in the budget request for fiscal 

year 2005 that would transfer the funding for the office of emergency transportation to the office of the secretary. This transfer is 

approved. However, in addition, the Committee considers it worthwhile to comment on two important aspects of the initial proposal 

that may invite consequences that could be detrimental to the programs. 

First, the Committee does not consider it wise to merge RSPA’s 

office of pipeline safety with the Federal Railroad Administration, 

an existing administration governing a mode judged by DOT to be 

most similar to pipelines. The Committee believes the pending reorganization plan that calls for the regulation of the safety of pipelines to become the responsibility of the Federal Railroad Administration will diminish the Department’s effectiveness and ability to 

adequately carry out its pipeline safety function. The pipeline safety program has made progress in gathering strength and credibility 

in the last five years. Loss of this momentum through a transfer 

to a subordinate position in a substantially different program such 

as that of FRA would be a very serious concern for the Committee. 

101 

In addition, the proposal is not likely to be budget neutral, as the 

services now provided by RSPA’s administration to OPS would 

have to be provided by FRA and replicating these services within 

FRA could increase the cost of the merger by an estimated 5–10%. 

Second, the initial proposal would move the office of hazardous 

materials safety to the Secretary’s office of policy. Organizationally, 

placement of an operating administration under an assistant secretary in the office of the secretary, rather than an Administrator 

with operational authority, is unmatched and could lend the program to politicization. There is also no authorization or infrastructure in OST for field offices, enforcement, or training operations. 

The funding for this program, however, raises perhaps the most serious concern. As proposed, the hazmat office would lose its direct 

Congressional appropriation and would be financed through an assessment on the Department’s modal administrations. The Committees on Appropriations have long deemed assessments by OST 

on the modal administrations to constitute shifts of appropriated 

funds that must go through reprogramming procedures. Moreover, 

this funding scheme will hamper Congressional oversight of this 

program. Clearly, hazmat’s loss of control over its funding and program priorities, combined with the politics of attempting to manage 

a regulatory program as a staff function of OST, could frustrate effective program delivery. 

Regulatory backlog and NTSB recommendations.—Historically, 

RSPA has had an extensive regulatory backlog, which was of great 

concern to the Committee. In addition, RSPA’s Office of Pipeline 

Safety had a substantial number of outstanding recommendations 

from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Although, 

RSPA still has a sizeable amount of work that needs to be done, 

the agency is making strides at improving these items. The Committee directs RSPA to remain vigilant in addressing regulatory 

backlogs and closing NTSB recommendations. 

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 1 ....................................................... $42,825,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 48,613,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 46,790,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +3,965,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥1,823,000 

1 Excludes $2,904,000 appropriated for the office of emergency transportation. 

RSPA’s research and special programs administers a comprehensive nationwide safety program to: (1) protect the nation from the 

risks inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials by 

water, air, highway and railroad; (2) oversee the execution of the 

Secretary of Transportation’s statutory responsibilities for providing transportation services during national emergencies; and (3) 

coordinate the department’s research and development policy, planning, university research, and technology transfer. Overall policy, 

legal, financial, management and administrative support for 

RSPA’s programs is also provided under this appropriation. 

102 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a program level for research and 

special programs of $46,790,000. Budget and staffing data for this 

appropriation are as follows: 

Fiscal year 2005 estimate Recommended in the bill 

Hazardous materials safety ............................................................................................. $25,486,000 $24,909,000 

(Positions) ............................................................................................................... 155 149 

Research and technology ................................................................................................ 2,597,000 2,459,000 

(Positions) ............................................................................................................... 10 9 

Program support ............................................................................................................ 20,530,000 19,422,000 

(Positions) ............................................................................................................... 70 65

Total, Research and Special Programs ............................................................. 48,613,000 46,790,000 

(Positions) .......................................................................................................... 235 223 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste shipments.— 

The budget requests seven new positions for operational, planning, 

communication, enforcement and legal challenges regarding shipments of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste 

(HLW), to Yucca Mountain, Nevada. These shipments are not likely 

to begin in this budget cycle, and due to the fiscal constraints of 

the fiscal year 2005 budget, the Committee does not believe it wise 

to invest in funding for the hiring of employees that may have little 

to do at this time. The Committee has provided one of these positions and associated half-year costs. 

In addition, RSPA has requested $500,000 to review and analyze 

transport regulations governing SNF and HLW in anticipation of 

the future transport of these materials. While the Department of 

Energy’s expectations for these shipments by 2010 is significant, 

they will only account for less than one percent of all hazmat shipments. The Committee recognizes the importance of safety on 

America’s transportation infrastructure as this increase begins, but 

continues to question the fervor with which RSPA is addressing it. 

Funding of $250,000 is provided for these activities. 

RSPA is reminded that the majority of the work of the hazardous 

materials safety office should be to reduce deaths and disruptions 

due to incidents every day, not five years from now. There are far 

greater needs for ensuring that current regulations are being followed and future rulemakings are getting their due attention. 

Hazardous materials regulations compliance.—RSPA is requesting four new positions to help ensure compliance with current 

hazmat regulations. These positions are approved and half-year 

funding associated with these positions has been provided. 

Training and outreach.—The fiscal year 2004 Committee’s report 

included language encouraging RSPA to continue to work with the 

Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development program (COHMED) to enhance RSPA’s coordination of compliance 

services. The Committee continues to urge RSPA to reassess the 

decision to discontinue this partnership and recommend that RSPA 

provides the same level of support as it had prior to 2003. 

103 

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Hydrogen fuels research.—RSPA has requested funding for one 

new position for a hydrogen fuel engineer, plus contract support for 

hydrogen fuels research and development. Due to budget constraints, funding for this position is denied. Contract support funding of $75,000 has been provided. 

PROGRAM SUPPORT

Administrative support.—A total of five new positions are requested in fiscal year 2005 to provide accounting, financial support 

and administrative support. The Committee approves two new positions to support RSPA’s administrative structure and financial 

support and half-year funding has been provided. The contracting 

officer position is expressly denied. 

Information technology activities.—In continuing their activities 

to improve RSPA’s information technology infrastructure, the agency requests funding for three positions and contract funding. Funding for two positions and $750,000 for contracting support has been 

provided. 

In addition, the Committee’s fiscal year 2004 report requested 

that RSPA keep the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations informed of activities related to these infrastructure upgrades 

with bi-annual reports, due in August and February. RSPA should 

continue to relay this information. However, more detail should be 

provided the overall schedule of these upgrades, funds that have 

been obligated to date by activity, and funds anticipated for future 

needs. 

Administrative costs for new positions.—Consistent with the new 

positions that have been provided, $310,000 is provided for associated administrative costs. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

(Pipeline safety fund) (Oil spill liability 

trust fund) Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 

2004 .................................. $52,991,000 $12,923,000 $65,914,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal 

year 2005 ......................... 51,073,000 19,000,000 70,073,000 

Recommended in the bill ... 54,466,000 14,000,000 68,466,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal 

year 2004 ......................... +1,082,000 +1,077,000 +2,552,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal 

year 2005 ......................... +3,393,000 ¥5,000,000 ¥1,607,000 

The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to life and 

property in the transportation of natural gas, petroleum and other 

hazardous materials by pipeline. The enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection and resulted in a new emphasis 

on spill prevention and containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The office develops and enforces federal 

104 

safety regulations and administers a grants-in-aid program to state 

pipeline programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes $68,466,000 to continue pipeline safety operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid in fiscal 

year 2005. The bill specifies that of the total appropriation, 

$14,000,000 shall be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund 

and $54,466,000 shall be from the pipeline safety fund. 

State one-call grants.—The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2004 (Public Law 108–199) denied a proposed decrease to the State 

one-call grants program, providing $994,000 for these activities. 

The conferees agreed that these grants are an important tool in reducing the number of pipeline incidents. The office of pipeline safety, however, only provided $886,000 for 

these grants in fiscal year 2004, a clear disparity from the intent 

of the conferees. Therefore, the Committee provides $1,000,000 in 

fiscal year 2005 for these grants, an increase of $114,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee directs that no less than 

$1,000,000 of the funds provided is for this purpose and reminds 

the agency that in the future, programs of special Congressional interest must go through the appropriate reprogramming procedures 

if there is a proposed variation to the appropriated amount. 

Pipeline safety staffing.—The staffing levels of the office of pipeline safety (OPS) have seen a dramatic increase over the last three 

fiscal years, with the addition of twenty-seven new positions. OPS 

is requesting twelve new positions for fiscal year 2005. Budgetary 

constraints make it impossible to let this office continue to grow at 

such an astonishing rate. Therefore, the Committee approves the 

addition of two new pipeline inspectors, one of which shall be for 

Houston, Texas, where over 50% of the major pipeline operators 

are headquartered. All other proposed positions are denied. 

Information and analysis.—OPS requests funding to modify information systems to receive and store data from new types of pipeline inspections. Funding totaling $150,000 is provided for this purpose. 

Oil spill liability trust fund.—The Committee continues to be 

concerned with the significant increases in the request of funds 

from the oil spill liability trust fund. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

requires that these trust funds be used exclusively for oil spill prevention and response activities, and the Committee strongly encourages the office of pipeline safety to allocate oversight activities 

between the hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and to factor the 

oil spill liability trust fund into the allocation formula that determines the hazardous liquid pipeline user fee assessment to accurately reflect the amount and type of oversight activities being conducted by the office consistent with the trust fund. The fiscal year 

2006 budget justification should adequately address this issue, containing an itemization of how these funds are being allocated within OPS. 

Pipeline damage prevention.—The Common Ground Alliance is a 

nonprofit organization dedicated to shared responsibility in, and 

the promotion of, damage prevention. The effectiveness of this all 

volunteer organization can be seen in its over 100 members and 21 

regional alliances. Results are clearly evident by the 8 damage preVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
105 

vention recommendations that the National Transportation Safety 

Board has recently closed. The Committee encourages this important organization to continue to promote effective damage prevention practices around the nation. 

In addition, it is evident that localities have many opportunities 

to take actions to protect pipelines and their citizens if they understand pipeline risks and how they are controlled. The National Association of State Fire Marshals are well suited to assist OPS with 

promoting improved community emergency planning and facilitating resolution of environmental repair permit concerns. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

(Emergency preparedness fund) (Emergency preparedness grant program) Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 

2004 .................................. $199,000 ($14,300,000) $14,499,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 

2005 .................................. 200,000 (14,300,000) 14,500,000 

Recommended in the bill .... 200,000 (14,300,000) 14,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal 

year 2004 ......................... +1,000 ............................ +1,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal 

year 2005 ......................... ............................ ............................ ............................

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a 

reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 

public sector emergency response training and planning and provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions and Indian 

tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $200,000, the same amount as requested, for activities related to emergency response training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section 

117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee has provided an obligation limitation of $14,300,000 for the emergency preparedness 

grant program. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Inspector General’s office was established in 1978 to provide 

an objective and independent organization that would be more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in 

departmental programs and operations; and (2) providing a means 

of keeping the Secretary of Transportation and the Congress fully 

and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of such programs and operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to 

the Secretary of Transportation and to the Congress. 

106 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $55,670,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 59,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 58,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +2,330,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥1,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $58,000,000 for activities of the Office of Inspector General. Due to budget constraints 

in the fiscal year 2005 bill, this is $1,000,000 below the amount requested in the budget estimate. The Committee continues to value 

highly the work of the Office of Inspector General in oversight of 

departmental programs and activities. 

In addition, the OIG will receive $7,974,000 from other agencies 

in this bill, as noted below: 

Federal Highway Administration ......................................................... $3,524,000 

Federal Transit Administration ........................................................... 3,000,000 

Federal Aviation Administration .......................................................... 1,200,000 

National Transportation Safety Board ................................................ 250,000 

Funding is sufficient to finance 435 full-time equivalent (FTE) 

staff years in fiscal year 2005, for an increase of 5 FTE. 

Unfair business practices.—The bill maintains language first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to investigate 

allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair 

methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents. 

Audit reports.—The Committee requests the Inspector General to 

continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to the Committee 

immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the 

Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major acquisition project or grant, 

or which recommends significant budgetary savings. The OIG is 

also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 

days any final audit or investigative report which was requested by 

the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1, 

1996 by P.L. 104–88, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) 

Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry, the Act 

abolished the ICC; eliminated certain functions that had previously 

been implemented by the ICC; transferred core rail and certain 

other provisions to the Board; and transferred certain motor carrier 

functions to the Federal Highway Administration (now under the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration). The Board is specifically responsible for regulation of the rail and pipeline industries 

and certain non-licensing regulations of motor carriers and water 

carriers. The law empowers the Board through its exemption authority to promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case 

basis and continues intact the important rail reforms made by the 

Staggers Rail Act of 1980. 

107 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 1 ....................................................... $19,406,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 2 ..................................................... 20,521,000 

Recommended in the bill 3 ................................................................. 20,771,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +1,365,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ +250,000 

1Of this total, $1,050,000 is offset through the collection of user fees. 

2 Assumes collection of $1,050,000 in user fees, to offset the appropriation as the fees are collected 

throughout the fiscal year. 3 Assumes collection of $1,250,000 in user fees, to offset the appropriation as the fees are collected 

throughout the fiscal year. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $20,771,000, 

an increase of $250,000 above the budget request. Included in the 

recommended amount is an estimated $1,250,000 in fees, which 

will offset the appropriated funding. At this funding level, the 

Board will be able to accommodate 145 full-time equivalent staff 

years. 

The Committee is aware that an error was made in the communication between the DOT office of budget and the Surface Transportation Board regarding the Board’s fiscal year 2005 budget request. The Department informed the Board that the request would 

be $20,621,000; however, the budget appendix lists the amount of 

$20,521,000, leaving a gap of $100,000. The Committee is troubled 

that communication from the Secretary’s budget office was inaccurate and urges the office to increase the oversight over this process so that these types of needless errors do not occur again in the 

future. The Committee has provided $100,000 in this appropriation. 

Spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste transport.—In April 

2004, the Department of Energy announced that its preferred mode 

to transport radioactive materials to the Yucca Mountain depository in Nye County, Nevada, will be heavily dependent on rail. The 

Department of Energy has also announced its intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) that is necessary for the 

construction and operation of this new rail line. In May, the Department of Energy requested the participation of the Surface 

Transportation Board in this EIS process, as the Board must review all new common carrier rail construction lines. Currently, the 

Board has limited resources to successfully participate in this EIS, 

as it is estimated to require twenty-five percent of the Board’s environmental staff. Therefore, the Committee has provided an additional $150,000 for the Board’s expenses as it participates in this 

EIS process. In addition, the Board shall submit to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations a complete list of expenses 

related to this process by November 1, 2005. 

Travel.—The Committee notes that the travel budget for the Surface Transportation Board has increased substantially over a twoyear period, jumping from $41,000 in fiscal year 2003 to a request 

of $87,000 in fiscal year 2005. In addition, during the majority of 

this time period, there have been two vacancies, the Vice Chairman 

and the Commissioner. The Committee is concerned that the travel 

budget under the current Board Chairman has doubled and insists 

that the Board look closely at the obligation of these expenses. 

108 

User fees.—Current statutory authority, under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 

grants the Board the authority to collect user fees. The Committee 

believes that $1,250,000 in user fees is reasonable. Language is included in the bill allowing the fees to be credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections, and reducing the general fund appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are received and 

credited. This language, continued from last year, simplifies the 

tracking of the collections and provides the Board with more flexibility in spending its appropriated funds. 

Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.—On December 12, 1997, 

the Board granted a joint request of Union Pacific Railroad Company and the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County, KS (Wichita/ 

Sedgwick) to toll the 18–month mitigation study pending in Finance Docket No. 32760. The decision indicated that at such time 

as the parties reach agreement or discontinue negotiations, the 

Board would take appropriate action. 

By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP indicated that they had entered into an agreement, and jointly petitioned the Board to impose the agreement as a condition of the 

Board’s approval of the UP/SP merger. By decision dated July 8, 

1998, the Board agreed and imposed the agreement as a condition 

to the UP/SP merger. The terms of the negotiated agreement remain in effect. If UP/SP or any of its divisions or subsidiaries materially changes or is unable to achieve the assumptions on which the 

Board based its final environmental mitigation measures, then the 

Board should reopen Finance Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties, and prescribe additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes if shown to be appropriate. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Committee continues the provision (sec. 188) allowing the 

Department of Transportation to use funds for aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, as authorized by 

law. 

The Committee continues the provision (sec. 189) limiting appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for 

an Executive Level IV. 

The Committee continues the provision (sec. 190) prohibiting 

funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more than 106 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and Presidential personnel assigned 

on temporary detail outside the Department of Transportation. 

The Committee continues the provision (sec. 191) prohibiting 

funds for the implementation of section 404 of title 23, U.S.C. 

The Committee continues the provision (sec. 192) prohibiting recipients of funds made available in this Act from releasing personal 

information, including social security number, medical or disability 

information, and photographs from a driver’s license or motor vehicle record, without express consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and prohibits the withholding of funds provided 

in this Act for any grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this 

provision. 

The Committee continues the provision (sec. 193) allowing funds 

received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit 

Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration from 

109 

states, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources to be used for expenses incurred for training may be 

credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

The Committee continues the provision (sec. 194) authorizing the 

Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of any preferred stock 

to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the Department of 

Transportation. 

The Committee continues the provision (sec. 195) prohibiting 

funds in Title I of this Act for issuance of any grant unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations not less than three full business days before any 

discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant 

agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the department or its modal administrations. 

The Committee continues a provision (sec. 196) for the Department of Transportation allowing funds received from rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be credited to appropriations. 

The Committee continues a provision (sec. 197) allowing amounts 

from improper payments to a third party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation to be available 

to cover expenses incurred in recovery of such payments. 

The Committee continues a provision (sec. 198) allowing the Secretary of Transportation to transfer unexpended sums from ‘‘Office 

of the secretary, salaries and expenses’’ to ‘‘Minority business outreach’’. 

The Committee continues the provision (sec. 199) prohibiting 

funds for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve 

assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $175,070,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 185,041,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 177,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +1,930,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥8,040,000 

The Departmental Offices’ function in the Treasury Department 

is to provide basic support to the Secretary of the Treasury, who 

is the chief operating executive of the Department. The Secretary 

of the Treasury also has a primary role in formulating and managing the domestic and international tax and financial policies of 

the Federal Government. The Secretary’s responsibilities funded by 

the salaries and expenses appropriation include: recommending 

and implementing United States domestic and international economic and tax policy; fiscal policy; governing the fiscal operations 

of the Government; maintaining foreign assets control; managing 

the public debt; managing development of financial policy; repVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
110 

resenting the United States on international monetary, trade and 

investment issues; overseeing Treasury Department overseas operations; directing the administrative operations of the Treasury Department; and providing executive oversight of the bureaus within 

the Treasury Department. This account also includes funding for 

the office of professional responsibility. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $177,000,000 for 

departmental offices, salaries and expenses, an increase of 

$1,930,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and a decrease 

of $8,040,000 below the budget request. The Committee has reinstated the statutory travel limitation due to the tardiness of the report required in last year’s report and directs the Secretary to provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations quarterly reports on travel expenditures funded through this account 

and summarized by office, including travel charges incurred and 

paid for protection. In addition, each report shall contain specific 

details regarding international travel by the office of international 

affairs. 

The bill includes $3,000,000 for information technology, $258,000 for unforeseen emergencies, $21,855,000 for the office of foreign assets control, $2,900,000 for grants to fight money laundering, and 

$3,393,000 for Treasury-wide financial statement audits. 

The Committee’s recommendation reduces the funds available for 

official representation and reception expenses to $75,000, bringing 

the department’s funding level in line with other departments. The 

Secretary is to distribute this amount department wide. 

The Committee’s recommendation assumes the following changes 

to the fiscal year 2005 budget request: ¥$288,883 from economic 

policy; ¥$988,664 from international affairs; ¥$503,513 from tax 

policy; ¥$337,793 from domestic policy; ¥$2,359,910 from management and CFO programs; ¥$1,080,738 from executive direction; ¥$2,481,499 from administration; and ¥$639,000 from the proposed FASAB and JFMIP transfer from OMB. The Committee has 

restored funds to OMB for this purpose. 

In fiscal year 2004, the conferees provided the department with 

an increase of $6,100,000 to accommodate the transfer of employees 

from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security, with the understanding that the increase was a onetime accommodation. Both the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations directed the department to submit a report detailing how the department would reach the post-transfer target FTE 

level, with the Senate report due by March 1, 2004. After repeated 

inquiries, the department finally submitted a report on June 3, 

2004 with the basic message that the department planned to annualize the ‘‘one-time’’ increase and create another new terrorist financing office; one that was not even included in the fiscal year 

2005 budget request. This action is completely contrary to the direction of the 2004 appropriation. 

The Committee suggests that since the terrorist financing and financial crimes office is less than one year old, having been created 

at the department’s suggestion through the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, the department might explore ways the current office, and 

some well-placed detailed Treasury employees, could meet the 

111 

needs of the department rather than creating yet another new office. Since the Committee has yet to receive adequate information 

on any new terrorism office, has not received an official budget 

amendment from the administration, and did not appropriate funds 

for a terrorism office outside of the terrorist financing and financial 

crimes office, the Committee assumes that no new office has been 

created. 

The Committee notes that the banking and financial services industry report to a wide number of regulators, including eight major 

federal independent regulatory agencies, other minor federal regulators, and state regulatory agencies responsible for enforcing 

banking and security statutes. The Committee is aware that the 

statutes provide the regulatory agencies with a measure of authority to act expeditiously and autonomously with respect to an institution or a set of institutions under their jurisdiction. The Committee recognizes that the diversity of agencies and their autonomy 

can present challenges for having unified oversight of the banking 

and financial services industry. 

The Committee wants to ensure that existing regulatory protocols and intelligence assets are adequately coordinated and deployed to maximize enforcement of the Bank Secrecy Act and the 

USA PATRIOT Act. The Committee considers it important that enforcement of these statutes involve coordinated action by regulators 

and the intelligence community from across a broad spectrum of 

disciplines, where oversight responsibility has not been consolidated in one single authority. Rather, experts in diverse fields 

should work together to provide oversight. 

The Committee encourages the Department of the Treasury, 

working with other departments and agencies with jurisdiction, including the Department of Homeland Security and Department of 

Justice, to explore developing and instituting centralized interagency examination procedures that capitalize on the existing experience of federal regulators for enforcement of the Bank Secrecy Act 

and the USA PATRIOT Act. The goal is to attain effective crossagency protocols that leverage on-hand agency assets, avoid duplication of effort, and stove-piped rigid examinations that only serve 

to impose increased regulatory burden on the banking and financial services industry. 

The Committee is aware of the need for secure internet communication in the department in order to prevent cyber attacks and 

identity theft. The Committee supports implementing fully certificate-based internet security capabilities as appropriate to provide 

standards-based e-mail encryption and digital signatures; permit 

interoperability with the federal bridge and other government public key infrastructure systems and applications; demonstrate proven scalability; support multiple platforms; and include automated, 

secure key and certificate management. 

The U.S. Treasury’s October 2003 Report to Congress on China’s 

currency policy, as mandated by the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988, leaves unanswered questions regarding the state of China’s current policy, and 

the effects of those policies on manufacturing businesses. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Treasury to provide to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, within 60 days 

of the enactment of this Act, a plan to address Chinese currency 

112 

policies if China does not adopt a flexible exchange rate by September 30, 2005. The report should include an update of the October 3, 2003 report and the April 2004 report by including the import and export data provided by China regarding all of its trading 

partners including the United States. 

The Committee is aware that until the year 2000, imported homeopathic medicines were consistently classified by the Customs 

Service as medicaments. Several letter rulings reflect this longstanding and uniform practice. The Committee is also aware that 

starting in 2000, the Customs Service reversed itself and began to 

classify these medicaments as alcoholic beverages or as food. Although the Customs Service has been transferred from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security, the 

Treasury Department retains the authority to overturn Customs’ 

classification decisions. The Committee urges the Treasury Department to use its authority to review this matter and to give strong 

consideration to upholding past precedence in the classification of 

imported homeopathic medicines. 

The Committee recognizes the prominence placed on economic 

and financial issues at the Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development in Paris, France, and recommends that the Department of the Treasury maintain a senior staff presence attached 

to the United States Mission in Paris. Over the years, there has 

been an erosion in the presence of the Treasury Department at the 

United States Mission, but the importance of the issues involved 

necessitate that this trend now cease and that a senior position be 

established. 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITAL INVESTMENTS PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $36,185,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 36,072,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 36,072,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥113,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation funds the modernization of Treasury business 

processes and increases in department-wide systems efficiency 

through technology investments for systems that involve more than 

one Treasury bureau or Treasury’s interface with other governmental agencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $36,072,000 for 

department-wide systems and capital investments programs, the 

same as the budget request and a decrease of $113,000 below the 

fiscal year 2004 funding level. 

The Committee is aware that new technology providing a vulnerability management solution is nearing completion of the evaluation process by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

so as to receive Common Criteria evaluation at EAL3. This appliance-based technology runs a hardened operating system and communicates through encryption using unique digital certificates for 

authentication and by performing the continuous monitoring requirement specified by NIST SP 800–37, section 2.7. It further faVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
113 

cilitates common operating environment policy through host-baselining and alerts. In an effort to better prove its effectiveness in 

meeting vulnerability standards of the department and the IRS, 

the Committee strongly urges the department to use available 

funds to demonstrate this technology. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $12,923,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 14,158,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 16,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +3,577,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ +2,342,000 

This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and investigative 

functions to identify and correct operational and administrative deficiencies, which create conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The audit function 

provides program, contract, and financial statement audit services. 

Contract audits provide professional advice to agency contracting 

officials on accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, 

award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Program audits review and evaluate all facets of agency operations. Financial statement audits assess whether financial statements fairly 

present the agency’s financial condition and results of operations, 

the adequacy of accounting controls, and compliance with laws and 

regulations. The investigative function provides for the detection 

and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,500,000 for the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $3,577,000 above the 

fiscal year 2004 enacted level and an increase of $2,342,000 above 

the budget request. The increase is for additional audit capability 

in the areas of regulation responsibility and the on-going audit of 

the Treasury building renovation project. The bill includes 

$2,000,000 for official travel expenses, and up to $100,000 for unforeseen emergencies. 

Treasury building and annex repair and restoration project.—The 

Committee notes that since inception, $234,800,000 has been appropriated for this project. For fiscal year 2004, the Treasury Inspector General was directed to conduct an audit of the Treasury 

Building renovation and restoration contracts. As part of the Committee’s ongoing oversight of major capital projects, the Committee 

directs the Treasury Inspector General to continue audit coverage 

of the project during fiscal year 2005. That audit shall include, but 

is not limited to, the inspection of the Treasury Building to the extent deemed necessary by the Treasury Inspector General to determine whether the renovation work conformed to applicable building 

codes. The Treasury Inspector General is authorized to use a contracted independent inspector for this purpose to be selected and 

supervised by the Treasury Inspector General. The inspection cost 

shall be paid from the ‘‘Treasury building and annex repair and 

restoration’’ appropriation in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000. 

114 

In addition, the audit should identify existing Treasury employees in a decision-making position, who did not promptly vacate the 

Treasury building to temporary office space as directed during any 

rehabilitation phase. The Committee has learned that Treasury 

pays over $1,000,000 in rent monthly for temporary office space to 

handle the employees displaced during construction. Any time 

those employees chose not to move despite the construction efforts, 

the department assumed additional costs in both excess rent and 

construction delays. The Committee directs that any fiscal year 

2005 pay increase be withheld from identified employees in order 

to make an effort to recoup the lost costs. The Inspector General 

shall submit the results of its audit work to the Committee no later 

than July 1, 2005. 

FinCon audit.—The Committee directs The Department of the 

Treasury’s Inspector General to provide the Committee with a status report no later than May 2, 2005 detailing he Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network’s progress in establishing the Office of Compliance, as outlined by the Department and the Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network. The report should include an assessment of 

FTE sufficiency to conduct an effective Bank Secrecy Act compliance program as well as the level of cooperation being achieved in 

implementing the planned memoranda of agreements with the federal regulatory agencies charged with examination and enforcement responsibilities for Bank Secrecy Act compliance. 

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $127,279,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 129,126,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 129,126,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +1,847,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Restructuring and Reform 

Act of 1998 established the Office of Treasury Inspector General for 

Tax Administration and abolished the IRS Office of the Chief Inspector. The Office was established in January of 1999 as required 

by that legislation. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration conducts audits, investigations, and evaluations to assess 

the operations and programs of the IRS and its related entities, the 

IRS Oversight Board and the Office of Chief Counsel. The purpose 

of those audits and investigations is to: (1) promote the economic, 

efficient, and effective administration of the nation’s tax laws and 

to detect and deter fraud and abuse in IRS programs and operations; and (2) recommend actions to resolve fraud and other serious problems, abuses, and deficiencies in these programs and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $129,126,000 for 

the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, an increase of $1,847,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and 

equal to the budget request. 

115 

AIR TRANSPORTATION STABILIZATION PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $2,523,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 2,800,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥523,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥800,000 

The Air Transportation Stabilization Board was authorized in 

the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act to issue 

$10,000,000,000 of federal credit instruments to air carriers. The 

purpose is ‘‘to compensate air carriers for losses incurred by the air 

carriers as a result of the terrorist attacks on the United States 

that occurred on September 11, 2001’’, providing among other criteria, that ‘‘such agreement is a necessary part of maintaining a 

safe, efficient, and viable commercial aviation system in the United 

States’’. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,000,000 for the air transportation stabilization program, a decrease of $523,000 

below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $800,000 below the 

budget request. The Committee’s recommendation is based on the 

fact that the program activities planned for fiscal year 2005 are reduced greatly from previous years. 

TREASURY BUILDING AND ANNEX REPAIR AND RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $24,853,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 20,316,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 20,316,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ..................................................... ¥4,537,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... ............................

This appropriation funds the repairs, selected improvements, and 

construction necessary to renovate and maintain the main Treasury Building, the Treasury annex, and other Treasury buildings. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,316,000 for 

Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration (T–BARR), a 

decrease of $4,537,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and 

the same as the budget request. The requested and proposed funding level should be the final year of funding for this project. The 

Committee included a provision in this account allowing for the 

transfer of up to $2,000,000 to be merged with the Office of Inspector General for the purpose of expenses related to the T–BARR 

audit. 

The Committee has directed the Inspector General to continue 

with the T–BARR audit initiated by a direction in the fiscal year 

2004 report. Based on preliminary findings, the Committee directs 

a complete investigation into the entire T–BARR project. 

The Committee notes that the original intention of this project, 

and in fact the title of this account, assume that the Treasury 

annex building would be repaired and restored. However, the Committee is unaware of any construction activities underway or comVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
116 

pleted as related to this property. The Committee directs the department to provide a report on the funds and progress made to repair and restore the Treasury annex building from funds made 

available under this heading in this or prior fiscal years, the extent 

that those repairs have addressed fully the infrastructure needs 

and safety concerns of the building, and what future year funding 

requirements will be needed to finish the project. 

EXPANDED ACCESS TO FINANCIAL SERVICES

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, fiscal year 2004 ............................................................... ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... ¥$4,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥4,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Rescission, fiscal year 2004 ........................................................... ¥4,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... ............................

The Committee recommends a cancellation of $4,000,000 from 

unobligated balances of the expanded access to financial services 

fund, the same as the budget request. This rescission was not included in fiscal year 2004. 

VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PROGRAM

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, fiscal year 2004 ............................................................... ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... ¥$1,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥1,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Rescission, fiscal year 2004 ........................................................... ¥1,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... ............................

The Committee recommends a cancellation of $1,000,000 from 

unobligated balances of the violent crime reduction program, the 

same as the budget request. This rescission was not included in fiscal year 2004. 

FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $57,231,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 64,502,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 64,502,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ..................................................... +7,271,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... – – – 

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is responsible for implementing Treasury’s anti-money laundering regulations through administration of the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. 

section 5311, et seq. (BSA). It also serves as a United States Government source for the systematic collection and analysis of information to assist in the investigation of money laundering and other 

financial crimes. FinCEN supports law enforcement investigative 

efforts by federal, state, local and international agencies, and fosters interagency and global cooperation against domestic and international financial crimes. It also provides U.S. policymakers with 

strategic analyses of domestic and worldwide trends and patterns. 

It prevents money laundering through its regulatory and outreach 

117 

programs, including setting policy for and overseeing BSA compliance by financial institutions, and by providing BSA training for 

law enforcement, bankers, and bank regulators. Pursuant to the 

USA Patriot Act of 2001, FinCEN was made a Treasury Bureau in 

recognition of its key role in supporting investigations and other 

government efforts to identify and stop the financing of terrorist organizations and activity. The Patriot Act also gave FinCEN substantial new responsibilities for collecting, sharing, and managing 

financial and other information as part of its counter-terrorism 

mission. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $64,502,000 for 

the financial crimes enforcement network, an increase of 

$7,271,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same 

as the budget request. The Committee gives FinCEN full flexibility 

to determine the funding allocation across fiscal year 2005 activities as described in the budget justification. FinCEN is to provide 

details of the allocation in the 2005 operating plan. 

While the Committee recognizes the potential value of the work 

of FinCEN, the Committee also recognizes that the authorizing 

committees of jurisdiction are contemplating a new structure for 

enforcing security regulations. Until a decision is made, the Committee recommends limited growth for this program. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $227,210,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 230,930,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 230,930,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ..................................................... +3,720,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... ............................

The Financial Management Service (FMS) is responsible for the 

management of federal finances and the collection of federal debt. 

As the Federal Government’s central financial agent, FMS receives 

and disburses public monies, maintains government accounts, and 

reports on the status of the government’s finances. FMS is also accountable for developing and implementing the most reliable and 

efficient financial methods and systems to manage and improve the 

Government’s cash management, credit management, and debt collection programs. Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act 

of 1996, FMS became the primary agency for the collecting of federal non-tax debt that is due and owed to the government. Through 

FMS, there is a coordinated effort to collect debt from those who 

have defaulted on agreements with the Federal Government. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $230,930,000 for 

the Financial Management Service, an increase of $3,720,000 above 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The bill includes up to $9,220,000 for information systems 

modernization initiatives and up to $2,500 for official reception and 

representation expenses. 

118 

The Committee directs FMS in cooperation with the Office of 

Management and Budget to submit a report by March 31, 2005 detailing the various other financial management and fund distribution programs and initiatives underway, primarily those that are 

operating as a franchise fund or enterprise program. 

ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $79,528,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 81,942,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 82,542,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +3,014,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ +600,000 

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is responsible for the enforcement of laws designed to eliminate certain illicit activities and to regulate lawful activities relating to distilled 

spirits, beer, wine and nonbeverage alcohol products, and tobacco. 

Its responsibilities are focused on collecting revenue; reducing taxpayer burden and improving service while preventing diversion; 

and protecting the public and preventing consumer deception in 

certain regulated commodities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $82,542,000 for 

the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, an increase of 

$3,014,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $600,000 

above the budget request. The bill includes up to $6,000 for official 

reception and representation expenses and up to $50,000 for cooperative research and development programs. The Committee’s recommendation includes additional funds to start the process of creating a stand-alone information technology infrastructure in light 

of the pending system separation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Department of Homeland Security. 

BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) designs, manufactures, and supplies Federal Reserve notes, various public debt instruments, as well as most evidences of a financial character issued 

by the United States, such as postage and internal revenue stamps. 

The BEP also executes certain printings for various territories administered by the United States, particularly postage and revenue 

stamps. 

The operations of the BEP are financed by a revolving fund established in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 81–656, 

August 4, 1950 (31 U.S.C. 181), which requires the BEP to be reimbursed by customer agencies for all costs of manufacturing products and services performed. The BEP is also authorized to assess 

amounts to acquire capital equipment and provide for working capital needs. The anticipated work volume is based on estimates of 

requirements submitted by agencies served. The following table 

summarizes BEP revenue and expense data for fiscal years 2003 

through 2005: 

119 

2003 (actual) 2004 (estimate) 2005 (estimate) 

Total revenue ........................................................................................ $518,085,000 $539,000,000 $587,000,000 

Revenue from currency ................................................................ 469,642,000 495,000,000 555,000,000 

Revenue from stamps .................................................................. 37,513,000 38,000,000 26,000,000 

Other revenue ............................................................................... 10,930,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Cost of operations ................................................................................ 530,191,000 539,000,000 587,000,000 

Net revenue1 (to Treasury) ................................................................... ¥12,106,000 .......................... ..........................

1 Capital investments will be less than depreciation, a non-cash expense, in each of these years. In order to avoid accumulating working 

capital in excess of Bureau needs, currency prices are set at a level that will result in an annual loss (on paper). This loss will not exceed the depreciation expense, ensuring the solvency of the Bureau’s revolving fund. 

The Committee supports the Bureau of Engraving and Printing 

(BEP) in its efforts to redesign the $20 and $50 notes and encourages the BEP to move expeditiously to enhance the anti-counterfeiting features of higher denomination bills, such as $100 notes. 

The $100 bank note is the most counterfeited in the world and 

could benefit by advanced features that are already on the Euro 

and the British Pound, such as the optically variable devices that 

will make the note significantly more difficult to counterfeit. The 

Committee requests that the BEP report to the Committee within 

90 days of enactment the status of any $100 note redesign plans. 

UNITED STATES MINT

UNITED STATES MINT PUBLIC ENTERPRISE FUND

The United States Mint manufactures coins, receives deposits of 

gold and silver bullion, and safeguards the Federal Government’s 

holdings of monetary metals. For fiscal year 1997, Congress established the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund (Public Law 

104–52), which authorized the U.S. Mint to use proceeds from the 

sale of coins to finance the costs of its operations and which consolidated all existing Mint accounts into a single fund. Public Law 

104–52 also provides that, in certain situations, the levels of capital 

investments for circulating coins and protective services shall factor into the decisions of the Congress such that those levels compete with other requirements for funding. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a spending level for capital investments by the U.S. Mint for circulating coinage and protective services of $41,100,000, an increase of $448,000 above the fiscal year 

2004 spending level and the same as the level included in the 

budget request. The following table provides basic information on 

the revenues, costs, and products of the Mint for fiscal years 2003 

through 2005: 

Circulating coins Commemorative quarters Numismatic coins Protection 

2003 (actual): 

Number of coins ......... 9.1 billion ................. 2.5 billion ................. 24 million .................

Cost of operations ...... $157 million ............. $195 million ............. $454 million ............. $35 million. 

Revenue ...................... $320 million ............. $618 million ............. $471 million .............

Net revenue (to Treasury).$319 million ............. $618 million ............. $470 million ............. ($35 million). 

2004 (est.): 

Number of coins ......... 13.0 billion ............... 2.8 billion ................. 22 million .................

Cost of operations ...... $220 million ............. $211 million ............. $452 million ............. $38 million. 

Revenue ...................... $406 million ............. $694 million ............. $499 million .............

Net revenue (to Treasury).$406 million ............. $694 million ............. $493 million ............. ($38 million). 

120 

Circulating coins Commemorative quarters Numismatic coins Protection 

2005 (est.): 

Number of coins ......... 13.0 billion ............... 3.1 billion ................. 22 million .................

Cost of operations ...... $222 million ............. $218 million ............. $459 million ............. $41 million. 

Revenue ...................... $439 million ............. $775 million ............. $505 million .............

Net revenue (to Treasury).$439 million ............. $775 million ............. $500 million ............. ($41 million). 

BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

ADMINISTERING THE PUBLIC DEBT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $172,627,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 175,166,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 175,166,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +2,539,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation provides funds for the conduct of all public 

debt operations and the promotion of the sale of U.S. securities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $175,166,000 

for administering the public debt, an increase of $2,539,000 above 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The bill includes up to $2,000,000 for systems modernization. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

PROCESSING, ASSISTANCE, AND MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $4,009,205,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 4,148,403,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,071,824,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +62,619,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥76,579,000 

This appropriation provides for processing tax returns and related documents; processing data for compiling statistics of income; 

assisting taxpayers in correct filing of their returns and in paying 

taxes that are due; overall planning and direction of the Internal 

Revenue Service; and management of financial resources and procurement. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,071,824,000 

for processing, assistance, and management, an increase of 

$62,619,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and a decrease 

of $76,579,000 below the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation includes $7,500,000 in support of low-income tax 

clinics and $4,100,000 for the tax counseling for the elderly program. The IRS has flexibility in determining how to allocate the 

funds in this account in relation to the budget request. The Committee directs the IRS to submit an operating plan for all of its accounts, as a part of the plan submitted by the Department of the 

Treasury, detailing the fiscal year 2005 funding levels for activities 

121 

in comparison to the fiscal year 2004 levels and the 2005 budget 

request. 

Electronic tax filing and the free file alliance.—The Committee 

reaffirms its position that the free file alliance initiative is first and 

foremost to provide electronic federal tax return preparation and efiling services at no cost to the working poor and other disadvantaged and underserved taxpayers. Program implementation must 

be carried out in a manner that protects the privacy of the taxpayer’s return data, continues software service independent from 

the government, and does not require citizens to purchase other 

products or services from free file participants. The IRS should 

work in cooperation with the tax preparation industry to implement appropriate policies and procedures to ensure that the sponsored tax software services have the necessary business credentials, relevant commercial track records, corporate integrity, and financial and technical capabilities, in which taxpayers can have 

confidence. 

The Committee is encouraged by the recent memorandum of understanding between the IRS and the alliance for addressing privacy concerns and reporting aggregate, and not individual, tax filer 

data. However, the Committee notes that four providers listed on 

the IRS free file web site claim that no income restrictions are necessary for free file services, and one provider claims to have a floor 

income of $100,000 to qualify for free file services. The Committee 

directs the IRS to report in not less than 60 days after enactment 

of this act on the criteria which enables these providers to be included in the free file program. 

IRS workforce re-alignment.—The IRS has several personnel realignment initiatives underway, and Committee is seeking comprehensive information regarding planned reductions in force (RIF) 

affecting 1,600 case processing and insolvency employees, 2,200 

submission processing center employees, 780 modernization and information technology services employees, and 260 transitional processing center employees. Unfortunately, the department’s initial responses to the Committee have been less than adequate. The Committee therefore directs the Commissioner to refrain from further 

RIF actions until submitting a report not earlier than May 2, 2005, 

and not later than May 13, 2005 on the planned actions. The report 

must include a detailed cost analysis of the savings expected from 

the RIFs including the anticipated increase in productivity resulting from the consolidations; administrative costs associated with 

the planned RIFs; the costs necessary to modify the work and accommodate any planned new hires; the cost of hiring and training 

new employees to do the same work that is currently being performed by the current employees; and a detailed qualitative description of the type of training that will be given to the new hires. 

The Commissioner is directed to provide an analysis of how productivity and service will remain constant for the employees and taxpayers affected by the change, including a description of any productivity gap during transition; and an analysis of how the productivity of revenue agents and officers will be affected by the removal 

of support staff. 

Should the IRS move forward with RIF, the Committee directs 

the IRS to use all available tools to minimize involuntary separations, including: providing preference to those employees targeted 

122 

by the RIF for other vacancies for which they are qualified within 

the IRS, Treasury Department or other federal agency in their location; implementing a hiring freeze for IRS vacancies in locations 

undergoing a RIF for 90 days after the RIF announcement to allow 

targeted employees to apply for an appropriate vacancy; providing 

bump and retreat rights as set out in 5 CFR 351, with competitive 

areas being defined broadly; providing training or retraining for 

employees so they can move into other positions within the IRS; actively seeking authorization for voluntary early retirement authority and voluntary separation incentive payments, which should be 

offered as widely as possible in the geographic locations affected so 

that employees who cannot afford to leave voluntarily can move 

into positions vacated by those who can; and making available the 

maximum six months of career transition assistance program benefits to all IRS employees described in the above paragraph affected 

by a RIF. 

TAX LAW ENFORCEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $4,171,244,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 4,564,350,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,278,107,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +106,863,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥286,243,000 

This appropriation provides for the examination of tax returns, 

both domestic and international; the administrative and judicial 

settlement of taxpayer appeals of examination findings; technical 

rulings; monitoring employee pension plans; determining qualifications of organizations seeking tax-exempt status; examining tax returns of exempt organizations; enforcing statutes relating to detection and investigation of criminal violations of the internal revenue 

laws; collecting unpaid accounts; compiling statistics of income and 

compliance research; securing unfiled tax returns and payments; 

and expanded efforts to reduce overclaims and erroneous filings associated with the earned income tax credit. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,278,107,000 

for tax law enforcement, an increase of $106,863,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and a decrease of $286,243,000 below 

the budget request. The IRS has flexibility in determining how to 

allocate the funds in this account in relation to the budget request. 

The bill includes up to $1,000,000 for research and up to 

$10,000,000 to reimburse the Social Security Administration. 

The Committee encourages the IRS to investigate and incorporate private industry solutions into its earned income tax credit 

(EITC) enforcement efforts to combat fraud and other filing error. 

The Committee is aware of private industry initiatives that apply 

innovative software and data mining and correlation techniques to 

readily detect ‘‘same child, dual claim’’ conditions at the point of 

submission and before any payments have been made, which have 

the potential to save billions of dollars annually in EITC fraud and 

erroneous claims. Such initiatives make a series of applications 

that continually access and extract dependent child information 

123 

from specific state and federal systems (e.g.; MEDICAID, subsidized housing programs, transitional employment assistance, food 

stamp programs, foster children programs, etc.) which then correlate, edit, and aggregate this information into a database for 

analysis to automatically verify the child information contained in 

the EITC return and search for patterns that are indicative of any 

emerging fraudulent situation. The Committee directs the IRS to 

report on the feasibility of using private industry solutions for 

EITC compliance, and updated information on the EITC pre-certification pilot program, not less than 90 days after enactment of this 

Act. 

The Committee encourages the IRS to conduct a pilot program, 

approximately one year in length, employing commercially proven 

molecular marking and program tracking information management 

database technologies for the identification of the taxable status of 

diesel fuel, compliance enforcement of diesel fuel status categories 

and the associated recovery of fuel taxes. 

The Committee notes that the IRS has not achieved a significant 

level of progress administering the program using actuarial software and related expertise to assist in audits involving tax reserves 

and other situations requiring actuarial expertise. The Committee 

encourages the IRS to facilitate the implementation of the program 

into coordinated examinations. 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $1,581,575,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 1,641,768,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,622,093,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +40,518,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥19,675,000 

This appropriation provides for service-wide data processing support, including the evaluation, development, and implementation of 

computer systems (including software and hardware) requirements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,622,093,000 

for information systems, an increase of $40,518,000 above the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level and a decrease of $19,675,000 below the 

budget request. Of the amounts provided, $200,000,000 is available 

until September 30, 2006. The IRS has flexibility in determining 

how to allocate the funds in this account in relation to the budget. 

BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $387,699,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 285,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 285,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥102,699,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation provides for funding of the PRIME systems 

integration services contractor to modernize the business systems 

of the Internal Revenue Service. 

124 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $285,000,000 for 

business systems modernization, a decrease of $102,699,000 from 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The release of funding from this account is governed by the 

same statutory conditions that governed the funds appropriated 

into this account in previous years. 

HEALTH INSURANCE TAX CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $34,794,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 34,841,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 34,841,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +47,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation provides contractor support to develop and 

administer the advance payment option for the health insurance 

tax credit included in Public Law 107–210, the Trade Act of 2002. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,841,000 for 

health insurance tax credit administration, an increase of $47,000 

above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Section 201. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

the transfer of 5 percent of any appropriation made available to the 

IRS to any other IRS appropriation, subject to prior Congressional 

approval. 

Section 202. The Committee continues the provision that requires the IRS to maintain a training program in taxpayer’s rights, 

dealing courteously with taxpayers, and cross cultural relations. 

Section 203. The Committee continues the provision that requires the IRS to institute policies and procedures, which will safeguard the confidentiality of taxpayer information. 

Section 204. The Committee continues the provision that makes 

funds available for improved facilities and increased manpower to 

provide sufficient and effective 1–800 help line service for taxpayers. 

Section 205. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

the Department of the Treasury to purchase uniforms, insurance, 

and motor vehicles without regard to the general purchase price 

limitation, and enter into contracts with the State Department for 

health and medical services for Treasury employees in overseas locations. 

Section 206. The Committee continues with modifications a provision that authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between ‘‘Departmental offices—salaries and expenses’’, ‘‘Office of the Inspector 

General’’, ‘‘Financial management service’’, ‘‘Alcohol and tobacco 

tax and trade bureau’’, ‘‘Financial crimes enforcement network’’, 

and the ‘‘Bureau of the public debt’’ appropriations under certain 

circumstances. 

125 

Section 207. The Committee continues the provision that authorizes transfer, up to 2 percent, between the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 

under certain circumstances. 

Section 208. The Committee continues the provision limiting 

funds for the purchase of law enforcement vehicles unless the purchase is consistent with vehicle management principles. 

Section 209. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the Department of the Treasury from undertaking a redesign 

of the $1 Federal Reserve note. 

Section 210. The Committee continues the provision that provides for transfers from and reimbursements to ‘‘Financial management service, salaries and expenses’’ for the purposes of debt collection. 

Section 211. The Committee continues the provision extending 

the life of the franchise funds. 

Section 212. The Committee continues the provision extending 

the life of Treasury’s franchise fund. 

Section 213. The Committee includes a new provision allowing 

electronic transfers to be included under the protection of the 

Check Forgery Insurance Fund. 

Section 214. The Committee continues the provision that requires Congressional approval for the construction and operation of 

a museum by the United States Mint. 

Section 215. The Committee includes a new provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act from being used to merge the United States Mint 

and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing without the approval of 

the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction. 

Section 216. The Committee includes a new provision prohibiting 

the Secretary from publishing, implementing, administering, or enforcing regulations permitting financial institutions to accept the 

matricula consular as a vaild form of identification. 

TITLE III—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND 

FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT 

These funds provide for the compensation of the President as 

well as official expenses of the Executive Office of the President, as 

authorized by title 3, United States Code. 

COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $450,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 1 ..................................................... 450,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 450,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................ 1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

These funds provide for the compensation of the President, including an expense allowance as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 102. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $450,000 for 

Compensation of the President, including an expense allowance of 

$50,000. These are the same as amounts as appropriated in fiscal 

year 2004 and the same as requested by the President. The bill 

126 

specifies that none of the funds for official expenses shall be considered as taxable to the President, and any unused amount shall revert to the Treasury consistent with 31 U.S.C. 1552. 

WHITE HOUSE OFFICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $68,760,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 1 ..................................................... 63,698,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 59,525,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥9,235,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥4,173,000 

1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

The Salaries and Expenses account of the White House Office 

supports staff and administrative services necessary for the direct 

support of the President, including costs for the Homeland Security 

Council. This account also includes reimbursements to the White 

House Communications Agency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $59,525,000 for 

the White House Office, a reduction of $4,173,000 below the 

amounts requested by the President. The Committee’s recommendation transfers funding for the Homeland Security Council 

(HSC) to a separate appropriation, providing the same budgetary 

treatment as the National Security Council. 

EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $12,427,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 1 ..................................................... 12,760,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 12,760,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +333,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

These funds provide for the care, maintenance, and operation of 

the Executive Residence, including official and ceremonial functions of the President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,760,000 for 

the operating expenses of the Executive Residence, an increase of 

$333,000 from the amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and 

the same as the amounts requested by the President. The bill includes the same restrictions on reimbursable expenses for use of 

the Executive Residence as were enacted in fiscal year 2004. 

127 

WHITE HOUSE REPAIR AND RESTORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $4,200,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 1 ..................................................... 1,900,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,900,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥2,300,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

To provide for the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Executive Residence at the White House, a separate account was established in fiscal year 1996 to program and track expenditures for 

capital improvement projects at the Executive Residence at the 

White House. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,900,000 for 

White House Repair and Restoration, a decrease of $2,300,000 

below the amount enacted in fiscal year 2004 and the same as the 

amount requested by the President. These funds will finance design and replacement of existing cooling towers and associated 

equipment ($1,700,000); potential Presidential transition costs, 

such as staff overtime, moving and packing items for the outgoing 

First Family, and setting up living quarters for the incoming First 

Family ($100,000); and funds for family quarters redecoration 

($100,000). It is traditional for the last two items to be included in 

budgets during the year of a Presidential election. 

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $4,475,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 1 ..................................................... 4,040,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,040,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥435,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................ 1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

The Council of Economic Advisers analyzes the national economy 

and its various segments, advises the President on economic developments, recommends policies for economic growth and stability, 

appraises economic programs and policies of the Federal Government, and assists in preparation of the annual Economic Report of 

the President to Congress. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,040,000 for 

the Council of Economic Advisers, a decrease of $435,000 from the 

amount enacted in fiscal year 2004 and the same as requested by 

the President. The decrease mainly reflects the realignment of GSA 

rental payments to the Office of Administration as part of the enterprise services program. 

128 

OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $4,085,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 1 ..................................................... 3,592,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,267,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥1,818,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥1,325,000 

1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

The office of policy development supports the National Economic 

Council and the Domestic Policy Council in carrying out their responsibilities to advise and assist the President in the formulation, 

coordination, and implementation of economic and domestic policy. 

The office of policy development also provides support for other domestic policy development and implementation activities, as directed by the President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,267,000 for 

the office of policy development, a decrease of $1,818,000 below the 

amount enacted in fiscal year 2004 and $1,325,000 below the 

amount requested by the President. The reduction reflects current 

unobligated balances in this account appropriated as far back as 

fiscal year 2000. These resources can be applied to fiscal year 2005 

requirements. 

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $10,489,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 1 ..................................................... 8,932,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,932,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥1,557,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

The National Security Council advises the President on the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,932,000 for 

the National Security Council, a decrease of $1,557,000 below the 

amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and the same as requested 

by the President. Most of the reduction from the fiscal year 2004 

enacted levels involves a realignment of GSA rental payments and 

other costs to the Office of Administration as part of the enterprise 

services program. The number of full-time equivalent staffyears remains at the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of 71. 

129 

HOMELAND SECURITY COUNCIL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 1 ....................................................... $7,231,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 2 ..................................................... 4,173,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,475,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥4,756,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥1,700,000 

1Funded as a separate set-aside in the bill under ‘‘White House Office, Salaries and expenses’’. 

2Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

The Committee recommends $2,475,000 for the Homeland Security Council (HSC), a reduction of $1,700,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee recommendation would transfer funding for 

the Homeland Security Council to a separate appropriation, similar 

to the treatment for the National Security Council and other policyrelated offices. The recommended reduction reflects the unobligated 

balance in this account, which can be partially applied to offset fiscal year 2005 activities. 

The Committee is disturbed that White House officials have 

failed to provide to the Committee a definitive request for HSC 

staffing or budgetary resources for fiscal year 2005. Information 

providing for the hearing record states that the fiscal year 2005 

budget includes ‘‘approximately’’ 40 full-time equivalent staffyears 

for direct HSC hires and 26 detailees, for a total of 66 staff. This 

estimate, although approximate, would be significantly above the 

level of onboard staff as of May 2004. In future years, the Committee expects the Executive Office of the President to be able to 

provide budget-quality estimates rather than approximations. The 

Committee is also concerned about the relatively high travel budget of this office, and the high proportion that is applied to travel 

within the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The Committee will 

work with the Homeland Security Council to reduce these administrative costs over the coming year. 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $82,337,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 1 ..................................................... 85,676,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 92,696,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +10,359,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥7,020,000 

1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

The Office of Administration is responsible for providing cost-effective, administrative services to the Executive Office of the President. These services, defined by Executive Order 12028 of 1977, include financial, personnel, library and records services, information 

management systems support, and general office services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $92,696,000 for the Office of Administration, an increase of $10,359,000 above the 

amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and a decrease of 

$7,020,000 below the amount requested by the President. 

Enterprise services program.—The budget estimate for fiscal year 2005 did not reflect program savings, estimated at $800,000 a year, 

130 

from the core enterprise pilot program (now called the enterprise 

services program). Under the Administration’s proposal, these savings would be ‘‘reinvested’’ into unspecified initiatives. The Committee’s recommendation reduces the budget estimate by $400,000 

in consideration of these savings. 

Engineering and technical assistance.—The Committee recommendation deletes the $405,000 proposed for ‘‘analysis and consulting service in support of EOP core business process improvement’’ and the $520,000 included for ‘‘system engineering and technical assistance’’. These initiatives are unaffordable at this time 

due to budget constraints. 

Restoring OMB to the enterprise services program.—The Committee bill restores OMB to the enterprise services program, a 

transfer of $8,345,000 from the OMB appropriation to this appropriation. The Committee continues to believe that that is appropriate for the Office of Administration to make rental payments 

and pay other administrative expenses for EOP offices in this bill, 

including the Office of Management and Budget. 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $66,763,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 76,565,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 67,759,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +996,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥8,806,000 

The Office of Management and Budget assists the President in 

the discharge of budgetary, economic, management, and other executive responsibilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $67,759,000 for 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an increase of 

$996,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and 

$8,806,000 below the amount requested by the President. Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are listed and discussed below: 

Amount 

Staffing adjustment ............................................................................... ¥$1,000,000 

Restoration of FASAB and JFMIP transfer ........................................ +639,000 

FEA PMO staffing ................................................................................. ¥100,000 

Restoration of fiscal year 2004 transfer ............................................... ¥8,345,000 

Staffing adjustment.—The fiscal year 2005 budget estimate assumes a continuation of staffing at the fiscal year 2004 full-time 

equivalent level of 510. However, the Committee’s review of hearing data indicate that OMB has requested excess funds for staffing 

for at least the past two years. Last year, the Committee was advised that the fiscal year 2004 request of 510 FTE would involve 

no new staff, but simply extend the fiscal year 2003 staffing level 

into fiscal year 2004. However, the agency only consumed 491 FTE 

in fiscal year 2003, indicating that their fiscal year 2004 budget estimate was more than needed to maintain a constant staffing level. 

The same appears true in the fiscal year 2005 budget request, 

which requests a ‘‘continuation’’ of the 510 FTE assumed for fiscal 

131 

year 2004. Actual on board levels at the agency as of June 1, 2004 

are 499. The Committee’s recommendation assumes 500 FTE, a reduction of 10 below the budget estimate. 

Restoration of FASAB and JFMIP transfer.—The budget estimate proposed to transfer OMB’s portion of funding for the Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board and the Joint Financial 

Management Improvement Program to the Department of the 

Treasury, even though OMB would retain ‘‘lead responsibility’’ for 

these activities. The Committee believes budget and program accountability and control should go together wherever possible. As 

OMB wishes to keep the lead responsibility for these activities, the 

Committee retains these funds in OMB’s budget. 

Federal enterprise architecture program management office.— Committee hearing data indicate that OMB’s Federal enterprise architecture program management office has only one staff person assigned to it, a senior executive service member on detail from the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Committee is 

not convinced that a one-person program management office will be 

able to have any appreciable impact on the development of government-wide information technology policy. The Committee believes 

this detail position should return to the host agency and the office 

should be closed. 

Restoration of fiscal year 2004 transferred funds.—The reduction 

of $8,345,000 reflects the transfer of funds to the Office of Administration, as previously discussed. 

Reception and representation expenses.—Once again this year, the bill limits reception and representation (R&R) expenses to $1,500, 

a reduction of $1,500 below the budget estimate. The Committee 

believes this will be adequate, based upon a review of spending 

from previous years. In fiscal year 2002, OMB used $1,424.38 from 

this appropriation. Fiscal year 2003 costs were $453.28. In the first 

nine months of fiscal year 2004, there were no expenses. 

Paperwork reduction.—The Committee notes with interest OMB’s 

April 2004 report stating that federal agencies succeeded in reducing the amount of time the public spends filling out government paperwork by 1.5 percent in 2003, compared to the previous year. The 

Committee, however, is concerned that this simply represents 

streamlining of the federal paperwork filing system, rather than a 

substantive reduction in regulatory burdens on industries that pose 

barriers to economic productivity. The Committee requests that 

OMB provide, within 90 days of enactment, a report detailing its 

blueprint and master plan for realizing substantive reductions in 

regulatory burdens on industries, which, if achieved, will result in 

true savings regardless of system efficiencies. The report should 

identify regulatory areas with the greatest time, cost and volume 

burden, and note how OMB’s blueprint and master plan addresses 

these areas for substantive reduction. The Committee recommends 

that OMB first direct its reduction efforts at regulations where the 

greatest gain can be achieved with the least effort. 

The Committee considers paperwork reduction to be especially 

crucial in the area of health care, where onerous paperwork requirements often significantly elevate the cost of delivering care 

without comparable health benefits being delivered to patients. The 

Committee strongly encourages OMB to give priority attention to 

the health care area for reducing the paperwork burden on hosVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
132 

pitals and physicians and their staffs generated by the over 

130,000 pages of regulations controlled by the Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services alone, not counting the 29 other agencies 

with health care jurisdiction. Consistent with the Committee’s recommendations on the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 

Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 

2005, OMB is urged to convene and coordinate the governmentwide task force that includes industry representatives to examine 

the original intent of the underlying laws, as well as the regulations spawned by those laws, and determine where regulations 

could be coordinated and simplified to reduce costs and regulatory 

burdens while continuing to protect patients. 

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $27,832,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 27,609,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 28,109,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +277,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ +500,000 

The Office of National Drug Control Policy, established by the 

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, is charged with developing policies, 

objectives and priorities for the National Drug Control Program as 

defined by the Act and Executive Order 12880, and by the Office 

of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,109,000 for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), a $500,000 increase from the President’s request. 

Funding is directed as follows: 

Operations .............................................................................................. $25,759,000 

Policy Research ...................................................................................... 1,350,000 

PDFA methamphetamine demand reduction ...................................... 1,000,000 

Methamphetamine demand reduction.—The Committee provides an additional $1,000,000 above the budget request for the Partnership for a Drug Free America for their efforts in reducing the demand and abuse of methamphetamine. 

Staffing.—ONDCP requested 5 additional FTE for fiscal year 

2005. The Committee approves the requested FTE, but additional 

funding has not been provided due to budget constraints. 

COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $41,752,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 40,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 30,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥1,752,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

Pursuant to the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (title VII of Division C of Public Law 105–277), 

the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center serves as the central counterdrug research and development organization for the 

United States Government. 

133 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,000,000 for 

the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, a decrease of 

$10,000,000 from the President’s request. Included in the appropriation are $7,000,000 for Demand Reduction Research and Development, $3,000,000 for Supply Reduction Research and Development, and $20,000,000 for the Technology Transfer Program. 

HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $225,015,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 208,350,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 215,350,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥9,665,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ +7,000,000 

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program 

was established by the Director of ONDCP pursuant to section 

1005 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and now as reauthorized 

by section 707 of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act of 

1998 to provide assistance to Federal and State and local law enforcement entities operating in those areas most adversely affected 

by drug trafficking. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $215,350,000 for 

the HIDTA Program, an increase of $7,000,000 above the President’s request. The increase above the President’s request is to 

meet requirements to fully fund existing HIDTA program activity, 

to expand existing HIDTAs where such expansion is justified, and 

to fund new HIDTAs as appropriate. The Committee directs that 

no less than $208,000,000 of its appropriation shall be for base 

funding for the HIDTA program. Recommended funding levels are 

as follows: 

HIDTA base allocation .......................................................................... $208,000,000 

Discretionary funds for new countries ................................................. 3,000,000 

Discretionaly funds for CPOT ............................................................... 2,350,000 

Audit ....................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

The HIDTA program serves to enhance and coordinate drug control effects among local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies in order to eliminate or reduce drug trafficking, and the Committee supports a vigorous HIDTA program. To achieve its mission, 

the HIDTA program must continue to enhance individual and national performance and work to develop a system that enhances the 

synchronization of drug control efforts. In recent years however, 

the funding for the nation’s HIDTAs has remained fairly stagnant. 

Funding for the HIDTA program has increased annually, yet more 

funding every year has gone to discretionary programs to the detriment of base HIDTA funding, as shown on the following graph: 

134 

The HIDTA program has proven to be an efficient and successful 

program. The Committee reminds ONDCP that without the nation’s base HIDTAs, the discretionary program would be for 

naught. Therefore, the Committee has included an increase of 

$3,750,000 for funding for the base HIDTA program. The Committee continues to direct that HIDTAs existing in fiscal year 2005 

shall receive funding at least equal to the fiscal year 2004 initial 

allocation level, which does not include funding provided through 

the CPOT initiative. 

The Committee is aware of areas facing increased drug trafficking that may be appropriate candidates for designation as a 

HIDTA, inclusion in an existing HIDTA, or increased funding. As 

ONDCP reviews candidates for new HIDTA funding, the Committee recommends that it consider the following: increased funding for the North Texas, Appalachian, Central Florida, Central Valley, and Lake County HIDTAs; and expansion of the Gulf Coast 

HIDTA (Rapides, Calcasieu, and Lafourche parishes, Louisiana). 

The Committee recognizes the strong pressure to add new 

HIDTAs and expand those currently existing, and underscores the 

need for performance-based management to ensure that HIDTAs 

demonstrating both effectiveness and need are provided adequate 

resources. The Committee wishes to emphasize that the HIDTA 

program does not exist to serve as an entitlement for State and 

local law enforcement, and that both performance measures and 

the CPOT initiative are important tools for maintaining the HIDTA 

program’s proper focus on drug trafficking areas that have a significant national impact. 


Insert offset folio 07 here HR671.002
135 

OTHER FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $227,649,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 235,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 195,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥32,649,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥40,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $195,000,000 for 

Other Federal Drug Control Programs, a decrease of $40,000,000 

from the President’s request. The recommended appropriation includes the following: 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign ...................................... $120,000,000 

Drug Free Communities Support Program ......................................... 70,000,000 

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency ...................................................................... 1,500,000 

Counterdrug Intelligence Executive Secretariat ................................. 1,000,000 

National Drug Court Institute .............................................................. 500,000 

Performance Measures Development ................................................... 1,000,000 

National Alliance For Model State Drug Laws ................................... 500,000 

World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Membership Dues ..................... 500,000 

Subtotal, Other Federal Drug Control Programs ..................... 195,000,000 

USADA.—The Committee directs ONDCP to ensure that the release of funds to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) follow the 

grant timeline and application processes normally required of grant 

recipients. ONDCP shall not expedite the release of these funds unless ONDCP submits a justification for approval to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Public service announcements.—The Committee is aware that 

there are a number of government-sponsored public service campaigns. GAO is directed to conduct a study regarding the nature of 

these campaigns, to include a review of the following: the federal 

agencies and other participants involved; the basis and purpose of 

these sponsorships; the annual and cumulative federal government 

and other participant costs for each campaign; the target audiences, media employed, and results achieved for each campaign. 

GAO should report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than June 1, 2005. 

UNANTICIPATED NEEDS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $993,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 1,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +7,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

These funds enable the President to meet unanticipated exigencies in support of the national interest, security, or defense. Expenditures from this account may be authorized only by the President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,000,000, which is $7,000 more 

than appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and the same as the budget 

estimate. 

136 

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE OFFICIAL

RESIDENCE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $4,435,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 4,571,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,571,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +136,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

These funds support the official duties and functions of the Office 

of the Vice President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,571,000 for the Office of the Vice President, an increase of $136,000 above the 

amount enacted for fiscal year 2004 and the same as requested by 

the President. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $329,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 1 ..................................................... 333,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 333,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +4,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

These funds support the care and operation of the Vice President’s residence and specifically support equipment, furnishings, 

dining facilities, and services required to perform and discharge the 

Vice President’s official duties, functions and obligations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $333,000 for the 

Operating Expenses of the Vice President’s residence, an increase 

of $4,000 above the amount enacted in fiscal year 2004 and the 

same as requested by the President. 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS 

COMPLIANCE BOARD 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $5,401,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 5,686,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,686,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +285,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

Senate reported level .................................................................. ............................

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was reauthorized in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, Public 

Law 102–569. Under this authorization, the Access Board’s funcVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
137 

tions are to ensure compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act 

of 1968, and to develop guidelines for and technical assistance to 

individuals and entities with rights or duties under titles II and III 

of the American with Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes 

minimum accessibility guidelines and requirements for public accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities and vehicles, state and local government facilities, children’s environments, 

and recreational facilities. The Access Board also provides technical 

assistance to Government agencies, public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses on the removal of accessibility 

barriers. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,686,000 for the operations of the 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the 

funding level requested by the administration. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $73,065,356 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 74,425,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 76,925,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +3,859,644 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ +2,500,000 

Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting special studies, 

developing recommendations to prevent accidents, evaluating the 

effectiveness of the transportation safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of adverse actions involving airman 

and seaman certificates and licenses, and civil penalties issued by 

the Department of Transportation. In addition, the NTSB operates 

the NTSB Academy in Ashburn, Virginia, which was completed in 

August 2003. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $76,925,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the National Transportation Safety Board, 

an increase of $3,859,644 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level 

and $2,500,000 above the budget request. An increase over the request is provided to allow NTSB to fund eleven of its FTE currently 

on-board plus an additional five new FTE, for a total of 426 FTE. 

Further, the Committee is aware of NTSB’s shortage of accident 

investigators. The 2004 level of 235 investigators is 45 below the 

fiscal year 2001 level. In the area of the Office of Aviation Safety, 

the effect has been minimal for the past several years only because 

there has not been a major airline accident. However, the affect in 

2005 is intensifying—NTSB will not be able to launch investigators 

to all civil aviation accidents involving fatalities in fiscal 2005. 

Therefore, the Committee requires the additional funds provided 

over the request to be used to hire accident investigators. 

138 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, fiscal year 2004 ............................................................... ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... ¥$8,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥8,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥8,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a rescission of $8,000,000 from 

funds provided in P.L. 106–246 for the investigation of Egypt Air 

990 and Alaska Air 261 accidents. The Board has determined the 

causes of these accidents and the funding is no longer required. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $50,938,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 52,159,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 52,159,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +1,221,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

The Commission administers the disclosure of campaign finance 

information, enforces limitations on contributions and expenditures, supervises the public funding of Presidential elections, and 

performs other tasks related to Federal elections. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $52,159,000 for 

the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an increase of $1,221,000 

over amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and the same as the 

budget request. The Committee has added a new provision prohibiting the FEC from accepting reports and filings in any form other 

than electronically. 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $1,193,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 20,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 15,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +13,807,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥5,000,000 

The Election Assistance Commission was established by the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) and is charged with implementing provisions of that Act relating to the reform of Federal 

election administration throughout the United States, including the 

development of voluntary voting systems guidelines, the certification and testing of voting systems, studies of election administration issues, and the implementation of election reform payments to 

states as well as grant programs related to election reform. 

139 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000 for 

the Election Assistance Commission, an increase of $13,807,000 

above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $5,000,000 below the 

budget request. Of the amount provided, $5,000,000 is made available to the Commission to address the desperate need for research 

and standardization of election systems, of which not less than 

$2,500,000 is to be transferred to the National Institute for Standards and Technology for activities authorized under HAVA. 

The Commission has a number of requirements and activities set 

forth in HAVA intended to assist states and voters in the area of 

election reform. The Committee directs the Commission to first address standards and technology issues as related to voting equipment. Billions of dollars have already been disseminated to the 

States for voting equipment, and yet no standards exist for what 

technology meets the needs of States and voters. Second, the Commission was directed by HAVA to create the Help America Vote 

Foundation and provide grants to various organizations working to 

increase voter participation. At this time, the Committee is unaware that any nominations to the Foundation have gone forward, 

nor have any grants directed last year’s report been obligated. The 

Committee directs the Commission to complete these mandated 

tasks before September 30, 2005. To help the Commission remain 

focused on the aforementioned activities, and others as authorized 

under HAVA, the Committee has included a provision prohibiting 

the Commission from using funds available under this heading to 

lobby for a change to the general election date. 

ELECTION REFORM PROGRAMS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $1,491,150,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 30,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥1,491,150,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥30,000,000 

This appropriation provides for election reform requirements 

payments to states under Section 127 of the Help America Vote Act 

of 2002, as well as other grant programs authorized by that Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation does not include funds for Election Reform Programs, a decrease of $1,491,150,000 from the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level and $30,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee notes that the Election Assistance Commission was 

not created until January 2004, and the research and standards 

portions of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 are still not underway or implemented. It is the Committee’s recommendation to wait 

on additional reform funds until voting technology standards are in 

place. 

140 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $29,436,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 29,673,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 29,673,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +237,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), established by 

the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, serves as a neutral party in 

the settlement of disputes that arise between unions, employees, 

and agencies on matters outlined in the Federal Service Labor 

Management Relations statute, decides major policy issues, prescribes regulations, and disseminates information appropriate to 

the needs of agencies, labor organizations, and the public. Establishment of the FLRA gives full recognition to the role of the Federal Government as an employer. Pursuant to the Foreign Service 

Act of 1980, FLRA also supports the Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel and the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,673,000 for 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority, an increase of $237,000 

above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $18,362,021 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 19,496,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 19,362,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +999,979 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥134,000 

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) was established in 

1961 as an independent government agency, responsible for the 

regulation of shipping in the foreign trades of the United States. 

The Commission’s five members are appointed by the President 

with the advice and consent of the Senate. While FMC’s jurisdiction encompasses many facets of the maritime industry, it has no 

jurisdiction over vessel operations, navigation, vessel construction, 

vessel documentation, vessel inspection, licensing of seafaring personnel, or the maintenance of navigational aids or dredging. The 

principal shipping statutes administered by the FMC are the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 USC app. 1710 et seq), the Foreign Shipping 

Practices Act of 1988 (46 USC app. 1701 et seq), and section 19 of 

the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 USC app. 876). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,362,000 for 

the Federal Maritime Commission, an increase of $1,133,979 (6.2 

percent) above the fiscal year 2004 level and equal to the budget 

request for fiscal year 2005. 

141 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND

Appropriations: Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. $443,369,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ 0 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ 0 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥443,639,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

Limitations on Availability of Revenue: 

Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2004 enacted to date ... (6,758,208,000) 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal year 2005 (7,173,724,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ (6,996,741,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 to date ....................... (+238,533,000) 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2005 estimate ..................... (¥176,983,000) 

The Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) finances the activities of the 

Public Buildings Service, which provides space and services for federal agencies in a relationship similar to that of landlord and tenant. The FBF, established in 1975, replaces direct appropriations 

by using income derived from rent assessments, which approximate 

commercial rates for comparable space and services. The Congress 

makes funds available through a process of placing limitations on 

obligations from the FBF as a way of allocating funds for various 

FBF activities. The Congress may also appropriate funds into the 

FBF as a way of covering the difference between the total revenues 

coming into the FBF and the total limitation on the expenditure 

from the FBF. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Similar to the budget request, the Committee’s recommendation 

does not include a direct appropriation to the Federal Buildings 

Fund, a decrease of $443,369,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level for direct appropriations. However, the Committee recommends a limitation of $6,996,741,000 for the fund, an increase 

of $238,533,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and 

$176,983,000 below the budget request. 

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION

Limitations on Availability of Revenue: Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2004 enacted to date ... ($708,268,000) 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal year 2005 (650,223,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ (522,251,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 to date ....................... (¥186,017,000) 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2005 estimate ..................... (¥127,972,000) 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $522,251,000 for construction and acquisition, a decrease of $186,017,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $127,972,000 below the budget request. Changes to the budget request include a decrease of 

$14,054,000 for the proposed design of a new Federal Bureau of Investigation facility in Los Angeles, California; a decrease of 

$53,170,000 for the proposed purchase of 10 West Jackson Boulevard in Chicago, Illinois; and a decrease of $60,714,000 from the 

budget request of $63,462,000 for the proposed construction of a 

142 

United States Courthouse in El Paso, Texas. Funds are provided 

for the on-going design and site acquisition of the El Paso courthouse. The Committee’s recommendations are made without prejudice. 

The Committee directs GSA to continue its collaboration with the 

Administrative Office of the Courts and the Office’s 5-year plan 

and priority ranking recommendations. The Committee appreciates 

the actions of the courts to submit a priority ranking of courthouse 

construction project needs to the Committee and, without negating 

its continued concerns regarding courthouse project costs, reiterates its intention to follow this priority ranking in its future recommendations. The Committee expects that this ranking sufficiently reflects all security concerns and caseload demands as well 

as any extenuating circumstances. 

REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS

Limitations on Availability of Revenue: 

Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2004 enacted to date ... ($991,300,000) 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal year 2005 (980,222,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ (931,211,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 to date ....................... (¥60,089,000) 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2005 estimate ..................... (¥49,011,000) 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $931,211,000 for repairs and alterations, a decrease of $60,089,000 below the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level and $49,011,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation does not propose to delete any 

projects included in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. Rather, 

the Committee recommends a reduction to the limitation in order 

to inspire GSA to better manage their extensive buildings portfolio. 

The General Accounting Office has reported an alarming amount 

of vacant or underutilized space held by GSA (GAO–03–747, ‘‘Federal Real Property’’). By better portfolio management, GSA would 

have funds available in the fund in order to meet the repair and 

maintenance needs of buildings actually in use by the government. 

The Committee directs GSA to embark on the projects included in 

the budget request in priority order, starting with those projects 

that address safety and health needs and moving next to the 

projects with completed designs. 

In addition to the projects proposed in the fiscal year 2005 budget request, the Committee has added an additional project in the 

District of Columbia. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 from 

repair and alterations to move the steam distribution system at 

17th and E Streets Northwest. 

INSTALLMENT ACQUISITION PAYMENTS

Limitations on Availability of Revenue: 

Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2004 enacted to date ... (169,745,000) 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal year 2005 ($161,442,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ ($161,442,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 to date ....................... (¥8,303,000) 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2005 estimate ..................... ............................

143 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $161,442,000 for installation acquisition payments, a decrease of $8,303,000 below the 

fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

RENTAL OF SPACE

Limitations on Availability of Revenue: Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2004 enacted to date ... ($3,280,187,000) 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal year 2005 (3,672,315,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ (3,672,315,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 to date ....................... (+392,128,000) 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2005 estimate ..................... ............................

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $3,672,315,000 for 

rental of space, an increase of $392,128,000 above the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

BUILDING OPERATIONS

Limitations on Availability of Revenue: Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2004 enacted to date ... ($1,608,708,000) 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal year 2005 (1,709,522,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................ (1,709,522,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 to date ....................... (+100,814,000) 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2005 estimate ..................... ............................

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,709,522,000 for 

building operations, an increase of $100,814,000 above the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

GENERAL ACTIVITIES

GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $56,050,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 62,100,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 62,100,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +6,050,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriations account provides for government-wide policy 

and evaluation activities associated with the management of real 

and personal property assets and certain administrative services; 

government-wide policy support responsibilities relating to acquisition, telecommunications, information technology management, and 

related technology activities; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 

3109. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $62,100,000 for 

government-wide policy, an increase of $6,050,000 above the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee directs GSA to continue the recent diligence and 

oversight to strengthen and improve the integrity of the Federal 

Technology Service’s program. Actions already taken by GSA on 

144 

the order of employee terminations and initiating investigative audits in other regions demonstrates GSA’s commitment to fixing the 

program. The Committee directs GSA to report 90 days after enactment on the extent and progress GSA has made to audit the Federal Technology Service and other similar GSA programs in all regions, what weaknesses have been identified, and what corrective 

actions GSA has taken to remedy the situation agency wide. 

The Committee is concerned about reports that GSA, in contracting-out the Federal Procurement Data System, may have reduced public access and made that access more expensive, especially through the Freedom of Information Act. The Committee 

urges GSA to ensure that the contract does not render any information available prior to the contract award unavailable under the 

current contract, including the full data. The Committee urges GSA 

to move quickly to free public access via the agency’s website. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $87,590,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 82,175,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 82,175,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥5,415,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriations account provides for government-wide activities associated with the utilization and donation of surplus personal property; disposal of real property; telecommunications, information technology management, and related technology activities; 

agency-wide policy direction and management; ancillary accounting, records management, and other support services; services as 

authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and other related operational expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $82,175,000 for operating expenses, a decrease of $5,415,000 below the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation includes $300,000 for continuation of the 

web wise kids project and $150,000 for public service recognition 

week. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $38,938,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 42,351,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 42,351,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +3,413,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and investigative 

functions to identify and correct GSA management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The audit function 

provides internal audit and contract audit services. Contract audits 

provide professional advice to GSA contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to the negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of GSA operations and programs, test 

145 

internal control systems, and develop information to improve operating efficiencies and enhance customer services. The investigative 

function provides for the detection and investigation of improper 

and illegal activities involving GSA programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $42,351,000 for the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $3,413,000 above the 

fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT (E-GOV) FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $2,982,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 5,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +2,018,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

The appropriation provides support for interagency electronic 

government (E-gov) initiatives that utilize the Internet or other 

electronic methods as a means to increase Federal Government accessibility, efficiency, and productivity. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for the electronic government fund, an increase of $2,018,000 above 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation does not include a general provision proposed in the fiscal year 2005 budget request allowing the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to use $40,000,000 of 

surplus funds in the General Supply Fund to finance OMB’s list of 

e-gov initiatives across government. First, the Committee will not 

relinquish oversight over the development and procurement of information technology projects of the various agencies under its jurisdiction. Second, if the General Supply Fund is running a 

$40,000,000 or greater surplus, the Committee directs GSA to 

evaluate the pricing structure of its services to federal agencies to 

determine if GSA is overcharging its federal clients. Third, if OMB 

seeks funding for an initiative under its direction, OMB should request those funds under its own appropriation complete with a 

comprehensive budget justification. 

ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $3,373,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 3,449,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,449,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +76,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation provides support consisting of pensions, office 

staffs, and related expenses for former Presidents Gerald R. Ford, 

Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bill Clinton and 

for pension and postal franking privileges for the widow of former 

146 

President Lyndon B. Johnson. Also, this appropriation is authorized to provide funding for security and travel related expenses for 

each former President and the spouse of a former President pursuant to section 531 of Public Law 103–329. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,449,000 for 

allowances and office staff of former Presidents, an increase of 

$76,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as 

the budget request. The following table describes the distribution 

of the funds: 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Ford Carter Reagan Bush Clinton Widows Total 

Personal Compensation ............................................... $96 $96 $96 $96 $96 $0 $480 

Personnel Benefits ....................................................... 22 2 33 51 78 0 186 

Benefits for Former Presidents .................................... 182 182 182 182 189 20 937 

Travel ........................................................................... 44 2 2 54 44 0 146 

Rental Payments to GSA ............................................. 105 102 147 175 460 0 989 

Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous 

Charges: 

Telephone ............................................................ 15 10 18 14 54 0 111 

Postage ............................................................... 9 15 5 13 10 2 54 

Printing ........................................................................ 5 5 6 14 8 0 38 

Other Services .............................................................. 38 79 45 66 146 0 374 

Supplies and Materials ............................................... 17 5 9 14 15 0 60 

Equipment .................................................................... 6 7 2 34 5 0 54 

Total Obligations ......................................................... 539 505 545 713 1,105 22 3,429 

In addition to the amounts in the above table, $20,000 is provided for infrastructure contingency planning. 

EXPENSES, PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... $7,700,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,700,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +7,700,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation provides for costs associated with the orderly 

transfer of executive leadership in accordance with the Presidential 

Transition Act of 1963. Funds for these activities are requested 

only in a presidential election year. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,700,000 for the expenses associated with a presidential transition, the same as the budget request. 

No funds were requested or appropriated for this purpose in fiscal 

year 2004. 

The Committee’s recommendation also includes the provision 

proposed in the budget request allowing $1,000,000 of the amount 

appropriated to remain available for training and briefings of incoming appointees associated with the second term of an incumbent President. The remaining $6,700,000 would be returned to the 

general fund of the Treasury. 

147 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Section 401. The Committee continues the provision that provides that costs included in rent received from government corporations for operation, protection, maintenance, upkeep, repair and 

improvement shall be credited to the Federal Buildings Fund. 

Section 402. The Committee continues the provision providing 

authority for the use of funds for the hire of motor vehicles. 

Section 403. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that funds made available for activities of the Federal Buildings 

Fund may be transferred between appropriations with advance approval of the Congress. 

Section 404. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for developing courthouse construction requests 

that do not meet GSA standards and the priorities of the Judicial 

Conference. 

Section 405. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that no funds may be used to increase the amount of occupiable 

square feet, provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or 

any other service usually provided, to any agency which does not 

pay the requested rent. 

Section 406. The Committee continues the provision that permits GSA to pay small claims (up to $250,000) made against the government. 

Section 407. The Committee includes a new provision proposed 

in the budget request allowing the sale of the Middle River Depot 

at Middle River, Maryland. 

Section 408. The committee includes a new provision proposed in 

the budget request allowing contracts to be used for property studies, deed inspection, and relocation expenses. 

Section 409. The Committee includes a new provision allowing 

the GSA to convey property and retain the proceeds in the Federal 

Buildings Fund. 

Section 410. The Committee includes a new provision allowing 

for the sale of property in Nahant, Massachusetts. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $32,683,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 37,303,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 34,683,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ..................................................... +2,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... ¥2,620,000 

The Merit Systems Protection Board performs the adjudicatory 

functions necessary to maintain the civil service merit system. 

These include hearing appeals on adverse actions, reduction-inforce actions, and retirement. The Board reports to the President 

on whether merit systems are sufficiently free from prohibited personnel practices to protect the public interest. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,683,000 for 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an increase of 

$2,000,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and 

148 

a decrease of $2,620,000 below the budget request. The decrease 

from the budget request reflects the Committee’s decision to continue the practice of appropriating funds to MSPB from the Civil 

Service Retirement and Disability Fund rather than discontinuing 

this practice as proposed in the budget request as this proposal has 

not been adequately justified. The Committee has instead made 

available the amount of no more than $2,620,000 for adjudicated 

appeals through an appropriation from the trust fund consistent 

with past practice. 

MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION 

MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TRUST FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $1,984,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,984,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ +1,984,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,984,000 for the activities of the 

Morris K. Udall Foundation, an amount equal to the fiscal year 

2004 enacted level. The Committee also continues bill language to 

allow a percentage of the appropriation to be used for the Native 

Nations Institute. 

ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $1,301,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 700,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,301,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ +701,000 

Public Law 105–156 established the United States Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution as part of the Morris K. Udall 

Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy 

Foundation. It also established in the Treasury an Environmental 

Dispute Resolution Fund to be available to establish and operate 

the Institute. The purpose of the Institute is to conduct environmental conflict resolution and training. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,301,000 for 

the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund, an amount equal to 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

149 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $255,185,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 266,945,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 264,185,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ..................................................... +9,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... ¥2,760,000 

This appropriations provides the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) with funds for its basic operations dealing 

with management of the Government’s archives and records, operation of Presidential libraries, and for the review for declassification of classified security information. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $264,185,000 for 

the operating expenses of NARA, an increase of $9,000,000 above 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $2,760,000 below the budget 

request. The Committee’s recommendation includes funds to reimburse the Reagan library for NARA’s costs associated with the funeral. 

ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARCHIVE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $35,702,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... $35,914,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... $35,914,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ..................................................... +212,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... ............................

The electronic records archive appropriations supports all direct 

NARA actions and activities associated with this major project for 

preserving digitally created records for archival purposes, storing 

and managing them electronically, and ensuring appropriate longterm access. The appropriation supports a program office, research 

partnerships, and information technology analysis and design. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,914,000 for 

the electronic records archive of the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA), an increase of $212,000 above the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. A portion of the funds, $22,000,000, is made available for three years. 

As stated in the Committee’s report for fiscal year 2004, NARA 

is directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations quarterly reports on the cost, schedule, and performance of the ERA project. These quarterly reports should provide information on the status of the project’s schedule, budget, and expenditures as measured against a reported baseline; a 

prioritization of project risks and their mitigation efforts; and corrective actions taken to manage identified schedule slippages, cost 

overruns, or quality problems should they occur. 

150 

REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $13,627,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 6,182,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,182,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ..................................................... ¥6,445,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... +1,000,000 

This appropriation provides for the repair, alteration, and improvement of Archives facilities and Presidential libraries nationwide. It enables the National Archives to maintain its facilities in 

proper condition for visitors, researchers, and employees, and also 

maintain the structural integrity of the buildings. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,182,000 for 

repairs and restoration, a decrease of $6,445,000 below the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level and $1,000,000 over the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes $500,000 for technical 

assistance to the Nixon library to help prepare for the transfer of 

documents to that library and $750,000 for technical assistance to 

address maintenance issues at the Roosevelt library in New York. 

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION

GRANTS PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $9,941,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 3,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ..................................................... 6,941,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... ............................

This program provides for grants funding that the Commission 

makes, nationwide, to preserve and publish records that document 

American history. Administered within the National Archives and 

Records Administration, which preserves federal records, the 

NHPRC helps state, local, and private institutions preserve nonfederal records, helps publish the papers of major figures in American history, and helps archivists and records managers improve 

their techniques, training, and ability to serve a range of information users. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000 for 

the National Historical Publications and Research Commission 

grants program, a decrease of $6,941,000 below the fiscal year 2004 

enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $10,675,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 11,238,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 11,238,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ..................................................... +563,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... ............................

151 

The Office of Government Ethics (OGE), established by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, provides overall direction of executive branch policies designed to prevent conflicts of interest and insure high ethical standards. The OGE discharges its responsibilities to preserve and promote public confidence in the integrity of 

executive branch officials by developing rules and regulations pertaining to conflicts of interest, post employment restrictions, standards of conduct, and public and confidential financial disclosure in 

the executive branch. It monitors compliance with public and confidential financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, to determine 

possible violations of applicable laws or regulations and recommending appropriate corrective action. OGE also consults with and 

assists various officials in evaluating the effectiveness of applicable 

laws and the resolution of individual problems, and prepares formal advisory opinions, informal letter opinions, policy memoranda, 

and Federal Register entries on how to interpret and comply with 

the requirements on conflicts of interest, post employment, standards of conduct, and financial disclosure. Finally, OGE issues and 

amends regulations implementing the procurement integrity provisions relating to negotiating for employment, post employment, and 

gratuities in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act Amendments of 1988, P.L. 100–679. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,238,000 for 

the Office of Government Ethics, an increase of $563,000 above the 

enacted fiscal year 2004 level and the same as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $118,793,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 131,238,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 120,444,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ..................................................... +1,651,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... ¥10,847,000 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is the Federal Government agency responsible for management of Federal human resources policy and oversight of the merit civil service system. Although individual agencies are increasingly responsible for personnel operations, OPM provides a Government-wide policy framework for personnel matters, advises and assists agencies (often on 

a reimbursable basis), and ensures that agency operations are consistent with requirements of law, with emphasis on such issues as 

veterans preference. OPM oversees examining of applicants for employment, issues regulations and policies on hiring, classification 

and pay, training, investigations, and many other aspects of personnel management, and operates a reimbursable training program 

for the Federal Government’s managers and executives. OPM is 

also responsible for administering the retirement, health benefits 

and life insurance programs affecting most federal employees, retired federal employees, and their survivors. 

152 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $120,444,000 for 

the Office of Personnel Management, an increase of $1,651,000 

above the enacted fiscal year 2004 level and $10,847,000 below the 

budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the enterprise human resources integration project; $6,615,000 for e-payroll; $800,000 for e-human resources information system project; 

$2,000,000 for e-clearance; and $3,000,000 for the recruitment one 

stop program as proposed in the budget request. The recommendation also provides $128,462,000 from appropriate trust funds to 

OPM. 

The Committee’s recommendation makes the following changes 

to the budget request: 

• Human Capital—Performance Culture under Strategic 

Human Resources Policy should not exceed the fiscal year 2004 

level of $5,779,000 (¥$892,000 and ¥2 FTE from the request). 

• ‘‘Providing advice to agencies’’ under Human Capital Leadership Merit Systems Accountability should not exceed the fiscal year 2004 level of $16,813,000 for salaries and expenses 

(¥$536,000 and ¥5 FTE from the request). The Committee 

suggests subtracting funds from activities related to the ‘‘Promote Public Trust in the Federal Workforce’’ initiative. 

• The Compliance Program under Human Capital Leadership Merit Systems Accountability should not exceed the 2004 

level of $16,472,000 (¥$901,000 and ¥6 FTE from the request). 

• Management Strategy is funded at $46,247,000 

(¥$5,000,000). The Subcommittee’s recommendation does not 

include $5,000,000 as proposed to finance the performance 

measurement and program evaluation strategy and spending 

plan. 

• E-gov initiative fees are not funded (¥$1,028,000). The 

Subcommittee has provided requested funds for the e-gov initiatives relevant to OPM’s mission. 

• Completion of the current retirement readiness project 

(+$250,000). 

• Expansion of the retirement readiness project to non-federal government employees (+$500,000). 

The Committee allows the Director some flexibility to allocate 

the remaining funds across the proposals included in the fiscal year 

2005 budget request. The Committee directs the office to submit an 

operating plan for fiscal year 2005, signed by the director for review by the Committees on Appropriations of both the House and 

Senate within 60 days of the bill’s enactment. The operating plan 

should include funding levels for the various offices, programs and 

initiatives covered in the budget justification and supporting documents referenced in the House and Senate appropriations reports, 

and the statement of the managers. 

The Committee finds that the budget justification materials are 

severely lacking in any real detail about the programs proposed or 

underway at OPM and the resources involved. Many of the verbose 

descriptions in the budget justification did not provide concrete inVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
153 

formation on the programs, activities and funding requirements 

and changes to OPM’s work. 

The Committee directs OPM to include with the ‘‘Annual Report 

on Locality-Based Comparability Payments for the General Schedule’’ in fiscal year 2005 and all future fiscal years a report comparing the total pay and non-pay compensation packages of the 

Federal workforce and the private sector. 

The Committee welcomes the decision by OPM to make health 

savings accounts a part of the benefits package available to federal 

employees. 

The Committee directs the OPM director to respond to the formal 

request of by the Butner Low Security Correctional Institution regarding its petition on the Central Carolina/Richmond-Petersburg 

wage area within 30 days of enactment of this Act. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $1,489,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 1,627,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,627,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ..................................................... +138,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................... ............................

This appropriation provides agency-wide audit, investigative, 

evaluation, and inspection functions to identify management and 

administrative deficiencies, which may create conditions for fraud, 

waste and mismanagement. The audits function provides internal 

agency audit, insurance audit, and contract audit services. Contract 

audits provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on 

accounting and financial matters regarding the negotiation, award, 

administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of agency operations, including 

financial statements. Evaluation and inspection services provide 

detailed technical evaluations of agency operations. Insurance audits review the operations of health and life insurance carriers, 

health care providers, and insurance subscribers. The investigative 

function provides for the detection and investigation of improper 

and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,627,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management, an increase of $138,000 from the fiscal year 2004 enacted 

level and the same as the budget request. 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR ANNUITANTS, EMPLOYEES HEALTH

BENEFITS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $7,219,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 8,135,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,135,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +916,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation covers: (1) the Government’s share of the cost 

of health insurance for 1,851,000 annuitants as defined in sections 

8901 and 8906 of title 5, United States Code; (2) the Government’s 

154 

share of the cost of health insurance for about 12,000 annuitants 

(who were retired when the federal employees health benefits law 

became effective), as defined in the Retired Federal Employees 

Health Benefits Act of 1960; and (3) the Government’s contribution 

for payment of administrative expenses incurred by the Office of 

Personnel Management in administration of the act. 

Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the Committee directs OPM to report on the number of FEHBP plans that 

are currently offering acupuncture services on a voluntary basis. 

Additionally, the Committee directs OPM to submit a report not 

later than 3 months after enactment of this Act on the projected 

cost of negotiating acupuncture as a standard benefit in all FEHBP 

contracts, including current workers and retirees, for calendar year 

2006, with employee cost-sharing at the same rates as other medical benefits in each plan. 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR ANNUITANTS, EMPLOYEES LIFE

INSURANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $35,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 35,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 35,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation finances the Government’s share of premiums, which is one-third the cost, for basic life insurance for annuitants retiring after December 31, 1989, and who are less than 

65 years old. 

PAYMENT TO CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $9,987,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 9,772,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 9,772,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. ¥215,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation provides for payment of annuities, including 

the payment of annuities under special acts for persons employed 

on the construction of the Panama Canal or their widows and widows of employees of the Lighthouse Service; payment of the government share of retirement costs of the unfunded liability resulting 

from any statute authorizing new or liberalized benefits, extension 

of retirement coverage, or pay increases; transfers for interest on 

unfunded liability and payment of military service annuities covering interest on the unfunded liability and annuity disbursements 

for military service; payments for spouse equity providing survivor 

annuities to eligible former spouses of annuitants who died between September 1978 and May 1986 and did not elect survivor 

coverage; and transfers for payment of FERS supplemental liability 

covering annual amortization payments financing supplemental liabilities for FERS. 

155 

HUMAN CAPITAL PERFORMANCE FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $994,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... $300,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 12,514,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +11,520,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ¥287,486,000 

This appropriation provides for the establishment of a Human 

Capital Performance Fund within the Office of Personnel Management. Allotments from this fund will be transferred to other Federal agencies in amounts as may be determined by the Director of 

OPM within the guidelines established by authorizing legislation, 

provided that such agencies submit a performance pay plan for the 

Director’s approval. Awards to individual employees from this fund 

for performance will become part of those employees’ base pay. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,514,000 for 

the Human Capital Performance Fund, obligation of which is contingent upon authorizing legislation. In order to ensure the continuation of proper oversight and control over agency personnel 

budgets, the Committee has included language directing OPM to 

notify the relevant subcommittees of jurisdiction of the Committees 

on Appropriations of any performance pay plan that has been approved for any agency, including the amounts to be obligated or 

transferred, and that funds for any plan shall not be obligated or 

transferred without those subcommittees’ prior approval. The Committee further directs OPM to report annually to the Committees 

on Appropriations on the performance pay plans that have been approved, and the amounts that have been obligated or transferred. 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $13,424,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 15,449,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 15,449,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +2,025,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

The Office of Special Counsel: (1) investigates federal employee 

allegations of prohibited personnel practices (including reprisal for 

whistleblowing) and, when appropriate, prosecutes before the Merit 

Systems Protection Board; (2) provides a channel for whistleblowing by federal employees; and (3) enforces the Hatch Act. The 

Office may transmit whistleblower allegations to the agency head 

concerned and require an agency investigation and a report to the 

Congress and the President when appropriate. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,449,000 for 

the Office of Special Counsel, an increase of $2,025,000 above the 

fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

156 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 

PAYMENT TO THE POSTAL SERVICE FUND

The Postal Service is funded almost entirely by Postal rate payers rather than tax payers. Funds provided to the Postal Service 

in the Payment to the Postal Service Fund include the costs of revenue forgone on free and reduced-rate mail for the blind and overseas voters; reconciliation adjustments for amounts appropriated 

for free and reduced rate mail and the actual amounts required; 

and partial reimbursement for losses which the Postal Service incurred as a result of insufficient appropriations in fiscal years 1991 

through 1993 and the additional revenues it would have received 

between 1993 and 1998 in the absence of certain rate phasing provisions of the Revenue Forgone Act of 1993. Congress does not provide funds for either general operations or capital investments. 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $65,135,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 61,709,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 61,709,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 .................................................. ¥3,426,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2004 ................................................ ............................

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $61,709,000 in 

fiscal year 2005 for Payment to the Postal Service Fund, an 

amount equal to the President’s request. A balance of $36,521,000 

of fiscal year 2005 funds reflects the advance appropriation for free 

mail for the blind and overseas voters for fiscal year 2005 provided 

in the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for 

fiscal year 2004. 

The Committee has provided an advance appropriation for fiscal 

year 2006 for free mail for the blind and overseas voters; this is 

the same amount requested by the President. However, the Committee has concerns with the new process implemented this year 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In past years, the 

OMB would use the Postal Service’s audit figures to base the advance appropriation request for free mailings for the blind and 

overseas voters. However, this year it appears that OMB simply 

took the average appropriation over a series of years to derive the 

President’s request, apparently for the sole reason that the Postal 

Service’s audit figures were higher than in previous years. This 

new system could produce funding amounts that may be either significantly lower or higher than actual sums that the Postal Service 

needs. Providing less than the Postal Service needs will only compound their financial burdens, something that the Committee has 

strongly urged the Postal Service to try and repair. In addition, the 

Committee would certainly not want to provide more funding than 

the Postal Service actually needs for these activities. The Committee is concerned that OMB’s new use of averages in determining 

the amount for free mail is inaccurate and the Committee urges 

OMB to continue to use Postal Service audit figures in the future. 

Emergency preparedness.—The Committee is concerned that 

OMB, in its fiscal year 2005 budget request, has not given attention to the safety and security of our nation’s mail system and protections for postal employees against terrorist threats. In fiscal 

157 

year 2002, Congress provided a total of $587,000,000 to improve 

mail safety and security and to replace or repair postal facilities 

destroyed or damaged in New York City as a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The Postal Service has, in addition, spent $384,000,000 of its own revenues on safety improvements and cleanup, with still more expenditures necessary for the 

full deployment of the Biohazard Detection System and the Ventilation and Filtration System. The Committee therefore directs 

OMB to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of this Act detailing the estimated amount of Federal funding that may be necessary to complete the Postal Service’s work to secure the nation’s mail system. 

Princeville, Alabama.—The Committee recommends that the 

United States Postal Service, working with local officials and community leaders, evaluate the need for a post office in Princeville, 

Alabama. The Committee directs the Postal Service to report its 

findings to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

upon completion of the evaluation. 

Vendor licensing.—The Committee commends the Postal Service 

for previously recognizing inefficiencies in its vendor licensing process associated with the system it uses for employee purchases of 

uniforms. However, the Committee is troubled to learn that, 

though the vendor licensing process was halted in 1996, eight years 

later no updated process for licensing new vendors has been established. This failure has resulted in unnecessarily limiting employees to purchasing their uniforms from a small number of vendors, 

many of which may be inconveniently located or more expensive. 

The Committee directs the USPS to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of 

this Act on a definitive plan for licensing uniform vendors, a 

timeline for the plan’s implementation and an indication of how 

and when new vendors will be added to the Uniform Program. 

Lynwood and Sauk Village, Illinois.—The Committee recommends that the United States Postal Service evaluate the need 

for the communities of Lynwood, Illinois and Sauk Village, Illinois 

to establish a new 604 ZIP Code for these two communities to 

share. It is the Committee’s understanding that no new resources 

or facilities would be needed to approve this change. The Committee directs the Postal Service to report its findings to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations upon completion of the 

evaluation. 

UNITED STATES TAX COURT 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 ......................................................... $40,187,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ....................................................... 41,180,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 41,180,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 .................................................. +993,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2005 ................................................ ............................

The U.S. Tax Court operates to handle trails and adjudication of 

controversies involving deficiencies in income, estate, and gift 

taxes. The Court also has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in 

certain excise taxes to issue declaratory judgments in the areas of 

158 

qualifications of retirement plans, exemption of charitable organizations; and to decide certain cases involving disclosure of tax information by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,180,000 for 

the U.S. Tax Court, an increase of $993,000 above the fiscal year 

enacted level. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT 

Section 501. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in this Act or 

previous appropriations Acts. 

Section 502. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act. 

Section 503. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

obligations beyond the current fiscal year and prohibits transfers of 

funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 504. The Committee continues the provision limiting consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement contracts. 

Section 505. The Committee continues the provision designating 

the city of Norman, Oklahoma, to be considered part of the Oklahoma City Transportation urbanized area for fiscal year 2005. 

Section 506. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act to be transferred without express authority. 

Section 507. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds to engage in activities that would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the 1930 Tariff Act. 

Section 508. The Committee continues the provision concerning 

employment rights of Federal employees who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed Forces. 

Section 509. The Committee continues the provision concerning 

compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 510. The Committee continues the provision of purchasing American-made equipment and products under financial 

assistance authorization. 

Section 511. The Committee includes a provision prohibiting a 

person affixing a label bearing ‘‘Made in America’’, that is not made 

in the United States. 

Section 512. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain available for 

certain purposes. 

Section 513. The Committee includes a provision providing that 

funds used by the Executive Office of the President not be used to 

request any official background investigation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Section 514. The Committee includes a provision requiring that 

cost accounting standards not apply to a contract under the Federal Health Benefits Program. 

Section 515. The Committee continues a provision regarding nonforeign area cost of living allowances. 

159 

Section 516. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

use of funds by any person or entity convicted of violating the Buy 

American Act. 

Section 517. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the expenditure of funds for abortions under the FEHBP. 

Section 518. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the expenditure of funds for abortions under the FEHBP unless the 

life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is a result of an 

act of rape or incest. 

Section 519. The Committee modifies a provision specifying reprogramming procedures by subjecting the establishment of new offices and reorganizations to the reprogramming process. 

Section 520. The Committee continues a new provision waiving 

restrictions on the purchase of non-domestic articles, materials, 

and supplies in the case of acquisition by the Federal Government 

of information technology. 

Section 521. The Committee continues a provision providing a 

sense of the House of Representatives that empowerment zones 

within cities should have the necessary flexibility to expand to include relevant communities so that empowerment zone benefits are 

equitably distributed. 

Section 522. The Committee continues a provision a sense of the 

House of Representative that all census tracts contained in an empowerment zone, either fully or partially, should be equitably accorded the same benefits. 

Section 523. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for a proposed rule relating to the determination 

that real estate brokerage is a financial activity. 

Section 524. The Committee includes a provision expressing the 

Sense of the Congress that the Department of Transportation 

should consider programs to reimburse general aviation ground 

support services at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, 

and airports within fifteen miles of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, for their financial losses due to government actions 

following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This is similar to a provision enacted for fiscal year 2004. 

Section 525. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds to implement an Essential Air Service (EAS) local 

Cost Share Participation pilot program. 

TITLE VI—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND CORPORATIONS

Section 601. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

agencies to pay costs of travel to the United States for the immediate families of federal employees assigned to foreign duty in the 

event of a death or a life threatening illness of the employee. 

Section 602. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure that all of its 

workplaces are free from the illegal use of controlled substances. 

Section 603. The Committee continues the provision regarding 

price limitations on vehicles to be purchased by the Federal Government. 

160 

Section 604. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

funds made available to agencies for travel, to also be used for 

quarter allowances and cost-of-living allowances. 

Section 605. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the government, with certain specified exceptions, from employing 

non-U.S. citizens whose posts of duty would be in the continental 

U.S. 

Section 606. The Committee continues the provision ensuring 

that agencies will have authority to pay GSA bills for space renovation and other services. 

Section 607. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

agencies to finance the costs of recycling and waste prevention programs with proceeds from the sale of materials recovered through 

such programs. 

Section 608. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that funds may be used to pay rent and other service costs in the 

District of Columbia. 

Section 609. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

payments to persons filling positions for which they have been 

nominated after the Senate has voted not to approve the nomination. 

Section 610. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

interagency financing of groups absent prior statutory approval. 

Section 611. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

the Postal Service to employ guards and give them the same special police powers as certain other federal guards. 

Section 612. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for enforcing regulations disapproved in accordance with the applicable law of the U.S. 

Section 613. The Committee continues the provision limiting the 

pay increases of certain prevailing rate employees. 

Section 614. The Committee continues the provision limiting the 

amount of funds that can be used for redecoration of offices under 

certain circumstances. 

Section 615. The Committee continues the provision to allow for 

interagency funding of national security and emergency telecommunications initiatives. 

Section 616. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to certify that a Schedule C appointment was not created 

solely or primarily to detail the employee to the White House. 

Section 617. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure that all workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual harassment. 

Section 618. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the payment of any employee who prohibits, threatens or prevents 

another employee from communicating with Congress. 

Section 619. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

Federal training not directly related to the performance of official 

duties. 

Section 620. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the expenditure of funds for implementation of agreements in nondisclosure policies unless certain provisions are included. 

Section 621. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

propaganda, publicity and lobbying by executive agency personnel 

in support or defeat of legislative initiatives. 

161 

Section 622. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

any federal agency from disclosing an employee’s home address to 

any labor organization, absent employee authorization or court 

order. 

Section 623. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds to be used to provide non-public information such as mailing 

or telephone lists to any person or organization outside the government without the approval of the Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 624. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for propaganda and publicity purposes not authorized by Congress. 

Section 625. The Committee continues the provision directing 

agency employees to use official time in an honest effort to perform 

official duties. 

Section 626. The Committee continues the provision, with technical modifications, authorizing the use of funds to finance an appropriate share of the Joint Financial Management Improvement 

Program. 

Section 627. The Committee continues the provision, with technical modifications, authorizing agencies to transfer funds to the 

Governmentwide Policy account of GSA to finance an appropriate 

share of the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program 

and other purposes. 

Section 628. The Committee continues the provision, to prohibit 

any department or agency from using appropriated funds to independently contract with private companies to provide online employment applications and processing services. 

Section 629. The Committee continues the provision that permits 

breast feeding in a federal building or on federal property if the 

woman and child are authorized to be there. 

Section 630. The Committee continues the provision that permits 

interagency funding of the National Science and Technology Council and provides for a report on the budget and resources of the National Science and Technology Council. The report should include 

the entire budget of the National Science and Technology Council. 

Section 631. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

documents involving the distribution of federal funds to indicate 

the agency providing the funds and the amount provided. 

Section 632. The Committee extends the authorization period for 

agency franchise funds by striking ‘‘October 1, 2004’’ and inserting 

‘‘October 1, 2005’’, as requested. 

Section 633. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds to monitor personal information relating to the use 

of federal internet sites to collect, review, or create any aggregate 

list that includes personally identifiable information relating to access to or use of any federal internet site of such agency. 

Section 634. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

health plans participating in the FEHBP to provide contraceptive 

coverage and provides exemptions to certain religious plans. 

Section 635. The Committee continues the provision providing 

recognition of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency as the official antidoping agency. 

Section 636. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds from being expended for the purchase of a product or service 

offered by Federal Prison Industries, Inc. unless the agency deterVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
162 

mines the products to constitute the best value to the buying agency. 

Section 637. The Committee continues a provision requiring 

agencies to evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before 

issuing the individual a government travel charge card and limits 

agency actions accordingly. 

Section 638. The Committee continues a provision allowing funds 

for official travel to be used by departments and agencies, if consistent with OMB and Budget Circular A–126, to participate in the 

fractional aircraft ownership pilot program. 

Section 639. The Committee includes a provision providing that 

funds not be used to implement or enforce regulations for locality 

pay inconsistent with recommendations of the Federal Salary 

Council. 

Section 640. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

head of each Federal agency to submit a report to Congress on the 

amount of acquisitions made by the agency from entities that manufacture the articles, materials, or supplies outside of the United 

States. 

Section 641. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds for implementation of OPM regulations limiting detailees to 

the Legislative Branch, and implementing limitations on the Coast 

Guard Congressional Fellowship Program. 

Section 642. The Committee includes a new provision eliminating 

the ten year limitations period applicable to the offset of federal 

non-tax payments, as requested. 

Section 643. The Committee includes a new provision, as requested, permitting the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

to match information, provided by the Secretary of the Treasury 

with respect to persons owing delinquent debt to the Federal Government, with information contained in the HHS National Directory of New Hires. 

Section 644. The Committee includes a new provision, as requested, allowing for the offset of federal tax refunds to collect delinquent state unemployment compensation overpayments. 

Section 645. The Committee includes a provision providing that 

the adjustment in rates of basic pay for employees under statutory 

pay systems, including prevailing rate employees, taking effect in 

fiscal year 2005 shall be an increase of 3.5 percent, subject to certain definitions and restrictions as stated. 

Section 646. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

conditions for converting an activity or function of an executive 

agency to contractor performance under provisions of OMB circular 

A–76. 

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 the rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states: 

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the 

163 

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. 

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 appropriations in 

the accompanying bill that are not authorized by law: 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Last year of 

authorization 

Authorization 

level 

Appropriations 

in last year of 

authorization 

Appropriations 

in this bill 

Title I—Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration: Federal-aid 

Highway Program .............................................. 2004 $26,433,750 $33,643,326 $34,641,000 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: 

Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs ....................................................... 2004 175,031 175,031 248,480 

Motor Carrier Safety Grants .......................... 2004 190,000 188,879 190,000 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

Operations & Research—General Fund ....... .......................... .......................... .......................... 129,514 

Operations & Research—Trust Fund ........... 2003 72,000 71,532 90,000 

National Driver Register ............................... 2003 2,000 1,987 3,600 

Highway Traffic Safety Grants ...................... 2003 225,000 223,537 225,000 

Federal Railroad Administration: 

Safety and Operations .................................. 1998 N/A N/A 137,738 

Railroad Safety ............................................. 1998 90,739 57,050 33,289 

Grants to the National Passenger Railroad 

Corporation ............................................... 2002 955,000 826,476 900,000 

Federal Transit Administration: 

Administrative Expenses ............................... 2004 56,290 .......................... 75,500 

Formula Grants ............................................. 2004 2,862,262 .......................... 767,800 

University Transportation Research .............. 2004 4,473 .......................... 1,200 

Transit Planning and Research .................... 2004 93,942 .......................... 25,200 

Job Access and Reverse Commute ............... 2004 93,196 .......................... 50,000 

Capital Investment Grants ........................... 2004 2,339,241 .......................... 642,647 

Major Capital Investment Grants ................. .......................... .......................... .......................... 1,563,198 

Formula Grants and Research ...................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 5,622,871 

Research and Special Programs: 

Research and Special Programs (Hazardous 

Materials Safety) ...................................... 1997 19,670 15,268 46,790 

Emergency Preparedness Grants .................. 1998 21,250 7,970 14,300 

Surface Transportation Board ................................ 1998 12,000 13,850 20,771 

Title II—Department of the Treasury 

Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments ................................................................. N/A N/A N/A 36,072 

Air Transportation Stabilization Program .............. N/A N/A N/A 2,000 

Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration ..................................................................... N/A N/A N/A 20,316 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ................. N/A N/A N/A 64,502 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau ......... N/A N/A N/A 82,542 

164 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Last year of 

authorization 

Authorization level 

Appropriations 

in last year of 

authorization 

Appropriations 

in this bill 

Title III—Executive Office of the President 

Compensation of the President ............................. 1999 (1) N/A 450 

White House Office, Salaries and Expenses .......... 1978 (1) N/A 59,525 

Executive Residence, Operating Expenses ............. 1978 (1) N/A 12,760 

Executive Residence, White House Repair and 

Restoration ........................................................ 1978 (1) N/A 1,900 

Council of Economic Advisors ............................... 1978 (1) N/A 4,040 

Office of Policy Development ................................. 1978 (1) N/A 2,267 

National Security Council ...................................... 1978 (1) N/A 8,932 

Office of Administration ........................................ 1978 (1) N/A 92,696 

Office of Management and Budget ....................... 2003 (1) N/A 67,759 

Unanticipated Needs .............................................. 1978 (1) N/A 1,000 

Special Assistance to the President, Salaries and 

Expenses ............................................................ 1978 (1) N/A 4,571 

Special Assistance to the President, Operating 

Expenses ............................................................ 1978 (1) N/A 333 

Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP): .. .......................... (1) N/A ..........................

ONDCP, Salaries and Expenses ............................. 2004 N/A N/A 28,109 

ONDCP, Salaries and Expenses, Model State Drug 

Laws .................................................................. N/A N/A N/A N/A 

ONDCP, Counterdrug Technology Assessment 

Center, Counterdrug Research and Development .................................................................. 2004 N/A N/A N/A 

ONDCP, Counterdrug Technology Assessment 

Center, Technology Transfer .............................. 2004 N/A N/A N/A 

ONDCP, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 

Program ............................................................. 2004 (1) N/A 215,350 

ONDCP, Other Federal Drug Control (except DrugFree Communities) ............................................ 2004 12,800 13,917 5,000 

ONDCP, Other Federal Drug Control, Media Campaign .................................................................. 2004 145,000 144,145 120,000 

Title IV—Independent Agencies 

Federal Election Commission ................................. 1981 9,400 9,662 52,159 

General Services Administration: 

Federal Building Fund .................................. N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Construction and Acquisition ....................... N/A N/A N/A 355,754 

Repairs and Alterations ................................ N/A N/A N/A 519,372 

Office of Government Ethics .................................. 1999 (1) N/A 11,238 

OPM, Human Capital Performance Fund ............... N/A N/A N/A 2,100 

1 Such sums as may be necessary. 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following statement is submitted describing 

the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

The Committee recommends the following transfers: 

Under the Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, a portion of unobligated balances is transferred to 

Federal Transit Administration. 

Under the Department of the Treasury, a number of transfers 

are allowed: (1) under Departmental Offices—Salaries and Expenses, $3,393,000 is allowed to be transferred to other Treasury 

offices for financial statement audits, (2) under Department-wide 

Systems and Capital Investments Programs, $36,072,000 is allowed 

to be transferred to other offices in pursuit of specific projects, and 

165 

(3) a number of General Provisions allow certain transfers among 

Treasury offices with the advance approval of the Committee. 

Under the Department of Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration, $2 million to the Office of Inspector General for 

audit costs. 

Under Independent Agencies, a number of transfers are allowed: 

(1) the GSA Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents account may transfer such sums as necessary to the Department of 

the Treasury for certain pension benefits, (2) the GSA Electronic 

Government Fund may transfer $5,000,000 to federal departments 

in pursuit of program goals, (3) certain trust funds may transfer 

money to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and its Inspector General, (4) OPM may transfer $21,000,000 from the 

Human Capital Performance Fund to other federal departments 

and agencies, and (5) the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 

Fund may transfer money to the Merit System Protection Board. Under the Election Assistance Commission, $2,500,000 to the 

National Institutes of Standards and Technology. 

Under general provisions: 

Title I, Sec. 172. The Committee continues the provision that allows funds for discretionary grants of the Federal Transit Administration for specific projects, except for fixed guideway modernization projects, not obligated by September 30, 2005, and other recoveries to be used for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309. 

Title I, Sec. 173. The Committee continues the provision that allows transit funds appropriated before October 1, 2003, that remain available for expenditure to be transferred. 

Title II, Sec. 201. The Committee continues the provision that allows the transfer of 5 percent of any appropriation made available 

to the IRS to any other IRS appropriation, subject to prior Congressional approval. 

Title II, Sec. 206. The Committee continues with modifications a 

provision that authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between Departmental Offices—Salaries and Expenses, Office of the Inspector 

General, Financial Management Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and 

the Bureau of the Public Debt appropriations under certain circumstances. 

Title II, Sec. 207. The Committee continues the provision that 

authorizes transfer, up to 2 percent, between the Internal Revenue 

Service and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 

under certain circumstances. 

Title V, Sec. 503. The Committee continues the provision, with 

technical modification, providing that funds made available for activities of the Federal Buildings Fund may be transferred between 

appropriations with advance approval of the Congress. 

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 strongly considers program 

performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding 

166 

recommendations. This includes a review of agency and departmental performance plans, audits, and investigations of the U.S. 

General Accounting Offices of Inspector General, and other performance-related information. The Committee’s goal is to provide 

adequate, but not excessive, resources for the programs covered by 

this Act, consistent with funding allocations provided by the Congressional budget process. 

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 italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE V—RAIL PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

PART C—PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 243—AMTRAK 

* * * * * * * 

§ 24315. Reports and audits 

(a) * * * 

ø(b) AMTRAK GENERAL AND LEGISLATIVE ANNUAL REPORT.—(1) 

Not later than February 15 of each year, Amtrak shall submit to 

the President and Congress a complete report of its operations, activities, and accomplishments, including a statement of revenues 

and expenditures for the prior fiscal year. The report— 

ø(A) shall include a discussion and accounting of Amtrak’s 

success in meeting the goal of section 24902(b) of this title; and 

ø(B) may include recommendations for legislation, including 

the amount of financial assistance needed for operations and 

capital improvements, the method of computing the assistance, 

and the sources of the assistance. 

ø(2) Amtrak may submit reports to the President and Congress 

at other times Amtrak considers desirable.¿ 

(b) AMTRAK ANNUAL REPORT AND BUDGET REQUEST.—(1) Not 

later than February 15 of each year, Amtrak shall submit to the 

President and Congress a complete report of its operations, activities, and accomplishments, including a statement of revenues and 

expenditures for the prior fiscal year. The report— 

(A) shall include a discussion and accounting of Amtrak’s 

success in meeting the goal of section 24902(a) of this title; and 

(B) may include recommendations for other legislation. 

167 

(2) Not later than May 1 of each year, Amtrak’s Board of Directors shall submit to the Secretary of Transportation Amtrak’s budget request for the fiscal year commencing 17 months later. 

(3) The Secretary shall annually submit to Congress a budget request for Amtrak as part of the President’s annual budget request 

to Congress. 

(4) Amtrak shall not submit to Congress any request for funding 

unless such request has been approved by the Secretary of Transportation. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART III—SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 443—INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 

§ 44302. General authority 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) EXTENSION OF POLICIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall extend through øAugust 31, 2004, and may extend through December 31, 2004,¿ 

December 31, 2005 the termination date of any insurance policy that the Department of Transportation issued to an air carrier under subsection (a) and that is in effect on the date of enactment of this subsection on no less favorable terms to the air 

carrier than existed on June 19, 2002; except that the Secretary shall amend the insurance policy, subject to such terms 

and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, to add coverage 

for losses or injuries to aircraft hulls, passengers, and crew at 

the limits carried by air carriers for such losses and injuries 

as of such date of enactment and at an additional premium 

comparable to the premium charged for third-party casualty 

coverage under such policy. 

* * * * * * * 

(g) AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary ømay provide¿ shall make 

available to an aircraft manufacturer insurance for loss or 

damage resulting from operation of an aircraft by an air carrier and involving war or terrorism. 

* * * * * * * 

168 

§ 44303. Coverage 

(a) * * * 

(b) AIR CARRIER LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS ARISING

OUT OF ACTS OF TERRORISM.—For acts of terrorism committed on 

or to an air carrier during the period beginning on September 22, 

2001, and ending on December 31, ø2004¿ 2005, the Secretary may 

certify that the air carrier was a victim of an act of terrorism and 

in the Secretary’s judgment, based on the Secretary’s analysis and 

conclusions regarding the facts and circumstances of each case, 

shall not be responsible for losses suffered by third parties (as referred to in section 205.5(b)(1) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) that exceed $100,000,000, in the aggregate, for all claims by 

such parties arising out of such act. If the Secretary so certifies, 

the air carrier shall not be liable for an amount that exceeds 

$100,000,000, in the aggregate, for all claims by such parties arising out of such act, and the Government shall be responsible for 

any liability above such amount. No punitive damages may be 

awarded against an air carrier (or the Government taking responsibility for an air carrier under this subsection) under a cause of action arising out of such act. The Secretary ømay¿ shall extend the 

provisions of this subsection to an aircraft manufacturer (as defined in section 44301) of the aircraft of the air carrier involved. 

* * * * * * * 

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004 

(Divsion F of Public Law 108–199) 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION F—DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION AND 

TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004 

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and 

for other purposes. 

That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 

Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 

Transportation and Treasury and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, namely: 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 115. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from the 

available unobligated balances under the programs for which funds 

are authorized under sections 1101(a)(1), 1101(a)(2), 1101(a)(3), 

1101(a)(4), and 1101(a)(5) of Public Law 105–178, as amended, of 

each State for which a project or projects in such State identified 

under this section in the statement of managers accompanying this 

Act shall be made available for necessary expenses to carry out 

169 

such project: Provided, That the amount identified for each such 

project shall be made available from the State’s unobligated balance in any of the five specified programs for which the project 

would be eligible, such selection to be at the option of the State: 

Provided further, That if a project is not otherwise eligible for funding under one of the five programs, then such project shall be 

deemed eligible and shall be funded from the unobligated balance 

of funds made available for the program for which funds are authorized under section 1101(a)(4) of Public Law 105–178, as 

amended, but not including funds setaside pursuant to section 

133(d) of title 23, United States Code: Provided further, That funds 

made available under this section may, at the request of a State, 

be transferred by the Secretary to another Federal agency to carry 

out a project funded under this section, such funds to be then administered by the procedures of the Federal agency to which such 

funds may be transferred: Provided further, That all funds made 

available for obligation under this section shall be available in the 

same manner as though such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, except that the Federal share 

payable on account of any program, project, or activity carried out 

with funds made available under this heading shall be 100 percent 

and such funds shall remain available for obligation until expended: Provided further, That all funds made available in this section shall be subject to any limitation on obligations for Federalaid highways and highway safety construction programs set forth 

in this Act or any other Act: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law and the preceding clauses of 

this provision, the Secretary of Transportation may use amounts 

made available by this section to make grants for any surface transportation project otherwise eligible for funding under title 23 or title 

49, United States Code. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 1602 OF THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT 

FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 

SEC. 1602. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the amount 

listed for each high priority project in the following table shall be 

available (from amounts made available by section 1101(a)(13) of 

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) for fiscal years 

1998 through 2003 to carry out each such project: 

No. State Project description (Dollars in 

millions) 

1. Georgia .................. I–75 advanced transportation management system in Cobb County .................. 1.7 

* * * * * * * 

89. Massachusetts ....... øConstruct I–495/Route 2 interchange 

east of existing interchange to provide 

access to commuter rail station, Littleton¿ Ayer commuter rail station improvements, land acquisition and parking improvements ..................................... 3.15 

170 

No. State Project description (Dollars in 

millions) 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 403 OF THE GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT 

REFORM ACT OF 1994 

(Public Law 103–356) 

SEC. 403. FRANCHISE FUND PILOT PROGRAMS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) TERMINATION.—The provisions of this section shall expire on 

October 1, ø2004¿ 2005. 

SECTION 122 OF THE ACT OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 

(Public law 105–119) 

SEC. 122. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to 

paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to establish, for a period of ø6 years¿ 7 years from date of enactment of 

this provision, a personnel management demonstration project providing for the compensation and performance management of not 

more than a combined total of 950 employees who fill critical scientific, technical, engineering, intelligence analyst, language translator, and medical positions in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 

Firearms. 

* * * * * * * 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

* * * * * * * 

TREASURY FRANCHISE FUND

There is hereby established in the Treasury a franchise fund 

until øOctober 1, 2004¿ October 1, 2005 to be available for expenses 

and equipment necessary for the maintenance and operation of 

such financial and administrative support services as the Secretary 

determines may be performed more advantageously as central services: Provided, That any inventories, equipment, and other assets 

pertaining to the services to be provided by such fund, either on 

hand or on order, less the related liabilities or unpaid obligations, 

and any appropriations made for the purpose of providing capital, 

shall be used to capitalize such fund: Provided further, That such 

fund shall be reimbursed or credited with the payments, including 

advanced payments, from applicable appropriations and funds 

171 

available to the Department and other Federal agencies for which 

such administrative and financial services are performed, at rates 

which will recover all expenses of operation, including accrued 

leave, depreciation of fund plant and equipment, amortization of 

Automatic Data Processing (ADP) software and systems, and an 

amount necessary to maintain a reasonable operating reserve, as 

determined by the Secretary: Provided further, That such fund 

shall provide services on a competitive basis: Provided further, 

That an amount not to exceed 4 percent of the total annual income 

to such fund may be retained in the fund for fiscal year 1997 and 

each fiscal year thereafter, to remain available until expended, to 

be used for the acquisition of capital equipment and for the improvement and implementation of Treasury financial management, 

ADP, and other support systems: Provided further, That no later 

than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, amounts in excess 

of this reserve limitation shall be deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE III—FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 33—DEPOSITING, KEEPING, AND PAYING 

MONEY 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER II—PAYMENTS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3333. Relief for payments made without negligence 

ø(a)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury is not liable for a payment 

made by the Secretary or depositary in due course and without 

negligence, of a— 

ø(A) check, draft, or warrant drawn on the Treasury or the 

depositary; and 

ø(B) debt obligation guaranteed or assumed by the United 

States Government.¿ 

(a)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury is not liable for a payment 

made by the Secretary or depositary in due course and without negligence, of— 

(A) a check, draft, or warrant drawn on the Treasury or the 

depositary; 

(B) an electronic payment issued by the Treasury or the depositary; and 

(C) a debt obligation guaranteed or assumed by the United 

States Government. 

* * * * * * * 

172 

(3) The amount of the relief shall be charged to the Check Forgery 

Insurance Fund (31 U.S.C. 3343). A recovery or repayment of a loss 

for which replacement is made out of the fund shall be credited to 

the fund and is available for the purposes for which the fund was 

established. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 37—CLAIMS 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER II—CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3716. Administrative offset 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(e) This section does not apply— 

ø(1) to a claim under this subchapter that has been outstanding for more than 10 years; or 

ø(2) when a statute explicitly prohibits using administrative 

offset or setoff to collect the claim or type of claim involved.¿ 

(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including 42 

U.S.C. 407 and 1383(d)(1), 30 U.S.C. 923(b), and 45 U.S.C. 231(m), 

regulation, or administrative limitation, no limitation shall terminate the period within which an offset may be initiated or taken 

pursuant to this section. 

(2) This section does not apply when a statute explicitly prohibits 

using administrative offset or setoff to collect the claim or type of 

claim involved. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 572 OF TITLE 40, UNITED STATES CODE 

§ 572. Real property 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) PAYMENT OF EXPENSES FROM THE FUND.— (A) AUTHORITY.—From the fund described in paragraph 

(1), the Administrator may obligate an amount to pay the 

following direct expenses incurred for the use of excess 

property and the disposal of surplus property under this 

subtitle: 

(i) * * * 

(ii) Costs of environmental and historic preservation 

services, highest and best use of property studies, utilization of property studies, deed compliance inspection, 

and the expenses incurred in a relocation. 

* * * * * * * 

173 

SECTION 453 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 

FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR SERVICE

SEC. 453. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(j) INFORMATION COMPARISONS AND OTHER DISCLOSURES.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(7) INFORMATION COMPARISONS AND DISCLOSURE TO ASSIST IN

FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION.— (A) FURNISHING OF INFORMATION BY THE SECRETARY OF

THE TREASURY.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall furnish to the Secretary, on such periodic basis as determined 

by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the 

Secretary, information in the custody of the Secretary of the 

Treasury for comparison with information in the National 

Directory of New Hires, in order to obtain information in 

such Directory with respect to persons— 

(i) who owe delinquent nontax debt to the United 

States; and 

(ii) whose debt has been referred to the Secretary of 

the Treasury in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(g). 

(B) REQUIREMENT TO SEEK MINIMUM INFORMATION.—The 

Secretary of the Treasury shall seek information pursuant 

to this section only to the extent necessary to improve collection of the debt described in subparagraph (A). 

(C) DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.— (i) INFORMATION DISCLOSURE.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall 

compare information in the National Directory of New 

Hires with information provided by the Secretary of the 

Treasury with respect to persons described in subparagraph (A) and shall disclose information in such Directory regarding such persons to the Secretary of the 

Treasury in accordance with this paragraph, for the 

purposes specified in this paragraph. Such comparison 

of information shall not be considered a matching program as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

(ii) CONDITION ON DISCLOSURE.—The Secretary shall 

make disclosures in accordance with clause (i) only to 

the extent that the Secretary determines that such disclosures do not interfere with the effective operation of 

the program under this part. Support collection under 

section 466(b) of this title shall be given priority over 

collection of any delinquent federal nontax debt against 

the same income. 

(D) USE OF INFORMATION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE

TREASURY.—The Secretary of the Treasury may use information provided under this paragraph only for purposes of 

collecting the debt described in subparagraph (A). 

(E) DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY THE SECRETARY OF

THE TREASURY.— 

(i) PURPOSE OF DISCLOSURE.—The Secretary of the 

Treasury may make a disclosure under this subparaVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
174 

graph only for purposes of collecting the debt described 

in subparagraph (A). 

(ii) DISCLOSURES PERMITTED.—Subject to clauses 

(iii) and (iv), the Secretary of the Treasury may disclose information resulting from a data match pursuant to this paragraph only to the Attorney General in 

connection with collecting the debt described in subparagraph (A). 

(iii) CONDITIONS ON DISCLOSURE.—Disclosures under 

this subparagraph shall be— 

(I) made in accordance with data security and 

control policies established by the Secretary of the 

Treasury and approved by the Secretary; 

(II) subject to audit in a manner satisfactory to 

the Secretary; and 

(III) subject to the sanctions under subsection 

(l)(2). 

(iv) ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES.— (I) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARIES.—The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary shall determine whether to permit disclosure of information under this paragraph to persons or entities described in subclause (II), based on an evaluation 

made by the Secretary of the Treasury (in consultation with and approved by the Secretary), of the 

costs and benefits of such disclosures and the adequacy of measures used to safeguard the security 

and confidentiality of information so disclosed. 

(II) PERMITTED PERSONS OR ENTITIES.—If the 

Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary determine pursuant to subclause (I) that disclosures to 

additional persons or entities shall be permitted, 

information under this paragraph may be disclosed by the Secretary of the Treasury, in connection with collecting the debt described in subparagraph (A), to a contractor or agent of either Secretary and to the Federal agency that referred such 

debt to the Secretary of the Treasury for collection, 

subject to the conditions in clause (iii) and such 

additional conditions as agreed to by the Secretaries. 

(v) RESTRICTIONS ON REDISCLOSURE.—A person or 

entity to which information is disclosed under this subparagraph may use or disclose such information only 

as needed for collecting the debt described in subparagraph (A), subject to the conditions in clause (iii) and 

such additional conditions as agreed to by the Secretaries. 

(F) REIMBURSEMENT OF HHS COSTS.—The Secretary of 

the Treasury shall reimburse the Secretary, in accordance 

with subsection (k)(3), for the costs incurred by the Secretary in furnishing the information requested under this 

paragraph. Any such costs paid by the Secretary of the 

Treasury shall be considered costs of implementing 31 

U.S.C. 3711(g) in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(g)(6) 

175 

and may be paid from the account established pursuant to 

31 U.S.C. 3711(g)(7). 

* * * * * * * 

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle F—Procedure and Administration 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 61—INFORMATION AND RETURNS 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter B—Miscellaneous Provisions 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 6103. CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLOSURE OF RETURNS AND RETURN INFORMATION. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(l) DISCLOSURE OF RETURNS AND RETURN INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN TAX ADMINISTRATION.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(10) DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION TO AGENCIES REQUESTING A REDUCTION UNDER SUBSECTION ø(C), (D), OR (E)¿ (C), 

(D), (E) OR (F) OF SECTION 6402.— 

(A) Return information from internal revenue service.— 

The Secretary may, upon receiving a written request, disclose to officers and employees of any agency seeking a reduction under subsection ø(c), (d), or (e)¿ (c), (d), (e) or (f) 

of section 6402 and to officers and employees of the Department of Labor in connection with a reduction under subsection (f) of section 6402 and to officers and employees of 

the Department of the Treasury in connection with such 

reduction— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(B) RESTRICTION ON USE OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION.— 

Any officers and employees of an agency receiving return 

information under subparagraph (A) shall use such information only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing appropriate agency records, locating 

any person with respect to whom a reduction under subsection ø(c), (d), or (e)¿ (c), (d), (e) or (f) of section 6402 is 

sought for purposes of collecting the debt with respect to 

which the reduction is sought, or in the defense of any litigation or administrative procedure ensuing from a reducVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
176 

tion made under subsection ø(c), (d), or (e)¿ (c), (d), (e) or 

(f) of section 6402. Any return information disclosed with 

respect to section 6402(e) shall only be disclosed to officers 

and employees of the State agency requesting such information. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 65—ABATEMENTS, CREDITS, AND 

REFUNDS 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter A—Procedure in General 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 6402. AUTHORITY TO MAKE CREDITS OR REFUNDS 

(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of any overpayment, the Secretary, within the applicable period of limitations, may credit the 

amount of such overpayment, including any interest allowed thereon, against any liability in respect of an internal revenue tax on 

the part of the person who made the overpayment and shall, subject to subsections ø(c), (d), and (e),¿ (c), (d), (e) and (f), refund any 

balance to such person. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) COLLECTION OF DEBTS OWED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) PRIORITIES FOR OFFSET.—Any overpayment by a person 

shall be reduced pursuant to this subsection after such overpayment is reduced pursuant to subsection (c) with respect to 

past-due support collected pursuant to an assignment under 

section 402(a)(26) of the Social Security Act øand before such 

overpayment is reduced pursuant to subsection (e)¿ and before 

such overpayment is reduced pursuant to subsections (e) and (f) 

and before such overpayment is credited to the future liability 

for tax of such person pursuant to subsection (b). If the Secretary receives notice from a Federal agency or agencies of 

more than one debt subject to paragraph (1) that is owed by 

a person to such agency or agencies, any overpayment by such 

person shall be applied against such debts in the order in 

which such debts accrued. 

* * * * * * * 

(f) COLLECTION OF PAST-DUE, LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DEBTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon receiving notice from any State that 

a person owes a past-due, legally enforceable State unemployment compensation debt to such State, the Secretary shall, 

under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary— 

(A) reduce the amount of any overpayment payable to 

such person by the amount of such unemployment compensation debt; 

(B) pay the amount by which such overpayment is reduced under subparagraph (A) to such State and notify 

177 

such State of such person’s name, taxpayer identification 

number, address, and the amount collected; and 

(C) notify the person making such overpayment that the 

overpayment has been reduced by an amount necessary to 

satisfy a past-due, legally enforceable State unemployment 

compensation debt. If an offset is made pursuant to a joint 

return, the notice under subparagraph (B) shall include the 

names, taxpayer identification numbers, and addresses of 

each person filing such return. 

(2) PRIORITIES FOR OFFSET.—Any overpayment by a person 

shall be reduced pursuant to this subsection— 

(A) after such overpayment is reduced pursuant to— 

(i) subsection (a) with respect to any liability for any 

internal revenue tax on the part of the person who 

made the overpayment; 

(ii) subsection (c) with respect to past-due support; 

(iii) subsection (d) with respect to any past-due, legally enforceable debt owed to a Federal agency; and 

(B) before such overpayment is credited to the future liability for any Federal internal revenue tax of such person 

pursuant to subsection (b). If the Secretary receives notice 

from a State or States of more than one debt subject to 

paragraph (1) and/or subsection (e) that is owed by a person to such State or States, any overpayment by such person shall be applied against such debts in the order in 

which such debts accrued. 

(3) NOTICE; CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE.—No State may 

take action under this subsection until such State— 

(A) notifies the person owing the past-due legally enforceable State unemployment compensation debt that the State 

proposes to take action pursuant to this section; 

(B) gives such person at least 60 days to present evidence 

that all or part of such liability is not past-due or not legally enforceable; 

(C) considers any evidence presented by such person and 

determines that an amount of such debt is past-due and legally enforceable; and 

(D) satisfies such other conditions as the Secretary may 

prescribe to ensure that the determination made under subparagraph (C) is valid and that the State has made reasonable efforts to obtain payment of such unemployment compensation debt. 

(4) PAST-DUE, LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT

COMPENSATION DEBT.—For purposes of this subsection, the term 

‘‘past-due, legally enforceable State unemployment compensation debt’’ means overpayments of unemployment compensation 

assessed under the law of a State certified by the Secretary of 

Labor pursuant to section 3304 of the Internal Revenue Code, 

which have become final under State law and remain uncollected. 

(5) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall issue regulations prescribing the time and manner in which States must submit notices of past-due, legally enforceable State unemployment compensation debt and the necessary information that must be contained in or accompany such notices. The regulations shall 

178 

specify the minimum amount of debt to which the reduction 

procedure established by paragraph (1) may be applied. The 

regulations may require States to pay a fee to the Secretary, 

which may be deducted from amounts collected, to reimburse 

the Secretary for the cost of applying such procedure. Any fee 

paid to the Secretary pursuant to the preceding sentence shall 

be used to reimburse appropriations which bore all or part of 

the cost of applying such procedure. The regulations may include a requirement that States submit notices of past-due, legally enforceable State unemployment compensation debt to the 

Secretary via the Secretary of Labor in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Labor. Such procedures 

may require States to pay a fee to the Secretary of Labor to reimburse the Secretary of Labor for the costs of applying this 

subsection. Any such fee shall be established in consultation 

with the Secretary of the Treasury. Any fee paid to the Secretary 

of Labor may be deducted from amounts collected and shall be 

used to reimburse the appropriation account which bore all or 

part of the cost of applying this subsection. 

(6) ERRONEOUS PAYMENT TO STATE.—Any State receiving notice from the Secretary that an erroneous payment has been 

made to such State under paragraph (1) shall pay promptly to 

the Secretary, in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, an amount equal to the amount of such 

erroneous payment (without regard to whether any other 

amounts payable to such State under such paragraph have been 

paid to such State). 

ø(f)¿ (g) REVIEW OF REDUCTIONS.—No court of the United States 

shall have jurisdiction to hear any action, whether legal or equitable, brought to restrain or review a reduction authorized by subsection ø(c), (d) or (e)¿ (c), (d), (e) or (f). No such reduction shall 

be subject to review by the Secretary in an administrative proceeding. No action brought against the United States to recover the 

amount of any such reduction shall be considered to be a suit for 

refund of tax. This subsection does not preclude any legal, equitable, or administrative action against the Federal agency or State 

to which the amount of such reduction was paid or any such action 

against the Commissioner of Social Security which is otherwise 

available with respect to recoveries of overpayments of benefits 

under section 204 of the Social Security Act. 

ø(g)¿ (h) FEDERAL AGENCY.—For purposes of this section, the 

term ‘‘Federal agency’’ means a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, and includes a Government corporation 

(as such term is defined in section 103 of title 5, United States 

Code). 

ø(h)¿ (i) TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS TO STATES.—The Secretary 

may provide that, for purposes of determining interest, the payment of any amount withheld under subsection ø(c) or (e)¿ (c), (e) 

or (f) to a State shall be treated as a payment to the person or persons making the overpayment. 

ø(i)¿ (j) CROSS REFERENCE.— For procedures relating to agency notification of the Secretary, 

see section 3721 of title 31, United States Code. 

ø(j)¿ (k) REFUNDS TO CERTAIN FIDUCIARIES OF INSOLVENT MEM- BERS OF AFFILIATED GROUPS.—Notwithstanding any other proviVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
179 

sion of law, in the case of an insolvent corporation which is a member of an affiliated group of corporations filing a consolidated return for any taxable year and which is subject to a statutory or 

court-appointed fiduciary, the Secretary may by regulation provide 

that any refund for such taxable year may be paid on behalf of 

such insolvent corporation to such fiduciary to the extent that the 

Secretary determines that the refund is attributable to losses or 

credits of such insolvent corporation. 

ø(k)¿ (l) EXPLANATION OF REASON FOR REFUND DISALLOWANCE.— In the case of a disallowance of a claim for refund, the Secretary 

shall provide the taxpayer with an explanation for such disallowance. 

* * * * * * * 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect 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. 

The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for 

more than one year for a number of programs for which the basic 

authorizing legislation does not explicitly authorize such extended 

availability. The bill provides, in some instances, for funding of 

agencies and activities where legislation has not yet been finalized. 

In addition, the bill carries language, in some instances, permitting 

activities not authorized by law, or exempting agencies from certain provisions of law, but which has been carried in appropriations 

acts for many years. 

The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, reception 

and representation expenses for the Secretary of Transportation, 

the Secretary of the Treasury and the National Transportation 

Safety Board. Similar provisions have appeared in many previous 

appropriations Acts. The bill includes a number of limitations on 

the purchase of automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. 

Similar limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations 

Acts. Language is included in several instances permitting certain 

funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended. 

In Title V of the bill, in connection with the General Services Administration, certain limitations on availability of revenue in the 

federal buildings fund and certain legislative provisions have been 

carried forward from last year. 

The bill continues a number of general provisions applying to 

agencies covered by the bill as well as certain provisions applying 

government-wide. These provisions have been carried in the prior 

year appropriations bill, and some have been carried for many 

years. Additionally, the Committee includes a number of new general provisions. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries and 

expenses’’ specifying certain amounts for individual offices of the 

Office of the Secretary and specifying transfer authority among offices. 

180 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries and 

expenses’’ which would allow crediting the account with up to 

$2,500,000 in user fees. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries 

and expenses’’ limiting the use of funds available for the position 

of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. 

Language is included that limits operating costs and capital outlays of the Working Capital Fund for the Department of Transportation and limits special assessments or reimbursable agreements 

levied against any program, project or activity funded in this Act 

to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements that are 

presented to and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committee. 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Minority 

business outreach’’ specifying that funds may be used for business 

opportunities related to any mode of transportation. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ limiting funds for certain aviation program activities. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds to plan, finalize, or implement 

any regulation that would promulgate new aviation user fees not 

specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that credits funds received from States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred in the provision of agency services. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’ that provides $7,000,000 for the contract tower cost 

sharing program and $4,000,000 for additional air traffic control 

supervisors. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant 

agreement with a nonprofit standard setting organization to develop aviation safety standards. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds for new applicants of 

the second career training program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds for Sunday premium 

pay unless an employee actually performed work during the time 

corresponding to the premium pay. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds from being used to operate a 

manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United 

States. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds for conducting and coordinating 

activities on aeronautical charting and cartography through the 

Transportation Administrative Service Center. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that allows certain funds received for 

expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 

navigation facilities to be credited to the account. 

181 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that requires the Secretary of Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment plan for the 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Research, engineering, and development’’ that allows certain funds 

received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and development to be credited to the account. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that limits funds available for the planning or execution of programs with obligations in excess of 

$3,993,000,000. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that provides not more than 

$69,302,000 for administration. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Limitation on Administrative Expenses’’ that provides a limitation on administrative expenses of the FHWA. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Federal-aid Highways’’ that provides a limitation on obligations for the Federal-aid highways program and a limitation on research programs. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Liquidation of Contract Authorization’’ that provides liquidating cash. 

Section 121 distributes an obligation authority among Federalaid highway programs. 

Section 122 provides that funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics may be credited to the Federal aid highways 

account. 

Section 123 amends section 1602 of the Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century to allow changes to a project in Massachusetts. 

Section 124 amends P.L. 102–143 to allow changes to projects in 

New Jersey. 

Section 125 amends Public Law 108–199. 

Section 126 prohibits funds to require a state or local government to post a traffic control device or variable message sign, or 

any other type of traffic signs in a language other than English, except in certain specified situations. 

Section 127 provides funding for environmental streamlining activities from the 104(a)(1)(A) ‘‘takedown’’. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Federal-aid Highways’’ that rescinds contract authority. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor Carrier Safety’’ that provides funding for 

motor carrier safety. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘National Motor Carrier Safety Program’’ that provides a limitation on obligations and liquidation of contract authorization. 

Section 141 subjects funds appropriated in this Act to the terms 

and conditions of section 350 of Public Law 107–87, including that 

the Secretary submit a report on Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. 

182 

Section 142 prohibits the use of funds in this Act to implement 

or enforce any provision of the final rule issued on April 16, 2003 

(docket no. FMCSA–9702350) as it applies to operators of utility 

service vehicles. 

Section 143 prohibits the use of funds in this Act to implement 

hour of service regulations as it applies to operators of utility service vehicles. It also precludes states from using Federal grant funds 

for this purpose. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Operations and research’’ prohibiting the planning or 

implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car tires 

for low rolling resistance. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ limiting obligations 

for certain safety grant programs. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ prohibiting the use 

of funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling costs or for 

office furniture for state, local, or private buildings. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ limiting the 

amount of funds available for technical assistance to the states 

under section 410. 

Section 140 allows states to use funds provided under section 402 

of title 23, U.S.C., to produce and place highway safety public service messages. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program’’ authorizing 

the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under sections 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program’’ that prohibits 

new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using federal 

funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation’’ that provides quarterly apportionment for funding. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative expenses’’ that reimburses $3,000,000 to the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General for costs associated 

with the audit and review of new fixed guideway systems. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative expenses’’ that allows funds to remain available until 

expended for the National transit database. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative expenses’’ that the Secretary of Transportation will 

transmit to Congress the annual report on new starts. 

Language is included under the Federal Transit Administration, 

‘‘Administrative expenses’’ reducing funds for each day that the annual report on new starts is not submitted to Congress. 

Section 171 exempts previously made transit obligations from 

limitations on obligations. 

183 

Section 172 allows funds for discretionary grants of the Federal 

Transit Administration for specific projects, except for fixed guideway modernization projects, not obligated by September 30, 2005, 

and other recoveries to be used for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 

5309. 

Section 173 allows transit funds appropriated before October 1, 

2003, that remain available for expenditure to be transferred. 

Language is included that provides funding for Saint Lawrence 

Seaway Development Corporation, and specifies an amount for the 

concrete replacement project at Eisenhower and Snell Locks. 

Section 191 prohibits obligations incurred during the current 

year from construction funds in excess of the appropriations and 

limitation contained in this Act or in any prior appropriation Act. 

Section 192 allows the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving government property under the control of MARAD 

and rental payments shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Section 193 prohibits funding for the national defense tank vessel construction assistance program authorized in P.L. 108–136 if 

any component of the vessel is constructed in a foreign shipyard. 

Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ‘‘Research and special programs’’ which would allow 

up to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts. 

Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ‘‘Research and special programs’’ that credits certain 

funds received for expenses incurred for training and other activities. 

Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ‘‘Emergency preparedness grants’’ specifying the Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate funds provided under this head. 

Language is included under Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries 

and expenses’’ that provides the Inspector General with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of fraud by any person 

or entity that is subject to regulation by the Department of Transportation. Language is also included under Office of inspector General, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ that authorizes the office of Inspector 

General to investigate unfair or deceptive practices and unfair 

methods of competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and 

ticket agents. 

Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ allowing the collection of $1,250,000 in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board; 

and providing that the sum appropriated from the general fund 

shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such fees are received. 

Section 185. The Committee continues the provision allowing the 

Department of Transportation to use funds for aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, as authorized by 

law. 

Section 186. The Committee continues the provision limiting appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for 

an Executive Level IV. 

184 

Section 187. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more than 106 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and Presidential personnel assigned 

on temporary detail outside the Department of Transportation. 

Section 188. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds for the implementation of section 404 of title 23, U.S.C. 

Section 189. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

recipients of funds made available in this Act from releasing personal information, including social security number, medical or disability information, and photographs from a driver’s license or 

motor vehicle record, without express consent of the person to 

whom such information pertains; and prohibits the withholding of 

funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 190. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 

Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration 

from states, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 

private sources to be used for expenses incurred for training may 

be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 191. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of any preferred 

stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation. 

Section 192. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in Title I of this Act for issuance of any grant unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations not less than three full business days before any 

discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant 

agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the department or its modal administrations. 

Section 193. The Committee continues a provision for the Department of Transportation allowing funds received from rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be credited to appropriations. 

Section 194. The Committee continues a provision allowing 

amounts from improper payments to a third party contractor that 

are lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation to be 

available to cover expenses incurred in recovery of such payments. 

Section 195. The Committee continues a provision allowing the 

Secretary of Transportation to transfer unexpended sums from ’ Office of the secretary, salaries and expenses’’ to ‘‘Minority business 

outreach’’. 

Section 196. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve 

assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Language has been included for Departmental Offices, Salaries 

and Expenses, that provides funds for operation and maintenance 

of the Treasury Building and Annex; hire of passenger motor vehicles; maintenance, repairs, and improvements of, and purchase of 

185 

commercial insurance policies for real properties leased or owned 

overseas; official reception and representation expenses; unforeseen 

emergencies of a confidential nature; grants to state and local law 

enforcement groups to help fight money laundering; and Treasurywide financial audits and the transfer of these funds. 

Language has been included for the Departmentwide Systems 

and Capital Investments Program that provides funds for the development and acquisition of automated data processing equipment, software, and services; and providing transfer authority. 

Language has been included for the Office of Inspector General 

that provides funds to carry out the provisions of the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, the hire of vehicles, official travel expenses, 

and unforeseen emergencies. 

Language has been included for the Treasury Inspector General 

for Tax Administration that provides for the purchase and hire of 

motor vehicles, services by 5 U.S.C. 3109, travel expenses, and unforeseen emergencies. 

Language has been included for the Financial Crime Enforcement Network that provides funds for hire of vehicles; the travel 

of non-federal personnel attending conferences or meetings involving financial law enforcement, intelligence, and regulation; the purchase of personal services contracts; and assistance to Federal law 

enforcement agencies with or without reimbursement. 

Language has been included for the Financial Management Service that provides multiple year availability for systems modernization funds. 

Language has been included for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau that provides funds for the hire of passenger motor 

vehicles, cooperative research and development; and laboratory assistance to state and local agencies with or without reimbursement. 

Language has been included for the U.S. Mint that identifies the 

source of funding for the operations and activities of the U.S. Mint; 

specifies the level of funding for circulating coinage and protective 

service capital investments; and provides reimbursement to the 

General Accounting Office for a contract study. 

Language has been included for the Bureau of the Public Debt 

that provides appropriations from the General Fund will be reduced as fees are collected, and that a portion of the funds are to 

be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for administration of the Fund. 

Language has been included for the Internal Revenue Service 

processing, assistance, and management that provides funds for 

management services, rent and utilities, services authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109, and official reception and representation expenses. 

Language also has been included that provides funds for the Tax 

Counseling for the Elderly program and for low-income taxpayer 

clinic grants. 

Language has been included for Internal Revenue Service tax 

law enforcement that provides funds for the purchase and hire of 

vehicles; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; research; and reimbursement of the Social Security Administration. 

Language has been included for Internal Revenue Service information systems that provides funds for the hire of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included for Internal Revenue Service business systems modernization that provides for the capital asset acVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
186 

quisition of information technology, including management and related contractual costs of said acquisitions, including contractual 

costs associated with operation authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 

that restricts the use of the funds. 

Language has been included for the Internal Revenue Service 

health insurance tax credit administration to implement the health 

insurance tax credit included in the Trade Act of 2003 (Public Law 

107–210). 

Section 201 allows the transfer of 5 percent of any appropriation, 

made available to the IRS, to any other IRS appropriation with 

prior Congressional approval. 

Section 202 requires the IRS to maintain a training program in 

taxpayer’s rights, dealing courteously with taxpayers, and cross 

cultural relations. 

Section 203 requires the IRS to institute policies and procedures, 

which will safeguard the confidentiality of taxpayer information. 

Section 204 requires the IRS to maintain and improve a 1–800 

help line service for taxpayers. 

Section 205 allows the Department of the Treasury to purchase 

uniforms, insurance, and motor vehicles without regard to the general purchase price limitation, and enter into contracts with the 

State Department for health and medical services for Treasury employees in overseas locations. 

Section 206 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between Departmental Offices, Office of the Inspector General, Financial Management Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Bureau of the Public Debt appropriations under certain circumstances. 

Section 207 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 

Administration under certain circumstances. 

Section 208 prohibits the Department of the Treasury from un- dertaking a redesign of the $1 Federal Reserve note. 

Section 209 provides for transfers from and reimbursements to 

the Salaries and Expenses appropriation of the Financial Management Service for the purposes of debt collection. 

Section 210 requires authorization for the construction and operation of a museum by the United States Mint. 

Section 211 establishes a permanent indefinite appropriation for 

reimbursing financial institutions in their capacity as depositaries 

and financial agents of the United States. 

TITLE III—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND 

FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT 

The Committee has continued language that mandates that unused amounts of the President’s expense allowance will revert to 

the Treasury and which provides funds for service authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109, subsistence expenses, hire of vehicles, newspapers, 

periodicals, teletype news service, travel, and official entertainment 

expenses. The Committee has continued language making funds 

available for reimbursement to the White House Communications 

Agency. 

The Committee has continued language that provides funds for 

operation and maintenance of the White House for official entertainment expenses; language specifying the authorized use of 

187 

funds; language specifying that reimbursable expenses are the exclusive authority of the Executive Residence to incur obligations 

and receive offsetting collections; language requiring the sponsors 

of political events to make advance payments; language requiring 

the national committee of the political party of the President to 

maintain $25,000 on deposit; language requiring the Executive 

Residence to ensure that amounts owed are billed within 60 days 

of a reimbursable event and collected within 30 days of the bill notice; language authorizing the Executive Residence to charge and 

assess interest and penalties on late payments; language authorizing all reimbursements to be deposited into the Treasury as a 

miscellaneous receipt; language requiring a report to the Committee on the reimbursable expenses within 90 days of the end of 

the fiscal year; language requiring the Executive Residence to 

maintain a system for tracking and classifying reimbursable 

events; and language specifying that the Executive Residence is not 

exempt from the requirements of subchapter I or II of chapter 37 

of title 31, United States Code. 

The Committee has continued language that provides funds for 

the hire of vehicles and funds for a capital investment plan that 

provides for the continued modernization of the information technology infrastructure. The Committee has language regarding information technology within the Executive Office of the President, 

requiring the submission of a report that includes a current description of (1) the Enterprise Architecture, as defined in OMB Circular A–130 and Federal Chief Information Officer guidance; (2) 

the Information Technology (IT) Human Capital Plan; (3) the capital investment plan for implementing the Enterprise Architecture; 

and (4) the IT capital planning and investment control process. The 

Committee has language requiring that this report be reviewed and 

approved by OMB and reviewed by the General Accounting Office. 

The Committee has continued language that provides funds for 

expenses, the hire of vehicles, carrying out provisions of chapter 35 

of 44 U.S.C., directs that funds shall be applied only to items for 

which appropriations were made, prohibits the review of agricultural marketing orders and the alteration of certain testimony. The 

Committee has continued language prohibiting the use of funds for 

the purpose of OMB calculating, preparing, or approving any tabular or other material that proposes the sub-allocation of budget 

authority or outlays by the Committees on Appropriations. 

The committee has continued language that provides funds for 

expenses, research, official reception and representation expenses, 

participation in joint projects, and allows for the acceptance of 

gifts. The Committee has continued language providing funds for 

model state drug law conferences and policy research and evaluation and making these funds available until expended. 

The Committee continues language previously included in Title 

IV of the bill that provides funds for necessary expenses in support 

of interagency projects that enable the Federal Government to expand its ability to conduct activities electronically through the development and implementation of innovative uses of the Internet 

and other electronic methods. The Committee continues language 

that allows funds to be transferred, upon condition, and to be available until expended. 

188 

The Committee has continued language that provides funds for 

counternarcotics research and development and the technology 

transfer program. 

The Committee has continued language that provides a certain 

level of funding for State, local and Federal drug control efforts, 

and requires obligation of funds within a specified period of time. 

The Committee continues language regarding the availability of 

funds. 

The Committee has continued language that provides a certain 

level of funding for the Drug-Free Media Campaign Act, for the 

Drug-Free Communities Act, and to provide a grant to the National 

Drug Court Institute, and for the Counterdrug Intelligence Executive Secretariat and the US Anti-Doping Agency. The Committee 

has continued language providing funding for performance measures development and for membership dues to the World AntiDoping Agency. 

The Committee has continued language that provides funds for 

operation and maintenance of the official residence of the Vice 

President, the hire of vehicles, official entertainment expenses and 

provides for the transfer of funds as necessary. The Committee has 

continued language that enables the Vice President to provide assistance to the President, services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 

subsistence, and the hire for vehicles. 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Language is included under Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ that provides 

that funds received for publications and training may be credited 

to the appropriation. The bill contains a number of general provisions that place limitations or funding prohibitions on the use of 

funds in the bill and which might, under some circumstances, be 

construed as changing the application of existing law. 

The Committee has continued language that provides funds for 

expenses of the Federal Election Commission and specifying a level 

of funding for internal automated data processing systems and reception and representation expenses. 

The Committee has included language prohibiting employees of 

the Election Assistance Commission from lobbying for changing the 

Federal election date. 

Language is included under the Federal Maritime Commission 

directing the agency to submit a report summarizing current information technology improvement initiatives and the Commission’s 

long-term technology improvement plan. 

The Committee has continued language that provides funds for 

the expenses of the authority, including authorized services, hire of 

experts and consultants, hire of passenger motor vehicles, and rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere. 

The Committee has also continued provisions on compensation for 

public members of the Federal Service Impasse Panel and of the 

use of fees charged to participants at labor-management relations 

conferences. 

Language has been included for the General Services Administration Federal Buildings Fund that specifies the conditions under 

which funds made available can be used and designates certain 

projects that can be undertaken. Many technical provisions have 

189 

been included regarding use of funds in the Federal Buildings 

Fund that are not specifically authorized by law. Language has 

been included that limits project funds available for construction 

and repair and alteration of buildings not authorized by law. A 

more detailed analysis of the Federal Buildings Funds can be found 

in the General Services Administration chapter of this report. 

Language has been included for General Services Administration 

government-wide policy that provides funds for policy and evaluation activities associated with the management of real and personal 

property assets and certain administrative services; support responsibilities relating to acquisition, telecommunications, information technology management, and related technology activities; and 

services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109. 

Language has been included for General Services Administration 

operating expenses that provides funds for expenses for activities 

associated with personal and real property; technology management and activities; information access activities; agency-wide policy direction and management; other support services; and official 

reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included for the GSA Office of Inspector General that provides funds for information and detection of fraud; and 

for awards in recognition of efforts that enhance the office. 

Language has been included for the GSA electronic government 

fund that allows these funds to be transferred. 

Language has been included for allowances and office staff for 

former Presidents that allows a portion of these funds to be transferred. 

Section 501 provides that costs included in rent received from 

government corporations for operation, protection, maintenance, 

upkeep, repair and improvement shall be credited to the Federal 

Buildings Fund. 

Section 502 authorizes the use of funds for the hire of motor vehicles. 

Section 503 provides that funds made available for activities of 

the Federal Buildings Fund may be transferred between appropriations with advance approval of the Congress. 

Section 504 prohibits the use of funds for developing courthouse 

construction requests that do not meet GSA standards and the priorities of the Judicial Conference. 

Section 505 provides that no funds may be used to increase the 

amount of occupiable square feet, provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or any other service usually provided, to any 

agency which does not pay the requested rent. 

Section 506 provides for Information Technology Fund repayment 

from sponsored projects that realize program savings. 

Section 507 permits GSA to pay small claims (up to $250,000) 

made against the government. 

Section 508 prohibits GSA from developing or implementing a 

mandatory system requiring agencies to use a specific electronic 

travel solution or the eTravel Service. 

The committee has continued language that provides funds for 

the Board, including the rental of conference rooms in the District 

of Columbia and elsewhere, the hire of passenger motor vehicles, 

and the direct procurement of survey printing. 

190 

The Committee has continued language that provides funds for 

the review and declassification of documents, the hire of passenger 

vehicles, and language that authorizes the Archivist to use excess 

funds available from the amount borrowed for construction of the 

National Archives facility for expenses necessary to provide storage 

for holdings. The Committee continues language specifying funds 

for the electronic records archive and making a portion of these 

funds available until September 30, 2005. 

Language has been included for the Morris K. Udall scholarship 

and excellence in national environmental policy trust fund that 

provides for financial audits and provides for transfers related to 

the Native Nations Institute. 

Language has been included for the environmental dispute resolution fund pursuant to the Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998. 

Language has been included for National Archives and Records 

Administration operating expenses for the hire of passenger motor 

vehicles; authority to use excess funds for holding storage; and 

preservation of the records of the Freedmen’s Bureau. 

Language has been included for the electronic archive that provides for all direct project costs associated with its development. 

Language has been included for repairs and alterations that provides funds for the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives 

facilities and presidential libraries. 

Language has been included for national historical publications 

and records commission grants that provides for activities authorized by 44 U.S.C. 2504. 

The committee has continued language that provides funds for 

the rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the hire of passenger motor vehicles, and official reception 

and representation expenses. 

The Committee has continued language that provides for services 

authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, medical examinations under certain 

conditions, rental of conference rooms, hire of passenger motor vehicles, official reception and representation expenses, advances for 

reimbursement per diem and/or subsistence allowances for employees affected by Voting Rights Act activities, transfers to appropriate trust funds, prohibition of funds for the Legal Examining 

Unit, authority to accept donations for the White House Fellows 

program, and making funds available until expended for automating retirement record keeping. The Committee has continued 

language making funding available until expended for a government-wide human resources data network and for a governmentwide payroll modernization initiative. The Committee has included 

new language making funding available for two fiscal years for program evaluation. 

The committee has continued language that provides funds for 

expenses of the Office, audit of the retirement and insurance programs, and the rental of conference rooms. 

The committee has continued language that provides funds for 

the payment of government contributions. 

The Committee has included new language providing for the establishment of a human capital performance fund, contingent upon 

authorizing legislation. The Committee has included new language 

allowing the transfer of funds to the appropriate federal agencies. 

191 

The Committee has included new language providing for the notification and prior approval of the appropriate Congressional subcommittees prior to the obligation or transfer of funds. 

The committee has continued language that provides funds for 

the payment of fees and expenses for witnesses, rental of conference rooms, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles. 

The Committee has continued language that provides funds for 

services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and language which provides 

that travel expenses of judges shall be paid upon written certification of the judge. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT 

Section 501. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in this Act or 

previous appropriations Acts. 

Section 502. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act. 

Section 503. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

obligations beyond the current fiscal year and prohibits transfers of 

funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 504. The Committee continues the provision limiting consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement contracts. 

Section 505. The Committee continues the provision designating 

the city of Norman, Oklahoma, to be considered part of the Oklahoma City Transportation Management Area for fiscal year 2005. 

Section 506. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act to be transferred without express authority. 

Section 507. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds to engage in activities that would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the 1930 Tariff Act. 

Section 508. The Committee continues the provision concerning 

employment rights of Federal employees who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed Forces. 

Section 509. The Committee continues the provision concerning 

compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 510. The Committee continues the provision of purchasing American-made equipment and products under financial 

assistance authorization. 

Section 511. The Committee includes a provision prohibiting a 

person affixing a label bearing ‘‘Made in America’’, that is not made 

in the United States. 

Section 512. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain available for 

certain purposes. 

Section 513. The Committee includes a provision providing that 

funds used by the Executive Office of the President not be used to 

request any official background investigation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Section 514. The Committee includes a provision requiring that 

cost accounting standards not apply to a contract under the Federal Health Benefits Program. 

Section 515. The Committee continues a provision regarding nonforeign area cost of living allowances. 

192 

Section 516. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

use of funds by any person or entity convicted of violating the Buy 

American Act. 

Section 517. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the expenditure of funds for abortions under the FEHBP. 

Section 518. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the expenditure of funds for abortions under the FEHBP unless the 

life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is a result of an 

act of rape or incest. 

Section 519. The Committee modifies a provision specifying reprogramming procedures by subjecting the establishment of new offices and reorganizations to the reprogramming process. 

Section 520. The Committee continues a new provision waiving 

restrictions on the purchase of non-domestic articles, materials, 

and supplies in the case of acquisition by the Federal Government 

of information technology. 

Section 521. The Committee continues a provision providing a 

sense of the House of Representatives that empowerment zones 

within cities should have the necessary flexibility to expand to include relevant communities so that empowerment zone benefits are 

equitably distributed. 

Section 522. The Committee continues a provision providing a 

sense of the House of Representative that all census tracts contained in an empowerment zone, either fully or partially, should be 

equitably accorded the same benefits. 

Section 523. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for a proposed rule relating to the determination 

that real estate brokerage is a financial activity. 

TITLE VI—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND CORPORATIONS

Section 601. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

agencies to pay costs of travel to the United States for the immediate families of federal employees assigned to foreign duty in the 

event of a death or a life threatening illness of the employee. 

Section 602. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure that all of its 

workplaces are free from the illegal use of controlled substances. 

Section 603. The Committee continues the provision regarding 

price limitations on vehicles to be purchased by the Federal Government. 

Section 604. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

funds made available to agencies for travel, to also be used for 

quarter allowances and cost-of-living allowances. 

Section 605. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the government, with certain specified exceptions, from employing 

non-U.S. citizens whose posts of duty would be in the continental 

U.S. 

Section 606. The Committee continues the provision ensuring 

that agencies will have authority to pay GSA bills for space renovation and other services. 

Section 607. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

agencies to finance the costs of recycling and waste prevention proVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:51 Sep 09, 2004 Jkt 095707 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR671.XXX HR671
193 

grams with proceeds from the sale of materials recovered through 

such programs. 

Section 608. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that funds may be used to pay rent and other service costs in the 

District of Columbia. 

Section 609. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

payments to persons filling positions for which they have been 

nominated after the Senate has voted not to approve the nomination. 

Section 610. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

interagency financing of groups absent prior statutory approval. 

Section 611. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

the Postal Service to employ guards and give them the same special police powers as certain other federal guards. 

Section 612. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for enforcing regulations disapproved in accordance with the applicable law of the U.S. 

Section 613. The Committee continues the provision limiting the 

pay increases of certain prevailing rate employees. 

Section 614. The Committee continues the provision limiting the 

amount of funds that can be used for redecoration of offices under 

certain circumstances. 

Section 615. The Committee continues the provision to allow for 

interagency funding of national security and emergency telecommunications initiatives. 

Section 616. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to certify that a Schedule C appointment was not created 

solely or primarily to detail the employee to the White House. 

Section 617. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure that all workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual harassment. 

Section 618. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the payment of any employee who prohibits, threatens or prevents 

another employee from communicating with Congress. 

Section 619. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

Federal training not directly related to the performance of official 

duties. 

Section 620. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the expenditure of funds for implementation of agreements in nondisclosure policies unless certain provisions are included. 

Section 621. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

propaganda, publicity and lobbying by executive agency personnel 

in support or defeat of legislative initiatives. 

Section 622. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

any federal agency from disclosing an employee’s home address to 

any labor organization, absent employee authorization or court 

order. 

Section 623. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds to be used to provide non-public information such as mailing 

or telephone lists to any person or organization outside the government without the approval of the Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 624. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for propaganda and publicity purposes not authorized by Congress. 

194 

Section 625. The Committee continues the provision directing 

agency employees to use official time in an honest effort to perform 

official duties. 

Section 626. The Committee continues the provision, with technical modifications, authorizing the use of funds to finance an appropriate share of the Joint Financial Management Improvement 

Program. 

Section 627. The Committee continues the provision, with technical modifications, authorizing agencies to transfer funds to the 

Governmentwide Policy account of GSA to finance an appropriate 

share of the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program 

and other purposes. 

Section 628. The Committee continues the provision, to prohibit 

any department or agency from using appropriated funds to independently contract with private companies to provide online employment applications and processing services. 

Section 629. The Committee continues the provision that permits 

breast feeding in a federal building or on federal property if the 

woman and child are authorized to be there. 

Section 630. The Committee continues the provision that permits 

interagency funding of the National Science and Technology Council and provides for a report on the budget and resources of the National Science and Technology Council. The report should include 

the entire budget of the National Science and Technology Council. 

Section 631. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

documents involving the distribution of federal funds to indicate 

the agency providing the funds and the amount provided. 

Section 632. The Committee extends the authorization period for 

agency franchise funds by striking ‘‘October 1, 2004’’ and inserting 

‘‘October 1, 2005’’, as requested. 

Section 633. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds to monitor personal information relating to the use 

of federal internet sites to collect, review, or create any aggregate 

list that includes personally identifiable information relating to access to or use of any federal internet site of such agency. 

Section 634. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

health plans participating in the FEHBP to provide contraceptive 

coverage and provides exemptions to certain religious plans. 

Section 635. The Committee continues the provision providing 

recognition of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency as the official antidoping agency. 

Section 636. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds from being expended for the purchase of a product or service 

offered by Federal Prison Industries, Inc. unless the agency determines the products to constitute the best value to the buying agency. 

Section 637. The Committee continues a provision requiring 

agencies to evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before 

issuing the individual a government travel charge card and limits 

agency actions accordingly. 

Section 638. The Committee continues a provision allowing funds 

for official travel to be used by departments and agencies, if consistent with OMB and Budget Circular A126, to participate in the 

fractional aircraft ownership pilot program. 

195 

Section 639. The Committee includes a provision providing that 

funds not be used to implement or enforce regulations for locality 

pay inconsistent with recommendations of the Federal Salary 

Council. 

Section 640. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

head of each Federal agency to submit a report to Congress on the 

amount of acquisitions made by the agency from entities that manufacture the articles, materials, or supplies outside of the United 

States. 

Section 641. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds for implementation of OPM regulations limiting detailees to 

the Legislative Branch, and implementing limitations on the Coast 

Guard Congressional Fellowship Program. 

Section 642. The Committee includes a new provision eliminating 

the ten year limitations period applicable to the offset of federal 

non-tax payments, as requested. 

Section 643. The Committee includes a new provision, as requested, permitting the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

to match information, provided by the Secretary of the Treasury 

with respect to persons owing delinquent debt to the Federal Government, with information contained in the HHS National Directory of New Hires. 

Section 644. The Committee includes a new provision, as requested, allowing for the offset of federal tax refunds to collect delinquent state unemployment compensation overpayments. 

Section 645. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

conditions for converting an activity or function of an executive 

agency to a contractor performance under provisions of OMB Circular A–76. 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that 

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the 

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount of bill Committee 

allocation 

Outlays of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the House Budget Resolution for 2005: Subcommittee on Transportation and Treasury: 

General purpose discretionary .............................................. 25,320 25,319 68,993 68,992 

Mandatory ............................................................................. 18,261 18,261 18,262 18,262 

196 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 

344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections 

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying 

bill as provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2005 ................................................................................................. 48,707 

2006 ................................................................................................. 21,779 

2007 ................................................................................................. 8,485 

2008 ................................................................................................. 3,669 

2009 and future years .................................................................... 4,584 

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 93– 

344), as amended, the Congressional Budget Office has provided 

the following estimates of new budget authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and 

local governments: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority 

amount of bill 

Outlays 

amount of bill 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2004 .................................... 774 11,583 

RESCISSIONS 

Pursuant to the provisions of 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: 

Federal Aviation Administration .......................................................... $758,000,000 

Federal Highway Administration ......................................................... 386,000,000 

National Transportation Safety Board ................................................ 8,000,000 

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: 

197 

ROLLCALL NO. 1

Date: July 22, 2004. 

Measure: Transportation, Treasury and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2005. 

Motion by: Mr. Pastor. 

Description of motion: To strike section 216 of the bill relating 

to Treasury Department regulations allowing financial institutions 

to accept the matricula consular card as a form of identification. 

Results: Rejected—yeas 25; nays 26. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Berry Mr. Bonilla 

Mr. Cramer Mr. Boyd 

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Crenshaw 

Mr. Dicks Mr. Culberson 

Mr. Edwards Mr. Doolittle 

Mr. Farr Mrs. Emerson 

Mr. Fattah Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Goode 

Mr. Hoyer Ms. Granger 

Mr. Jackson Mr. Istook 

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Kingston 

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Knollenberg 

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Lewis 

Mr. Kolbe Mrs. Northup 

Mr. LaHood Mr. Peterson 

Mr. Latham Mr. Regula 

Mr. Moran Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Obey Mr. Sherwood 

Mr. Olver Mr. Simpson 

Mr. Pastor Mr. Tiahrt 

Mr. Price Mr. Vitter 

Mr. Rothman Mr. Wamp 

Mr. Sabo Dr. Weldon 

Mr. Serrano Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Walsh Mr. Wolf 

Mr. Young 

198 

ROLLCALL NO. 2

Date: July 22, 2004. 

Measure: Transportation, Treasury, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2004. 

Motion by: Mr. Sabo. 

Description of motion: To amend the report relating to transit security responsibilities. 

Results: Rejected—yeas 24; nays 31. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Berry Mr. Bonilla 

Mr. Bishop Mr. Crenshaw 

Mr. Boyd Mr. Culberson 

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Doolittle 

Ms. DeLauro Mrs. Emerson 

Mr. Dicks Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Mr. Edwards Mr. Goode 

Mr. Farr Ms. Granger 

Mr. Fattah Mr. Hobson 

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Istook 

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Kingston 

Mr. Jackson Mr. Knollenberg 

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Kolbe 

Mr. Kennedy Mr. LaHood 

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Latham 

Mr. Moran Mr. Lewis 

Mr. Obey Mr. Nethercutt 

Mr. Olver Mrs. Northup 

Mr. Pastor Mr. Peterson 

Mr. Price Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Rothman Mr. Sherwood 

Mr. Sabo Mr. Simpson 

Mr. Serrano Mr. Sweeney 

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Tiahrt 

Mr. Vitter 

Mr. Walsh 

Mr. Wamp 

Dr. Weldon 

Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Wolf 

Mr. Young 

199 

ROLLCALL NO. 3

Date: July 22, 2004. 

Measure: Transportation, Treasury, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2005. 

Motion by: Mr. Sabo. 

Description of motion: To amend the report relating to air traffic 

controller staffing and training, including the requirement that 

$2,000,000 be designated for training at a specified facility in Minnesota. 

Results: Rejected—yes 24; nays 32. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Berry Mr. Bonilla 

Mr. Bishop Mr. Crenshaw 

Mr. Boyd Mr. Culberson 

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Cunningham 

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Doolittle 

Mr. Dicks Mrs. Emerson 

Mr. Edwards Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Mr. Farr Mr. Goode 

Mr. Fattah Ms. Granger 

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Hobson 

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Istook 

Mr. Jackson Mr. Kingston 

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Knollenberg 

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kolbe 

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. LaHood 

Mr. Moran Mr. Latham 

Mr. Obey Mr. Lewis 

Mr. Olver Mr. Nethercutt 

Mr. Pastor Mrs. Northup 

Mr. Price Mr. Peterson 

Mr. Rothman Mr. Regula 

Mr. Sabo Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Serrano Mr. Sherwood 

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Sweeney 

Mr. Tiahrt 

Mr. Vitter 

Mr. Walsh 

Mr. Wamp 

Dr. Weldon 

Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Wolf 

Mr. Young 

200 

ROLLCALL NO. 4

Date: July 22, 2004. 

Measure: Transportation, Treasury, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2005. 

Motion by: Mr. Hoyer. 

Description of motion: To specify the government-wide adjustment in rates of basic pay for federal employees in fiscal year 2005. 

Results: Adopted—yeas 42; nays—16. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Berry Mr. Culberson 

Mr. Bishop Mr. Dolittle 

Mr. Bonilla Mr. Istook 

Mr. Boyd Mr. Kingston 

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Knollenberg 

Mr. Cramer Mr. Lewis 

Mr. Crenshaw Mrs. Northup 

Mr. Cunningham Mr. Peterson 

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Dicks Mr. Sherwood 

Mr. Edwards Mr. Simpson 

Mrs. Emerson Mr. Tiahrt 

Mr. Farr Mr. Vitter 

Mr. Fattah Mr. Wamp 

Mr. Frelinghuysen Dr. Weldon 

Mr. Goode Mr. Wicker 

Ms. Granger 

Mr. Hinchey 

Mr. Hobson 

Mr. Hoyer 

Mr. Jackson 

Ms. Kaptur 

Mr. Kennedy 

Ms. Kilpatrick 

Mr. Kolbe 

Mr. LaHood 

Mr. Latham 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Nethercutt 

Mr. Obey 

Mr. Olver 

Mr. Pastor 

Mr. Price 

Mr. Regula 

Mr. Rothman 

Mr. Sabo 

Mr. Serrano 

Mr. Sweeney 

Mr. Visclosky 

Mr. Walsh 

Mr. Wolf 

Mr. Young 

201 

ROLLCALL NO. 5

Date: July 22, 2004. 

Measure: Transportation, Treasury, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2005. 

Motion by: Ms. DeLauro. 

Description of motion: To prohibit contracts with a foreign corporation which was an acquiring corporation in a corporate expatriation transaction, or with any corporation which was a member 

of the same controlled group of corporations as defined in section 

1563(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, with certain exceptions and specified definitions of legal terms. 

Results: Rejected—yeas 26; nays 29. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Berry Mr. Bonilla 

Mr. Bishop Mr. Crenshaw 

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Culberson 

Mr. Cramer Mr. Cunningham 

Mr. DeLauro Mr. Dicks 

Mr. Edwards Mr. Doolittle 

Mr. Farr Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Mr. Fattah Ms. Granger 

Mr. Goode Mr. Hobson 

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Istook 

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Kingston 

Mr. Jackson Mr. Knollenberg 

Mr. Kaptur Mr. Kolbe 

Mr. Kennedy Mr. LaHood 

Mr. Kilpatrick Mr. Lewis 

Mr. Latham Mr. Moran 

Mr. Northup Mr. Nethercutt 

Mr. Obey Mr. Peterson 

Mr. Olver Mr. Regula 

Mr. Price Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Rothman Mr. Simpson 

Mr. Sabo Mr. Sweeney 

Mr. Serrano Mr. Tiahrt 

Mr. Sherwood Mr. Vitter 

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Walsh 

Mr. Wamp Dr. Weldon 

Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Wolf 

Mr. Young 

202 

ROLLCALL NO. 6

Date: July 22, 2004. 

Measure: Transportation, Treasury, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2005. 

Motion by: Mr. Hoyer. 

Description of motion: To amend the report relating to the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission’s Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, and Executive Order 13163, as they concern the 

number of people with disabilities in the Federal workforce. 

Results: Rejected—yeas 24; nays 33. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Berry Mr. Bonilla 

Mr. Bishop Mr. Crenshaw 

Mr. Boyd Mr. Culberson 

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Cunningham 

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Doolittle 

Mr. Dicks Mrs. Emerson 

Mr. Edwards Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Mr. Farr Mr. Goode 

Mr. Fattah Ms. Granger 

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Hobson 

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Istook 

Mr. Jackson Mr. Kingston 

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Knollenberg 

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kolbe 

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. LaHood 

Mr. Moran Mr. Lantham 

Mr. Obey Mr. Lewis 

Mr. Olver Mr. Nethercutt 

Mr. Pastor Mrs. Northup 

Mr. Price Mr. Peterson 

Mr. Rothman Mr. Regula 

Mr. Sabo Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Serrano Mr. Sherwood 

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Simpson 

Mr. Sweeney 

Mr. Tiahrt 

Mr. Vitter 

Mr. Walsh 

Mr. Wamp 

Dr. Weldon 

Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Wolf 

Mr. Young 

203 


Insert offset folio 014 here HR671.003
204 


Insert offset folio 015 here HR671.004
205 


Insert offset folio 016 here HR671.005
206 


Insert offset folio 017 here HR671.006
207 


Insert offset folio 018 here HR671.007
208 


Insert offset folio 019 here HR671.008
209 


Insert offset folio 020 here HR671.009
210 


Insert offset folio 021 here HR671.010
211 


Insert offset folio 022 here HR671.011
212 


Insert offset folio 023 here HR671.012
213 


Insert offset folio 024 here HR671.013
214 


Insert offset folio 025 here HR671.014
215 


Insert offset folio 026 here HR671.015
216 


Insert offset folio 027 here HR671.016
217 


Insert offset folio 028 here HR671.017
218 


Insert offset folio 029 here HR671.018
219 


Insert offset folio 030 here HR671.019
220 


Insert offset folio 031 here HR671.020
221 


Insert offset folio 032 here HR671.021
222 


Insert offset folio 033 here HR671.022
223 


Insert offset folio 034 here HR671.023
224 


Insert offset folio 035 here HR671.024
225 


Insert offset folio 036 here HR671.025
226 


Insert offset folio 037 here HR671.026
(227) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. JOHN W. OLVER 

There are a number of problems with the Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies bill as reported out of Committee. 

Although Chairman Istook has tried as hard as he can to produce 

a bill that spreads the pain fairly evenly, it has been more important for the Majority to maintain super sized tax cuts for millionaires than provide the basic services that Americans need. 

Earlier this year, the House Majority passed a Budget Resolution 

that prioritized tax cuts for the wealthiest far ahead of critical investments that benefit all Americans. This fiction of a budget resolution quickly becomes real when we have to translate it into programs that impact the lives of millions of Americans each day. 

If it was not apparent at the time, it is now clear that the Budget 

Resolution will make it nearly impossible to adequately fund many 

of our nation’s needs, including those contained in this bill. 

Despite some improvements to the bill at Full Committee, serious problems remain that will need to be addressed as the process 

moves forward. Our concerns include: 

• FAA—The bill makes significant cuts to the FY05 request level 

for FAA Operations and to the FY04 enacted level for Facilities and 

Equipment. Although the Chairman should be commended for supporting additional funding for the hiring of new Air Traffic Controllers, without proper funding throughout the agency, these new controllers will come into an Agency that lacks the proper equipment 

and facilities to assist them in ensuring the safety and security of 

the nation’s airways. 

In FY04, the FAA’s limited funding resulted in the attrition of 

over one thousand personnel. The Committee reported funding 

level for the FAA for FY05, if sustained, will certainly result in further attrition from the FAA’s workforce. 

• Amtrak—Once again we find ourselves with a Committee reported funding level of $900 million that Amtrak says will result 

in the shut-down of the railroad before the fiscal year is even half 

over. To make matters worse, the bill also requires Amtrak to pay 

back a $100 million loan that they received in FY03; thus making 

Amtrak’s net resources available in FY05 only $800 million. 

As we argued last year, even if Amtrak can continue to somehow 

manage to operate at this funding level, the Committee is again denying Amtrak resources necessary to address the capital backlog. 

We will once again be one catastrophe away from shutting down 

Amtrak operations and significantly impacting all trains that run 

on Amtrak’s bridges and rails in the Northeast Corridor. Neglect 

of the infrastructure will have a major impact on commuters and 

travelers throughout the country. 

• IRS Tax Compliance—Without proper funding for the IRS tax 

compliance activities we will continue to leave on the table the over 

228 

$300 billion in tax revenues that go uncollected each year. In effect, 

we’re now giving tax cuts to tax cheaters. 

The President’s FY05 budget laudably proposed a fairly significant increase for IRS compliance resources. Earlier this year, the 

IRS Oversight Board, after reviewing the IRS’ budget proposal, 

agreed with the need for an emphasis on enforcement but found 

that the President’s budget did ‘‘not back up its goals on enforcement with the necessary resources to do the job.’’ 

Unfortunately, the Committee provided a funding level that is $286 million (6.3%) below the President’s FY05 request for the IRS 

Tax Law Enforcement account. Furthermore, the Committee’s 

funding level is $492 million (10.3%) below the amount the Oversight Board said was necessary for proper tax law enforcement in 

FY05. 

Because increased investment has a direct yield on revenue collection, this seems like one of the smartest places to invest our 

scarce resources. The Administration claims that their new compliance initiatives, if fully funded, will yield a six-to-one return on investment. Unfortunately, the budget resolution forced the Committee to make cuts in an area here that could have yielded the 

Treasury even greater resources for the future. • Matriculas Consular—The Full Committee voted to retain an 

unfortunate provision (Section 216) that would prohibit the Treasury Department from acting to permit financial institutions to accept the matricula consular identification card as a form of identification for opening a bank account. Matriculas are a safe, reliable 

identification card that helps undermine the market for illegal 

identification and fraudulent documents. The card does not change 

a person’s immigration status. Serving as official identification, the 

card is another line of defense in the continuing efforts to ensure 

that terrorists do not have access to our financial institutions. 

The Administration opposes this provision as well because this 

language would restrict the ability of financial institutions to comply with anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing statutes. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, in a recent letter to Congress said, ‘‘Because this provision [Sec. 216] could drive large sections of the U.S. population to underground financial services, it 

would weaken the Government’s ability to enforce our money laundering and terrorist financing laws.’’ In the post-9/11 environment, 

we want people who are in this country, whatever their status, to 

be able to prove their identity. 

The most recent version of the card, issued in 2002, has a dozen 

security features, including a hologram, digitized photo, and infrared band. As The Washington Times reported (Nov. 26, 2002): 

‘‘[Mexican] officials turned the previous version of the [matricula] 

card into a high-tech ID that’s more fraud-proof than many state 

drivers’ licenses.’’ Approximately 350 financial institutions and 

1100 police departments accept the Mexican Consular ID as a valid 

form of identification. The car improves safety, giving Mexican nationals an incentive to register with the Mexican consulate while 

they are in the U.S. The card also helps police departments by 

serving as a means of quickly identifying witnesses, victims, and 

suspects. Immigrants with identification are more likely to report 

crimes and cooperate in police investigations. 

229 

• Unspecified Cuts—In order to remain under the Subcommittee’s low allocation, the Subcommittee made what appear to be unspecified, and in some cases seemingly arbitrary cuts, to important 

programs. Although unspecified cuts provide Departments and 

Agencies some discretion in determining where they can reduce 

services, they are but a blunt instrument for carrying out the fiction that is this year’s budget process. Sadly for Americans who depend on Federal programs, the cuts and policy decisions set forth 

in this bill, if sustained, will further erode the Federal government’s infrastructure and basic operations. 

Before concluding, I want to point out that the Majority agreed 

at Full Committee to address some of the concerns we had with the 

Subcommittee passed bill. Some important improvements include: • Restoring what appeared to be $4.5 million of arbitrary cuts 

taken from the budget of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)—the Treasury bureau that targets criminal money 

laundering and terrorist financing activities. Without the restoration of these funds, FinCEN would not have been able to even 

maintain current services and annualize programs that were started in FY 2004. • Securing some additional funding (an additional $2 million was added to the $7 million provided in the Subcommittee passed bill) 

for the hire of new air traffic controllers in anticipation of the wave 

of impending controller retirements. Although the President, in his 

FY05 budget, failed to provide leadership on this critical safety and 

security priority, the Committee agreed with our concerns and had 

the foresight to address this looming problem. • Providing funding for the Udall Foundation programs. Although the Udall Foundation’s trust fund payment was zeroed out 

in the Subcommittee Mark, the Full Committee restored full funding at the FY04 enacted level of $1.984 million. The environmental 

dispute resolution account was also restored to the FY04 enacted 

level. This action will ensure that important programs for Native 

Americans and environmental dispute resolution can continue 

unimpeded. 

In conclusion, many changes are needed to address the problems 

that remain in the Committee reported bill. I will continue to seek 

the improvements outlined above as this bill moves through the 

Congress. 

JOHN W. OLVER. 

Æ