[House Report 108-674]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-674
======================================================================

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

                                _______
                                

 September 9, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5041]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other 
purposes.


                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs....................     2    3
                                                                     
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development......    23    19
                                                                     
Title III--Independent Agencies............................    72    82
                                                                     
        American Battle Monuments Commission...............    72    82
                                                                     
        Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.....    73    83
                                                                     
        Community Development Financial Institutions.......    74    84
                                                                     
        Consumer Product Safety Commission.................    75    84
                                                                     
        Corporation for National and Community Service.....    76    85
                                                                     
        U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims..........    81    87
                                                                     
        Department of Defense--Civil, Cemeterial Expenses, 
            Army...........................................    81    88
                                                                     
        National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences    82    89
                                                                     
        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry...    82    89
                                                                     
        Environmental Protection Agency....................    83    90
                                                                     
        Office of Science and Technology Policy............    83   125
                                                                    
        Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
            Environmental Quality..........................    93   126
                                                                    
        Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation..............    94   126
                                                                    
        Federal Citizen Information Center.................    94   127
                                                                    
        United States Interagency Council on Homelessness..    95   128
                                                                    
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration......    95   128
                                                                    
        National Credit Union Administration...............    99   137
                                                                    
        National Science Foundation........................    99   138
                                                                    
        Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation..............   102   145
                                                                    
        Selective Service System...........................   102   145
                                                                    
        White House Commission on the National Moment of 
            Remembrance....................................   103   146
                                                                    
Title IV--General Provisions...............................   103   146
                                                                    
Summary of the Bill........................................   ...   ...

    The Committee recommends $128,037,084,000 in new budget 
(obligational) authority for the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 21 independent 
agencies and offices.
    The following table summarizes the amounts recommended in 
the bill in comparison with the appropriations for fiscal year 
2004 and budget estimates for fiscal year 2005.

              Operating Plan and Reprogramming Procedures

    The Committee continues to have a particular interest in 
being informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not 
change either the total amount available in an account or any 
of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally 
available, represent a significant departure from budget plans 
presented to the Committee in an agency's budget 
justifications, the basis of this appropriations Act.
    Consequently, the Committee directs the Departments, 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations and offices funded 
at or in excess of $100,000,000 in this bill, to consult with 
the Committee prior to each change from the approved budget 
levels in excess of $500,000 between programs, activities, 
object classifications or elements unless otherwise provided 
for in the Committee report accompanying this bill. For 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations and offices funded 
at less than $100,000,000 in this bill, the reprogramming 
threshold shall be $250,000 between programs, activities, 
object classifications or elements unless otherwise provided 
for in the Committee report accompanying this bill. 
Additionally, the Committee expects to be promptly notified of 
all reprogramming actions which involve less than the above-
mentioned amounts. If such actions would have the effect of 
significantly changing an agency's funding requirements in 
future years, or if programs or projects specifically cited in 
the Committee's reports are affected by the reprogramming, the 
reprogramming must be approved by the Committee regardless of 
the amount proposed to be moved. Furthermore, the Committee 
wishes to be consulted regarding reorganizations of offices, 
programs, and activities prior to the planned implementation of 
such reorganizations.
    The Committee also directs that the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the 
Corporation for National and Community Service, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Chemical Safety and 
Hazard Investigation Board shall submit operating plans, signed 
by the respective secretary, administrator, or agency head, for 
the Committee's review within 120 days of the bill's enactment.

                    Relationship With Budget Offices

    Through the years, the Committee has channeled most of its 
inquiries and requests for information and assistance through 
the budget offices of the various departments, agencies, and 
commissions. The Committee has often pointed to the natural 
affinity and relationship between these organizations and the 
Committee which makes such a relationship workable. The 
Committee reiterates its longstanding position that while the 
Committee reserves the right to call upon all offices in the 
departments, agencies, and commissions, the primary conjunction 
between the Committee and these entities must normally be 
through the budget offices. The Committee appreciates all the 
assistance received from each of the departments, agencies, and 
commissions during the past year. The workload generated by the 
budget process is large and growing, and therefore, a positive, 
responsive relationship between the Committee and the budget 
offices is absolutely essential to the appropriations process.

                                TITLE I


                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS





Fiscal year 2005 recommendation................      \1\ $65,961,609,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation.................       1,2 61,845,163,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request................       \1\ 64,761,609,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation.           +4,116,446,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request           +1,200,000,000


\1\ Excludes MCCF collections.
\2\ FY 2004 discretionary programs include the impact of the rescissions
  imposed under PL 108-199. Includes $270,000,000 rescission of Medical
  Care prior year funds.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the largest 
Federal agencies in terms of employment with an average 
employment of approximately 219,671. It administers benefits 
for more than 25,200,000 veterans, and 38,400,000 family 
members of living veterans and survivors of deceased veterans. 
Thus, close to 64,000,000 people, comprising about 21.7 percent 
of the total population of the United States, are potential 
recipients of veterans benefits provided by the Federal 
Government.
    A total of $65,961,609,000 in new budget authority is 
recommended by the Committee for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs in fiscal year 2005. The funds recommended 
provide for compensation payments to 2,935,586 veterans and 
survivors of deceased veterans with service-connected 
disabilities; pension payment for 550,856 non-service-connected 
disabled veterans, widows and children in need of financial 
assistance; education training, tuition assistance, and 
vocational assistance of 536,012 veterans, servicepersons, and 
reservists, and 73,352 eligible dependents of deceased veterans 
or seriously disabled veterans; housing credit assistance in 
the form of 300,000 guaranteed loans provided to veterans and 
servicepersons; administration or supervision of life insurance 
programs with 7,439,095 policies for veterans and active duty 
servicepersons providing coverage of $747,636,000,000; 
inpatient care and treatment of beneficiaries in 157 hospitals; 
42 VA residential rehabilitation treatment programs (formerly 
called ``domiciliaries''); 133 nursing homes and 879 outpatient 
clinics which includes independent, satellite, community-based, 
and rural outreach clinics involving 57,481,000 visits; and the 
administration of the National Cemetery Administration for 
burial of eligible veterans, servicepersons and their 
survivors.
    The Department of Veterans Affairs submitted the 2005 
budget in an alternative appropriations structure for 
consideration. The Committee has not adopted this new structure 
because it does not address the needs of the Congress in its 
role of reviewing and allocating federal budgetary resources. 
While the Committee recognizes the right of the executive 
branch to propose whatever structure it deems necessary, budget 
execution must ultimately follow the guidelines laid out in 
appropriations bills. The Committee must be convinced that the 
proposed changes are necessary and serve the needs of all 
participants in the federal budget process before any changes 
are adopted, and that has not been the case with the proposed 
restructuring. If the Department wishes to continue the 
wasteful practice of submitting a budget structure that will 
not serve the needs of the Congress, the Congress has little 
choice but to reject that structure and continue providing 
appropriations that serve its purposes as it has done for the 
past two years.
    The Committee recognizes that a large number of active and 
reservist personnel returning from extended deployments in Iraq 
and Afghanistan will require essential supportive social 
services such as emergency shelter, childcare services, and 
drug treatment programs after discharge from the military. 
Since enrollment in services provided by the Department is 
voluntary, the Committee is concerned that many former service 
members are not aware of available services, or the actual 
number of former service members that require supportive 
services. The Committee applauds the efforts being undertaken 
by the Department as it attempts to deal with these issues and 
requests the Department report to Congress the best method of 
assessing the number of veterans and the services they may 
require.
    The Committee has been following the testing and 
implementation process of the CoreFLS program at the Bay Pines 
VA Medical Center for a number of months and continues to be 
concerned that CoreFLS may not be salvageable. The Committee 
has found that the procurement strategy selected for such an 
ambitious project was most probably inappropriate. Further, the 
Committee is concerned that there appears to have been less 
than an arms-length relationship between VA personnel and the 
contractor selected for this project. Finally, the Committee is 
appalled that contract tasks in many cases did not make the 
contractor responsible for measurable deliverables tied to 
total system performance, but instead the contractor was 
primarily responsible only for technical advice and assistance. 
While the Committee considered the option of denying any funds 
for further development or implementation of this project, that 
option may be more costly and riskier than continuing with the 
current project.
    The Committee's concerns are rooted in the fact that with a 
total estimated cost of $499.3 million, of which over 50% has 
been expended thus far, CoreFLS may not address the fundamental 
need to ensure VA compliance with the Federal Financial 
Management Improvement Act or respond adequately to long-
standing material weaknesses in VA's existing financial 
processes. Upon completion of the Carnegie Mellon Software 
Engineering Institute evaluation of CoreFLS implementation, the 
Committee will work with senior management of the VA to ensure 
that further decisions about the future of CoreFLS are in the 
best interest of the government and the veterans.

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


               COMPENSATION, PENSION AND BURIAL BENEFITS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................   $32,607,688,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................    29,845,127,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................    32,607,688,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........    +2,762,561,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    This appropriation provides funds for service-connected 
compensation payments to an estimated 2,935,586 beneficiaries 
and pension payments to another 550,856 beneficiaries with non-
service-connected disabilities. The average cost per 
compensation case in 2005 is estimated at $9,963, and pension 
payments are projected at a unit cost of $6,058. The estimated 
caseload and cost by program for 2004 and 2005 are included in 
the budget justification materials.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee is recommending the 
budget estimate of $32,607,688,000 for compensation, pension 
and burial benefits. The bill also includes requested language 
not to exceed $20,703,000 of reimbursements of which $9,500,000 
goes to the general operating expenses account and $11,203,000 
to the medical services account for administrative expenses of 
implementing cost saving provisions required by the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-508, the 
Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992, Public Law 102-568, and the 
Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Public Law 103-
446. These cost savings provisions include verifying pension 
income against Internal Revenue Service and Social Security 
Administration (SSA) data; establishing a match with the SSA to 
obtain verification of Social Security numbers; and the $90 
monthly VA pension cap for Medicaid-eligible single veterans 
and surviving spouses alone in Medicaid-covered nursing homes. 
The bill includes requested language permitting this 
appropriation to reimburse such sums as may be earned to the 
medical facilities revolving fund to help defray the operating 
expenses of individual medical facilities for nursing home care 
provided to pensioners.
    The Administration has proposed to provide a cost-of-living 
adjustment, based on the change in the Consumer Price Index, to 
all compensation beneficiaries, including dependency and 
indemnity compensation (DIC) for spouses and children. It is 
currently estimated at 1.3 percent. This is the same as the 
COLA that will be provided, under current law, to veterans 
pension and Social Security recipients. The increase would be 
effective December 1, 2004, and would cost an estimated 
$242,391,000 during 2005. Funding for this COLA is reflected in 
the Compensation, Pensions and Burial Benefits obligations in 
the 2005 budget.
    The Administration has proposed language that would provide 
indefinite 2005 supplemental appropriations for compensation 
and pension payments. The Committee believes current procedures 
are adequate and has not included the requested language in the 
bill.

                         READJUSTMENT BENEFITS




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $2,556,232,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     2,529,734,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     2,556,232,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       +26,498,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    This appropriation finances the education and training of 
veterans and servicepersons whose initial entry on active duty 
took place on or after July 1, 1985. These benefits are 
included in the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance 
Program. Eligibility to receive this assistance began in 1987. 
Basic benefits are funded through appropriations made to the 
readjustment benefits appropriation and transfers from the 
Department of Defense. Supplemental benefits are also provided 
to certain veterans through education assistance to certain 
members of the Selected Reserve and are funded through 
transfers from the Departments of Defense and Homeland 
Security. In addition, certain disabled veterans are provided 
with vocational rehabilitation, specially adapted housing 
grants, and automobile grants with approved adaptive equipment.
    This account also finances educational assistance 
allowances for eligible dependents of those veterans who died 
from service-connected causes or have a total and permanent 
service-connected disability as well as dependents of 
servicepersons who were captured or missing-in-action.
    The Committee recommends the budget estimates of 
$2,556,232,000 for readjustment benefits in fiscal year 2005, 
an increase of $26,498,000 over the current year funding level.
    The Administration has proposed language that would provide 
indefinite 2005 supplemental appropriations for readjustment 
benefits because of legislative changes or year-end funding 
shortages. The Committee believes current procedures are 
adequate and has not included the requested language in the 
bill.

                   VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $44,380,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        29,017,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        44,380,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       +15,363,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The veterans insurance and indemnities appropriation is 
made up of the former appropriations for military and naval 
insurance, applicable to World War I veterans; national service 
life insurance (NSLI), applicable to certain World War II 
veterans; servicemen's indemnities, applicable to Korean 
conflict veterans; and the veterans mortgage life insurance, 
applicable to individuals who have received a grant for 
specially adapted housing.
    The budget estimate of $44,380,000 for veterans insurance 
and indemnities in fiscal year 2005 is included in the bill, an 
increase of $15,363,000 over the current year funding level. 
The amount provided will enable VA to transfer funding to the 
service-disabled veterans insurance fund and transfer 
additional amounts for payments for the 2,620 policies under 
the veterans mortgage life insurance program. These policies 
are identified under the veterans' insurance and indemnity 
appropriation since they provide insurance to service-disabled 
veterans unable to qualify under basic NSLI.
    The Administration has proposed language that would provide 
indefinite 2005 supplemental appropriations for the insurance 
program. The Committee believes current procedures are adequate 
and has not included the requested language in the bill.

         VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on
                                                                              direct loans for
                                                             Program account      specially      Administrative
                                                                               adapted housing      expenses
                                                                                    loans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation...........................       $43,784,000          $500,000      $154,075,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation............................   \1\ 305,834,000           300,000       153,936,385
Fiscal year 2005 budget request...........................        43,784,000           500,000       154,075,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation............      -262,050,000          +200,000          +138,615
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects subsidy estimate from last year's report. The new estimate for 2004 is $278,215,000.

    The purpose of the VA home loan guaranty program is to 
facilitate the extension of mortgage credit on favorable terms 
by private lenders to eligible veterans. This appropriation 
provides for all costs, with the exception of the native 
American veterans housing loan program, of the Department's 
direct and guaranteed loans programs.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires budgetary 
resources to be available prior to incurring a direct loan 
obligation or a loan guarantee commitment. In addition, the Act 
requires all administrative expenses of a direct or guaranteed 
loan program to be funded through a program account. VA loan 
guaranties are made to servicemembers, veterans, reservists and 
unremarried surviving spouses for the purchase of homes, 
condominiums, manufactured homes and for refinancing loans. The 
Department guarantees part of the total loan, permitting the 
purchaser to obtain a mortgage with a competitive interest 
rate, even without a down payment if the lender agrees. The 
Department requires that a down payment be made for a 
manufactured home. With a Department guaranty, the lender is 
protected against loss up to the amount of the guaranty if the 
borrower fails to repay the loan.
    The Committee recommends such sums as may be necessary 
(estimated to total $43,784,000) for funding subsidy payments, 
$500,000 for the limitation on direct loans for specially 
adapted housing loans, and $154,075,000 for administrative 
expenses which is the budget request. The appropriation for 
administrative expenses may be transferred to and merged with 
the General Operating Expenses account.

                  EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation...........................                 0                 0                 0
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation............................              $994            $3,400           $69,587
Fiscal year 2005 budget request...........................                 0                 0                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation............              -994            -3,400           -69,587
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation...........................           $47,000        $4,108,000          $311,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation............................            51,693         3,938,000           298,230
Fiscal year 2005 budget request...........................            47,000         4,108,000           311,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation............            -4,693          +170,000           +12,770
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This appropriation covers the funding subsidy cost of 
direct loans for vocational rehabilitation of eligible veterans 
and, in addition, it includes administrative expenses necessary 
to carry out the direct loan program. Loans of up to $910 
(based on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are 
available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in 
vocational rehabilitation programs when the veteran is 
temporarily in need of additional assistance. Repayment is made 
in 10 monthly installments, without interest, through 
deductions from future payments of compensation, pension, 
subsistence allowance, educational assistance allowance, or 
retirement pay. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires 
budgetary resources to be available prior to incurring a direct 
loan obligation. In addition, the Act requires all 
administrative expenses of a direct loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    The bill includes the budget requests of $47,000 for 
funding subsidy program costs and $311,000 for administrative 
expenses. The administrative expenses may be transferred to and 
merged with the General Operating Expenses account.
    In addition, the bill includes requested language limiting 
program direct loans to $4,108,000. It is estimated that VA 
will make 4,524 loans in fiscal year 2005, with an average 
amount of $908.

          NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses:                                        $571,000
    Fiscal year 2005 recommendation...................           571,000
    Fiscal year 2004 appropriations...................           567,631
    Fiscal year 2005 budget recommendation............           571,000
    Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation....            +3,369
    Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request...                 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This program tests the feasibility of authorizing VA to 
make direct home loans to Native American veterans who live on 
U.S. trust land. This is a pilot program which began in 1993 
and expires on December 31, 2005. The bill includes the budget 
request of $571,000 for administration expenses, which may be 
transferred to and merged with the General Operating Expenses 
account.

  GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS PROGRAM 
                                ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    Public Law 105-368, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act 
of 1998, established this program. All funds authorized for 
this program were appropriated in fiscal year 2000. Therefore, 
no appropriation request has been included for fiscal year 
2005. Bill language is included allowing the use of funds in 
Medical Services and General Operating Expenses to administer 
this program.

                     Veterans Health Administration

    The Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest 
Federal medical care delivery system in the country, with 157 
hospitals, 42 VA residential rehabilitation treatment programs 
(formerly called ``domiciliaries''), 133 nursing homes, and 879 
outpatient clinics which includes independent, satellite, 
community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
    In 2004, Congress agreed to fund Veterans Health 
Administration (VHA) through a new account structure comprised 
of four accounts: medical services, medical administration, 
medical facilities, and medical and prosthetic research. This 
action was taken to provide better oversight and receive a more 
accurate accounting of funds. Under this new structure, the 
Administration has requested total resources of $29,135,370,000 
to fund the various operating programs of the VHA, an increase 
of $736,051,000 over the 2004 enacted level. The Committee 
recommendation of $30,335,370,000 is an increase of 
$1,200,000,000 to the budget request and $1,936,051,000 when 
compared to fiscal year 2004.

                            MEDICAL SERVICES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................   $19,498,600,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................  \1\ 17,762,054,0
                                                                      00
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................    18,298,600,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........    +1,735,204,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......    +1,200,000,000


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

    This Medical Services appropriation provides for medical 
services of eligible veterans and beneficiaries [except non 
service-connected veterans and veterans exceeding the income 
threshold] in VA medical centers, outpatient clinic facilities, 
contract hospitals, State homes, and outpatient programs on a 
fee basis. Hospital and outpatient care is also provided by the 
private sector for certain dependents and survivors of veterans 
under the civilian health and medical programs for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
    The Committee recommendation includes $19,498,600,000 for 
medical services in fiscal year 2005.
    The bill includes requested language in the Compensation 
and Pension appropriation transferring $11,203,000 for 
administrative expenses of implementing cost saving provisions 
required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992.
    The Committee has included bill language to allow the 
Secretary to transfer funds between the Medical Services 
appropriation, Medical Administration appropriation, and 
Medical Facilities appropriation with a limitation on transfers 
up to 20 percent as necessary after notifying the Committees on 
Appropriations.
    The Committee has included bill language to make available 
through September 30, 2006, up to $1,100,000,000 of the Medical 
Services appropriation. This provides flexibility to the 
Department as it continues to implement significant program 
changes.
    The bill also includes requested language for the DoD VA 
Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund, as authorized by section 
721 of the FY 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, Public 
Law 107-314, to transfer a minimum of $15,000,000, to remain 
available until expended for any purpose authorized by 38 
U.S.C. 8111.
    The Committee is concerned that psychiatric hospitals may 
be underfunded within current reimbursement models. The VA is 
directed to report back to the Committee by January 15, 2005 on 
the Bed Day of Care costs incurred for acute psychiatric 
patients.
    The Committee recognizes the VA for its initial efforts to 
screen, diagnose and treat Veterans at risk for or infected 
with hepatitis C (HCV). However, the Committee is concerned 
that many Veterans who have been screened are not aware of and/
or are not receiving available HCV treatment through the VA, 
especially Vietnam-era veterans and minority veterans. The 
Committee urges the VA to allocate funding for HCV based on 
local need, not on VERA allocation. The Committee urges the VA 
to continue and to expand broad HCV screening and diagnosis 
programs for Veterans with any risk factors for HCV, and to 
provide the appropriate treatment, outreach, education and 
patient support in order to increase the number of successfully 
treated Veterans.
    The Committee urges that the VA Toledo Outpatient Clinic be 
established as a freestanding clinic and not a satellite of a 
VA hospital.
    The Committee urges an expanded affiliation between Medical 
College of Ohio and the VA Outpatient Clinic in Toledo, Ohio.
    The Committee directs the continuation of the long-employed 
Joslin Vision Network at no less than the current level.
    The Committee notes with concern the growing incidence of 
chronic disease within the veteran population. Specifically, 
the Committee is aware of the high incidence of diabetes among 
veterans and believes that multiple vendors for diabetes 
monitoring systems, including blood glucose monitors, test 
strips, lancing devices, and other related equipment provide 
the best opportunity for improving patient care, competition, 
and management of chronic conditions. With this in mind, the 
Committee urges the Secretary to withhold implementation of 
national standardized contracts for diabetes monitoring systems 
used to manage and control diabetes.
    The Committee urges the VA fund a pilot program at the VAMC 
in Syracuse modeled on technology developed for patient health 
monitoring currently being used at the New York Presbyterian 
Hospital.
    The Committee supports an initiative to demonstrate the 
potential effectiveness of the nation's first system-wide 
magnet nursing pilot program for benefit of VA nursing care. 
The Committee envisions the implementation of this VA magnet 
nursing demonstration to be achieved through the initiation of 
three additional pilot units through a partnership of New 
Jersey Meridian Health system and New Jersey-based VA medical 
care facilities, including local VA clinics, providing 
training, mentoring, and developing patient outcome and 
satisfaction data.

                     MEDICAL CARE COLLECTIONS FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections 
Fund (MCCF) was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
(Public Law 105-33). In fiscal year 2004, P.L. 108-199 allowed 
the Department to deposit first-party and pharmacy co-payments, 
third party insurance payments and enhanced use collections, 
long-term care co-payments, Compensated Work Therapy Program 
collections, Compensation and Pension Living Expenses Program 
collections, Parking Program fees, and collections from the 
sales of assets into the MCCF. Bill language is included 
transferring the receipts and the unobligated balances in these 
accounts in fiscal year 2005 and subsequent years to the 
Medical Services appropriation to remain available until 
expended for the purposes of the Medical Services 
appropriation.

                         MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $4,705,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     4,970,500,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     4,705,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........      -265,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Medical Administration appropriation provides funds for 
the expenses of management and administration of VA health care 
system. Included under this heading are provisions for costs 
associated with operation of VA medical centers, other 
facilities, and VHA headquarters, plus the costs of VISN 
offices and facility director offices, chief of staff 
operations, quality of care oversight, all information 
technology hardware and software, legal services, security, 
billing and coding activities, and procurement.
    The Committee has included bill language to allow the 
Secretary to transfer funds between the Medical Services 
appropriation, Medical Administration appropriation, and 
Medical Facilities appropriation with a limitation on transfers 
up to 20 percent as necessary after notifying the Committees on 
Appropriations.
    The Committee has included bill language to make available 
through September 30, 2006, up to $150,000,000 of the Medical 
Administration appropriation. This provides flexibility to the 
Department as it continues to implement significant program 
changes.
    The Committee recommends $4,705,000,000 for medical 
administration in fiscal year 2005.
    The Committee directs that $2,000,000 be provided for a 
pilot program at the Louis A. Johnson VA Medical Center 
demonstrating an integrated medical asset tracking program, 
utilizing Ultra Wideband Radio Frequency Identification and 
enhanced business intelligence software.
    The Committee directs that $3,000,000 be provided for a 
pilot program at the Louis A. Johnson VA Medical Center to 
develop a VA Emergency Response Management web portal to 
support medical care surge needs during national emergencies 
utilizing a regional integrated digital environment.

                           MEDICAL FACILITIES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $3,745,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     3,976,400,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     3,745,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........      -231,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Medical Facilities appropriation provides funds for the 
operation and maintenance of the VA health care system's vast 
capital infrastructure. Included under this heading are 
provisions for costs associated with utilities, engineering, 
capital planning, leases, laundry and food services, 
groundskeeping, garbage, housekeeping, facility repair, and 
property disposition and acquisition.
    The Committee has included bill language to allow the 
Secretary to transfer funds between the Medical Services 
appropriation, Medical Administration appropriation, and 
Medical Facilities appropriation with a limitation on transfers 
up to 20 percent as necessary after notifying the Committees on 
Appropriations.
    The Committee has included bill language to make available 
through September 30, 2006, up to $150,000,000 of the Medical 
Facilities appropriation. This provides flexibility to the 
Department as it continues to implement significant program 
changes.
    The Committee recommendation provides $3,745,000,000 for 
medical facilities in fiscal year 2005.

                    MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $384,770,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       405,592,800
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................   \1\ 384,770,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -20,822,800
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


\1\ Excludes VA overhead costs funded under ``Medical Services''.

    This account includes medical, rehabilitative and health 
services research. Medical research is an important aspect of 
the Department's programs, providing complete medical and 
hospital services for veterans. The prosthetic research program 
is also essential in the development and testing of prosthetic, 
orthopedic and sensory aids for the purpose of improving the 
care and rehabilitation of eligible disabled veterans, 
including amputees, paraplegics and the blind. The health 
service research program provides unique opportunities to 
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care 
delivery system. In addition, budgetary resources from a number 
of areas including appropriations from the medical care 
account; reimbursements from the Department of Defense; and 
grants from the National Institutes of Health, private 
proprietary sources, and voluntary agencies provide support for 
the Department's researchers.
    The Committee recommends $384,770,000 for medical and 
prosthetic research in fiscal year 2005. This funding level is 
the same as proposed in the budget request when put into the 
Congressional account structure and represents a decrease of 
$20,823,000 from the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
    The Committee is aware of new treatments for non-Hodgkins 
lymphoma which have proven to be more effective than 
conventional treatments. The Committee urges the VHA to explore 
the use of new treatments for veterans that suffer from non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma.
    The Committee directs $1,000,000 to the West Virginia High 
Technology Consortium Foundation for the continuation of VA's 
technology transfer activities.
    The Committee believes funding should be allocated towards 
diabetic foot complications in the African-American community.
    The Committee urges the VA to undertake a wireless pilot 
project at the Dublin VA Medical Center to enhance the service 
of the Valdosta and Albany VA clinics.

                      Departmental Administration


                       GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $1,319,753,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     1,275,700,695
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     1,324,753,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       +44,052,305
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......        -5,000,000


    The General Operating Expenses appropriation provides for 
the administration of non-medical veterans benefits through the 
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and top management 
direction and support. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 
changed the accounting of Federal credit programs and required 
that all administrative costs associated with such programs be 
included within the respective credit accounts. Beginning in 
fiscal year 1992, costs incurred by housing, education, and 
vocational rehabilitation programs for administration of these 
credit programs are reimbursed by those accounts. The bill 
includes the budget requests totaling $154,957,000 in other 
accounts for these credit programs. In addition, $9,500,000 is 
transferred from the compensation and pensions account for 
administrative costs of implementing cost saving provisions 
required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992. Section 107 of the 
administrative provisions provides requested language which 
permits excess revenues in three insurance funds to be used for 
administrative expenses. The VA estimates that $40,215,000 will 
be utilized for such purposes in fiscal year 2005. Prior to 
fiscal year 1996, such costs were included in the general 
operating expenses appropriation. Thus, in total, 
$1,937,803,000 is requested in fiscal year 2005 for 
administrative costs of non-medical benefits.
    The Committee recommends $1,319,753,000 for General 
Operating Expenses. This amount represents an increase of 
$44,052,305 when compared to fiscal year 2004 and a decrease of 
$5,000,000 from the budget request. The bill includes requested 
language allowing $66,000,000 of the funds appropriated to be 
available for obligation for two years and limits funding for 
the purchase of not more than two motor vehicles for the VBA 
office in Manila, Philippines. The bill also includes language 
directing the VBA to be funded at not less than $1,027,193,000.
    The Committee strongly urges the Department to retain 
consolidation of the Department's information technology 
initiatives in the Office of the Chief Information Officer 
(CIO). The Committee directs that all cyber-security and 
enterprise architecture activities continue to be centrally 
managed by the CIO.
    The Committee is pleased with the Department's efforts to 
modernize its computing infrastructure and supports the 
continued implementation of the One-VA Enterprise Architecture 
Plan. Similar models used by the commercial sector have 
resulted in significantly reduced operating costs and improved 
overall performance. The Committee urges the Department to 
focus on four critical priorities: cybersecurity; information 
technology infrastructure consolidation; VA Web Operations; and 
continuity of operations. Further, the Committee directs the 
Department to provide a full description of each of these 
initiatives and to report to the Committee on a quarterly basis 
to ensure that key information technology objectives are being 
met on a timely basis.
    The Committee directs the VA to proceed with information 
technology initiatives, including the acquisition of data 
replication technologies, to provide continuity of operations 
capability for corporate and regional data centers through the 
Corporate Data Center Infrastructure initiative. The Committee 
also directs the VA to proceed with the acquisition of data 
replication technologies in order to provide continuity of 
operations for messaging consolidation, office automation, and 
other necessary applications at the VA's regional computing 
centers. The Committee has allocated $25,000,000 Department-
wide for these activities and directs that these funds be made 
available to, and administered by, the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer.

                    NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $148,925,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       143,352,202
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       148,925,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        +5,572,798
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                +0


    The National Cemetery Administration was established in 
accordance with the National Cemeteries Act of 1973. It has a 
fourfold mission: to provide for the interment in any national 
cemetery with available grave space the remains of eligible 
deceased servicepersons and discharged veterans, together with 
their spouses and certain dependents, and to permanently 
maintain their graves; to mark graves of eligible persons in 
national and private cemeteries; to administer the grant 
program for aid to States in establishing, expanding, or 
improving State veterans' cemeteries; and to administer the 
Presidential Memorial Certificate Program. This appropriation 
provides for the operation and maintenance of 158 cemeterial 
installations in 39 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico.
    The Committee recommends $148,925,000 for the National 
Cemetery Administration in fiscal year 2005. This funding level 
is $5,572,798 over the 2004 level and the same as the budget 
request. The Committee is providing funds to meet needs 
associated with new cemeteries and the increased workload 
projected by the Department.
    Due to Hawaii's geographic isolation, veterans living in 
this state must use VA and state cemeteries located in Hawaii 
and cannot rely on VA cemeteries located in other states. 
Unfortunately, Hawaii is one of six states in the nation that 
has a VA cemetery that can no longer accept new burials unless 
space is made available in gravesites of previously interred 
family members. Because of the unique circumstances in this 
situation, the Committee requests that VA undertake a study to 
review alternatives available to veterans, including the 
feasibility of a new VA cemetery.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $69,711,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        61,634,200
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        64,711,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        +8,076,800
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......        +5,000,000


    The Office of Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit, 
investigation and inspection of all Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs and operations. The overall operational 
objective is to focus available resources on areas which would 
help improve services to veterans and their beneficiaries, 
assist managers of Department programs to operate economically 
in accomplishing program goals, and prevent and deter recurring 
and potential fraud, waste and inefficiencies.
    The Committee has provided $69,711,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General in fiscal year 2005. This amount is 
$8,076,800 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation and 
$5,000,000 above the budget request. The increase provided is 
to be used to establish a new office in Florida at the Bay 
Pines Medical Center.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $458,800,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       271,578,179
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       458,800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       187,221,821
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The construction, major projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the VA, 
including planning, architectural and engineering services, 
Capital Asset Realignment Enhanced Services (CARES) activities, 
assessments and site acquisition where the estimated cost of a 
project is $7,000,000 or more. Emphasis is placed on correction 
of life/safety code deficiencies in existing Department medical 
facilities.
    The bill provides $458,800,000 the same as the budget 
request and an increase of $187,221,821 from the direct 
appropriation for fiscal year 2004. Of the amount provided, the 
bill specifies $361,800,000 for CARES and $10,000,000 for the 
Judgment Fund.
    The Committee has reviewed the VA's recently released list 
of proposed construction projects and reminds the VA that some 
of these proposed projects will prematurely impact facilities 
that the Department is still studying. In an effort to avoid 
possible duplication of effort and to avoid the expenditure of 
funds unnecessarily, the VA should defer any action on the 
design or construction of projects until the aforementioned 
studies are complete. Further, the Committee is aware of 
statements recently made by the Secretary indicating that VA 
would not commence with construction until final decisions are 
made. The Committee appreciates the Secretary's commitment to 
take this approach.
    The Committee urges the Secretary to re-visit the decision 
to not establish a Community-Based Outpatient Clinic in the 
Elkhart County area of Indiana.
    The Committee notes the clear direction given to the VA and 
the Department of the Navy in the VISN-12 CARES study and 
previous legislation by Congress to combine the North Chicago 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center with Naval Hospital Great 
Lakes. The Committee is pleased that renovation of the North 
Chicago surgical suites are imminent and that the two 
departments are concluding the site selection process for the 
Joint Ambulatory Care Center. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to work with the Secretary of the Navy to report on 
the design, construction schedule, funding, and operating plan 
for the new Joint Ambulatory Care Center by March 1, 2005.
    The Committee is concerned by limited consultation by the 
Department with local communities during some aspects of the 
recent Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services process. 
In some instances, direct Congressional involvement was 
required to encourage belated outreach to affected communities.
    The Secretary's final decision on the CARES Commission 
Report deferred action on 8 facilities, pending completion of 
feasibility studies. Further study was directed to enable more 
specific conclusions about the regional health care 
requirements associated with each facility. The Secretary's 
statement on the CARES decision noted ``Where further study is 
recommended, VA will continue to include stakeholders as part 
of the study process.''
    The Committee expects the agency to improve consultation 
with Members of Congress and affected communities. The mission 
of the VA is too important for decisions to be made without the 
input of all stakeholders. Accordingly, the Committee directs 
the agency to defer final action on any facility undergoing a 
feasibility study until affected stakeholders have been given 
adequate opportunity to consult with Task Forces and the agency 
about the future of these facilities. Further, the agency is 
directed to conduct needs assessment studies to be completed as 
part of all major or basic feasibility studies.
    The specific amounts recommended by the Committee are as 
follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Available                             House
                 Location and description                     through 2004      2005 request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans Health Administration (VHA):
    Tampa, FL, SCI expansion..............................  ................            $7,100            $7,100
    Pensacola, FL, Joint VA and Navy OPC..................  ................            55,500            55,500
    Temple, TX, Blind rehabilitation and psychiatric beds.  ................            56,000            56,000
    San Juan, PR, Seismic corrections, design.............  ................            15,000            15,000
    Syracuse, NY, SCI addition............................  ................            53,900            53,900
    Atlanta, GA, Wards modernization......................  ................            20,700            20,700
    Menlo Park, CA, Seismic corrections...................  ................            33,239            33,239
    San Francisco, CA, Seismic corrections................  ................            41,500            41,500
    Los Angeles, CA, Seismic corrections, design..........  ................             8,000             8,000
    Lee County, FL, Outpatient clinic--Land purchase......  ................             6,510             6,510
    Des Moines, IA, Extended care building................  ................            25,000            25,000
    San Diego, CA, Seismic corrections....................  ................            48,260            48,260
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, CARES\1\..................................  ................           370,709           370,709
                                                           =====================================================
Advance planning fund: Various stations...................  ................            14,000            14,000
Asbestos abatement: Various stations......................  ................             3,000             3,000
Claims Analyses: Various locations........................  ................             1,000             1,000
Judgment Fund: Various locations..........................  ................             8,091             8,091
Hazardous Waste: Various locations........................  ................             2,000             2,000
Emergency Response Security Study.........................  ................             2,000             2,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other line-items..........................  ................            30,091            30,091
                                                           =====================================================
      Total VHA construction, major projects..............  ................           400,800           400,800
                                                           =====================================================
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)....................  ................                 0                 0
National Cemetery Administration (NCA): \2\
    Sacramento, CA Phase I Development....................  ................            21,600            21,600
    Florida Gravesite Expansion and Cemetery Improvements.  ................            20,000            20,000
    Rock Island, IL Gravesite Expansion and Cemetery        ................            10,200            10,200
     Improvements.........................................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Construction..............................  ................            51,800            51,800
                                                           =====================================================
Design Fund: Various locations............................  ................             3,200             3,200
Advance planning fund: Various locations..................  ................             1,000             1,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other line-items..........................  ................             4,200             4,200
                                                           =====================================================
      Total NCA construction, major projects..............  ................            56,000            56,000
                                                           =====================================================
Staff Offices: Various locations..........................  ................             2,000             2,000
                                                           =====================================================
      Total construction, major projects..................  ................           458,800          458,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Projects selected after the completion of the CARES studies for authorization and approval.
\2\ National Cemetery Administration major project requests do not include the purchase of pre-placed crypts,
  which are funded by the Compensation and Pensions appropriation.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $230,799,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       250,656,350
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       230,799,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -19,857,350
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
Department, including planning, CARES activities, assessment of 
needs, architectural and engineering services, and site 
acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is less than 
$7,000,000.
    The Committee recommends $230,799,000 for the construction, 
minor projects appropriation in fiscal year 2005, an increase 
of $19,857,350 to the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and the 
same as the budget request. Of the amount provided, $40,000,000 
shall be for CARES activities.

       GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       105,163,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       101,497,610
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       105,163,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        +3,665,390
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    This program provides grants to assist States to construct 
State home facilities, for furnishing domiciliary or nursing 
home care to veterans, and to expand, remodel or alter existing 
buildings for furnishing domiciliary, nursing home or hospital 
care to veterans in State homes. A grant may not exceed 65 
percent of the total cost of the project.
    The Committee recommends $105,163,000 for grants for 
construction of State extended care facilities in fiscal year 
2005, the same as the budget request. The amount provided is an 
increase of $3,665,390 to the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.

          GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $32,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        31,811,200
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        32,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          +188,800
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    This program provides grants to assist States with the 
establishment, expansion, and improvement of State veterans' 
cemeteries which are operated and permanently maintained by the 
States. Grants under this program fund up to 100 percent of 
construction costs and the initial equipment expenses when the 
cemetery is established.
    The states remain responsible for providing the land and 
for paying all costs related to the operation and maintenance 
of the state cemeteries, including the costs for subsequent 
equipment purchases. The Committee recommends $32,000,000 for 
grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries in 
fiscal year 2005, the same as the budget request and $188,800 
above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    The bill continues the first twenty administrative 
provisions from title I contained in Public Law 108-199, the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill, with revised dollar 
figures, and other conforming modifications. Two new provisions 
are included. The first new provision earmarks in 
appropriations the property management contract and the 
authority to transfer funds from GOE to the Housing Program 
appropriation, if actual contract costs are higher than 
$8,800,000. The second new provision provides access to 
unobligated balances of funds appropriated to the Medical 
Services account for emergency expenses from the January 1994 
earthquake in Southern California.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation:
    Program Level....................................... $37,786,258,000
    Fee Receipts........................................  -2,814,000,000
    Rescissions.........................................  -2,321,000,000
    Offsetting Collections..............................     -72,209,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net Appropriation \1\.............................  32,579,049,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation:
    Program Level.......................................  37,893,986,000
    Fee Receipts........................................  -3,462,124,000
    Rescissions.........................................  -3,177,000,000
    Offsetting Collections..............................     -52,603,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net Appropriation.................................  31,202,259,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 2005 budget request:
    Program Level.......................................  36,754,568,000
    Fee Receipts........................................  -2,842,000,000
    Rescissions.........................................  -2,321,000,000
    Offsetting Collections..............................     -72,209,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net Appropriation \1\.............................  31,519,359,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Comparison with Fiscal year 2004 appropriation:
    Program Level.......................................    -107,728,000
    Fee Receipts........................................    +648,124,000
    Rescissions.........................................    +856,000,000
    Offsetting Collections..............................     -19,606,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net Appropriation \1\.............................  +1,376,790,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Comparison with Fiscal year 2005 budget request:
    Program Level.......................................  +1,031,690,000
    Fee Receipts........................................     +28,000,000
    Rescissions.........................................               0
    Offsetting Collections..............................               0
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net Appropriation \1\.............................  +1,059,690,000

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

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was 
established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Act of 1965 (Public Law 89Y09174). HUD is the principal Federal 
agency responsible for administering and regulating programs 
and industries concerned with the Nation's housing needs, 
economic and community development, and fair housing 
opportunities.
    In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and 
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who 
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan 
insurance programs, rental and homeownership subsidy programs 
for low-income families, neighborhood rehabilitation programs, 
and community development programs.
    The Committee recommends a total program level of 
$37,786,258,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, a reduction of $107,728,000 below the fiscal year 
2004 level, and $1,031,690,000 above the request.
    Over the past four years, the Committee has demonstrated 
the high priority it places on housing and community 
development programs by providing significant additional 
resources to the Department at a time of fiscal constraint. 
Total funding provided for HUD programs has increased from 
$33,098,735,000 in fiscal year 2001 to $37,786,258,000 proposed 
for fiscal year 2005, a $4,687,523,000 or 14 percent increase 
in four years. However, despite this large increase, funding 
for most HUD programs has remained flat, or been reduced, 
because Section 8 funding has grown by 44 percent during that 
time, a rate of growth unmatched by any other program funded in 
this bill. Most of the growth has occurred in Section 8 voucher 
renewals, which has increased by almost 30 percent since fiscal 
year 2001 including a 14.5% increase in fiscal year 2004 alone. 
Consequently, Section 8 funding now consumes over 53 percent of 
HUD's entire budget, up from 41 percent four years ago. Such 
growth is not sustainable and reform is imperative to ensure 
that the nation's housing and community development needs are 
served.
    The Committee has not included authorization legislation 
proposed by the Administration which would provide public 
housing authorities greater flexibility in administering their 
programs by eliminating mandatory income targeting, mandatory 
tenant rent caps, and other requirements. The Committee has 
taken this action without prejudice toward the merits of the 
individual proposal but strictly because such changes fall 
outside the Committee's jurisdiction. However, the Committee 
strongly urges the authorization committees to take the actions 
necessary to reform the program. The Committee is concerned 
that absent such reform, the viability of all HUD programs, 
including the Section 8 program, will be compromised.

                       Public and Indian Housing


                        HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

              (INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSION OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation...................                 \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation....................       $19,257,190,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request...................    \1\ 18,465,800,000

Comparison with Fiscal year 2004 appropriation....   \1\ -19,257,190,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2005 budget request...   \1\ -18,465,800,000

\1\ The Committee recommendation does not provide funding for this
  account, but instead funds activities previously included in the
  account under the new Tenant-based Rental Assistance and Project-Based
  Rental Assistance accounts.

    The Committee does not propose funding all section 8 rental 
assistance programs in one account, the Housing Certificate 
Fund, as provided for in fiscal year 2004. Section 8 rental 
assistance now constitutes 53 percent of the entire budget for 
the Department. In order to provide the Congress with a more 
complete accounting of the funds appropriated for these 
programs, the Committee recommends a new account structure to 
fund tenant-based rental assistance programs, including Section 
8 vouchers, through the new Tenant-Based Rental Assistance 
account, and project-based rental assistance through the new 
Project-Based Rental Assistance account. The Committee believes 
this new account structure will provide better transparency and 
strengthen oversight of the expenditures in these programs.

                     TENANT BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation...................       $14,677,055,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation....................                 \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2005 budget request...................                 \1\ 0
Comparison with Fiscal year 2004 appropriation....   \1\ +14,677,055,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2005 budget request...   \1\ +14,677,055,000


\1\ Funding for tenant-based rental assistance activities was requested
  under the Housing Certificate Fund account as provided for in fiscal
  year 2004.

    The Tenant-Based Rental Assistance account (TBRA) funds the 
Section 8 voucher program and other tenant-based rental 
assistance programs and activities. Tenant-based rental 
assistance (vouchers) provides a rental subsidy on behalf of a 
low-income individual or family to allow the participant to 
rent privately owned housing rather than limiting participants 
to subsidized housing programs. Section 8 rental vouchers are 
administered locally by the public housing agencies. Amounts 
provided in this account include funding for the renewal of 
expiring section 8 vouchers including enhanced vouchers, new 
tenant-protection vouchers including enhanced vouchers, 
relocation assistance, and payment of fees to public housing 
agencies administering Section 8 voucher programs.
    The Committee recommends a total of $14,677,055,000 for 
this account, an increase of $490,825,000 above the comparable 
levels provided for these activities in fiscal year 2004 and 
$1,561,998,000 above the budget request. Consistent with the 
budget request, the Committee recommends continuation of the 
$4,200,000,000 advance appropriation for tenant-based rental 
assistance.
    The recommendation reflects a 3.5 percent increase for 
voucher renewals and associated administrative costs above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2004. The amounts provided 
represent the total funding available to the Department for 
Section 8 voucher renewals and administrative costs and the 
Department is prohibited from augmenting these funds from any 
other source. The Committee has taken this action to eliminate 
any confusion over the amount of funding available to the 
program in fiscal year 2005 and to ensure that the Department 
and the public housing authorities manage the program within 
the resources provided. The Committee reiterates that the 
Section 8 voucher program is funded as a discretionary program, 
not a mandatory program. Consequently, the Department and the 
public housing authorities must manage the program within a 
budget. Therefore, the Department is directed to continue to 
renew annual contributions contracts under the voucher program 
on a budget-basis.
    The following table provides the comparable funding levels 
requested in the budget and funded in previous years in the 
Housing Certificate Fund for activities funded in this new 
account:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       2005
                  Activity                      2003 enacted     2004 enacted     2005 request     recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voucher Renewals............................     $11,106,701      $12,721,335      $11,793,177      $13,303,177
Tenant Protection Vouchers..................         234,017          205,277          163,000          163,000
Administrative Costs:                              1,100,980        1,259,618        1,158,880        1,210,878
    (Administrative Fees)...................      (1,051,191)      (1,210,107)      (1,155,938)      (1,161,938)
    (FSS Coordinators)......................         (48,000)         (47,716)              (0)         (46,000)
    (Working Capital Fund)..................          (1,789)          (1,795)          (2,942)          (2,940)
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Tenant-Based Assistance........      12,441,698       14,186,230       13,115,057       14,677,055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recommendation includes the following:
    --Renewal of expiring Section 8 vouchers: $13,303,177,000 
for renewals of Section 8 vouchers, an increase of $581,842,000 
over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and $1,510,000,000 
above the request. This represents an increase of a 4.6 percent 
increase over the 2004 appropriation and 13 percent over the 
budget request.
    The Committee remains concerned about the spiraling 
increase in the costs of the voucher program. The vast majority 
of the cost increase has occurred because the amount public 
housing authorities are spending for each voucher rose by 
almost 29 percent between 2001 and 2004, at a time when the 
national rental market has softened significantly. Both HUD and 
the public housing authorities have a responsibility to ensure 
that resources are efficiently and effectively used and that 
such programs are managed within the budgets provided.
    The Committee reiterates that the Department is to continue 
the practice of renewing annual contributions contracts on a 
``budget'', or ``dollar'', basis. Language is not included to 
set forth a formula for determining the allocation of funds for 
each public housing authority. Instead, the Committee directs 
the Department to use its discretionary authority to determine 
the budget for each public housing authority. In determining 
such budgets, the Committee believes that such determinations 
should be based only upon verified data to ensure data 
integrity and quality.
    No funds have been provided separately in a central fund. 
Instead funding has been provided only for the budget-based 
renewal of expiring annual contributions contracts. No funding 
or authority is provided to allow amendments to such contracts. 
Public housing authorities are required to manage their 
programs within the budget provided in their annual 
contributions contract renewal.
    The Committee is aware that public housing authorities are 
required to ensure that their programs are managed in a cost-
effective and efficient manner. These requirements include 
setting appropriate payment standards, verifying that rents are 
reasonable, verifying tenant income. The Committee directs the 
Department to increase its oversight and monitoring of public 
housing authoritie's compliance with these requirements, and 
report its finding to the Committee not later than November 15, 
2004.
    Language is continued, carried in previous years, 
prohibiting public housing authorities from over-leasing. The 
Committee is very concerned that, despite the specific 
statutory prohibitions in the fiscal years 2003 and 2004 
appropriations Acts, some public housing authorities continued 
to engage in this prohibited practice. The Committee directs 
the Department to provide a report to the Committee not later 
than November 15, 2004 of all public housing authorities that 
violated the statutory prohibitions, the sources of funds used 
to support such over-leasing, and the sanctions levied against 
such authorities by the Department.
    --Tenant Protection: $163,000,000 for tenant protection 
activities to provide Section 8 vouchers to individuals and 
families living in public and assisted housing affected by 
demolition or disposition of the units or owners opting-out of 
the Section 8 project-based program; for conversion of section 
202 and section 23 projects to section 8 vouchers; for the 
family unification program; and for the witness protection 
program. Again this year, funding for new vouchers under the 
HOPE VI program is to be provided within the Revitalization of 
Severely Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI) account. Funding 
included for tenant protection is only to be used for rental 
subsidies. Funding for associated administrative expenses is 
provided separately within this account.
    --Administrative Costs: The Committee recommends a total of 
$1,210,878,000 for administrative costs and other expenses 
associated with the Section 8 voucher program. Of this amount 
$1,161,938,000 is for payments to public housing authorities 
for administrative fees, an increase of $6,000,000 above the 
request and $48,169,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level. 
Language is included allocating these funds on a pro-rata basis 
to public housing agencies based on the amount they received 
for such purpose in fiscal year 2004 and requiring such funds 
to be used only for activities related to Section 8 voucher 
program.
    In addition, $46,000,000 is for Family Self-Sufficiency 
service coordinator staff in each eligible public housing 
agency, a decrease of $2,000,000 below the fiscal year 2004 
level. The budget did not propose funding for this purpose. 
And, not less than $2,940,000 is for transfer to the Working 
Capital Fund for the development of and modifications to 
information technology systems.
    Language is continued in the bill under Administrative 
Provisions, requiring public housing authorities to continue to 
reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous year for 
persons with disabilities upon turnover.

                    PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $5,340,745,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................             \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................             \1\ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........             \1\ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......    +5,340,745,000


\1\ Funding for project-based rental assistance activities was requested
  under the Housing Certificate Fund account as provided for in fiscal
  year 2004.

    The Project-Based Rental Assistance account (PBRA) funds 
project-based rental assistance program and activities. 
Project-based rental assistance provides a rental subsidy to a 
private landlord tied to a specific housing unit so that the 
properties themselves, rather than the individual living in the 
unit, remains subsidized. Amounts provided in this account 
include funding for the renewal of expiring project-based 
contracts, including Section 8, moderate rehabilitation, and 
single room occupancy (SRO) contracts, amendments to section 8 
project-based contracts, and administrative costs for 
performance-based project-based Section 8 contract 
administrators and costs associated with administering moderate 
rehabilitation and single room occupancy contracts.
    The Committee recommends a total of $5,340,745,000 for this 
account, an increase of $269,786,000 above the comparable 
levels provided for these activities in fiscal year 2004 and 
$10,002,000 below the budget request.
    The following table provides the comparable funding levels 
requested in the budget and funded in previous years in the 
Housing Certificate Fund for activities funded in this new 
account:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       2005
                  Activity                      2003 enacted     2004 enacted     2005 request     recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Renewals...........................      $4,452,932       $4,945,787       $5,226,823       $5,216,823
Administrative Costs........................         216,984          125,172          123,924          123,922
    (Sec. 8 Contract Administrators)........        (194,726)         (99,410)        (101,900)        (101,900)
    (Mod. Rehab. Administrative Fees).......         (21,066)         (24,565)         (20,062)         (20,062)
    (Working Capital Fund)..................          (1,192)          (1,197)          (1,962)          (1,960)
      Total, Project-Based Assistance.......       4,669,916        5,070,959        5,350,747        5,340,745
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends $5,196,823,000 for renewals of 
expiring project-based rental assistance contracts, an increase 
of $204,413,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level and 
$10,000,000 below the request. Of this amount, $4,990,000,000 
is for section 8 project-based subsidy contracts, an increase 
of $320,832,000 above fiscal year 2004; $206,823,000 is for 
moderate rehabilitation contracts, a decrease of $46,419,000 
below the fiscal year 2004 level; and $20,000,000 is provided 
for Single Room Occupancy contracts (associated administrative 
costs) as requested, a decrease of $3,192,000 below fiscal year 
2004.
    For administrative costs associated with project-based 
rental assistance, the recommendation includes $101,900,000 for 
performance-based contract administrators for section 8 
project-based assistance and $20,062,000 for moderate 
rehabilitation administrative costs.
    The Committee also recommends no less than $1,960,000 be 
transferred to the Working Capital Fund for development of and 
modifications to information technology systems which serve 
project-based rental assistance programs.
    Pursuant to the budget request, no new funding is provided 
for project-based Section 8 contract amendments for fiscal year 
2005, and instead the Committee assumes that amendment 
requirements will be met through unobligated balances and 
recaptures available in the Housing Certificate Fund.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $2,580,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     2,696,253,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     2,674,100,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........      -116,253,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       -94,100,000


    The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for public 
housing capital programs, including public housing development, 
modernization, and amendments. Examples of capital 
modernization projects include replacing roofs and windows, 
improving common spaces, upgrading electrical and plumbing 
systems, and renovating the interior of an apartment.
    The Committee recommendation includes $2,580,000,000 for 
this program, a decrease of $116,253,000 below the fiscal year 
2004 level and $94,100,000 below the request.
    Within the amounts provided, the Committee recommends the 
following:
    --Up to $37,850,000 is for technical assistance activities, 
including up to $12,440,000 for remediation services to 
troubled public housing agencies and for Fair Market Rent (FMR) 
surveys, an increase of $2,850,000 above the request and 
$11,855,000 below the 2004 level. The increase above the 
request has been provided for FMR surveys. The Committee 
expects not less than $4,750,000 for activities related to FMR 
surveys.
    --Up to $5,000,000 for costs associated with administrative 
and judicial receiverships, as requested. The Committee 
recognizes that receiverships may result in some extraordinary 
costs not normally a part of a PHA's normal operational and 
capital budget. However, these funds are expected to be used 
for such costs rather than to fund activities normally covered 
from within a PHA's operating subsidy, capital fund, and 
section 8 administrative fees allocations. The Committee 
request the Department to provide a proposed spending plan for 
the use of these funds prior to expenditure during fiscal year 
2005.
    --$53,200,000 the Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency 
program, a decrease of $1,500,000 below the request and the 
2004 level.
    --Up to $38,000,000 may be used for emergency capital needs 
resulting from emergency and natural disasters that occur in 
fiscal year 2005, a decrease of $1,976,400 below the 2004 level 
and $12,000,000 below the request. Language requested in the 
budget is not included to broaden the use of these funds. 
Instead, the Committee recommends language, modified from 
previous years to ensure funds are used only for repairs needed 
due to an unforeseen and unanticipated emergency event or 
natural disaster event that occurred during fiscal year 2005.
    --No less than $10,150,000 for transfer to the Working 
Capital Fund to support the development, of and modifications 
to, information technology systems which support Public and 
Indian Housing (PIH) programs, a decrease of $397,000 below 
fiscal year 2004 and $5,650,000 above the request. This 
reflects the Committee's continued believe that investments 
must be made to correct deficiencies in PIH information 
technology systems to improve PIH's ability to conduct 
appropriate financial and management oversight of its programs.
    The recommendation does not designate $30,000,000 for costs 
associated with the demolition of severely distressed public 
housing and instead includes $143,000,000 under the HOPE VI 
program for these activities.
    The recommendation does not include funding and the 
``Freedom to House'' Public Housing Demonstration Initiative 
without prejudice to the merits of the proposal. The Committee 
understands that this proposal is intended to build upon and 
make improvements to the Moving to Work Demonstration. The 
Committee strongly encourages the authorization committee of 
jurisdiction to consider this proposal.
    As requested, the recommendation does not designate a 
separate set-aside for the Neighborhood Networks grants because 
such activities are already an eligible use of capital funds.
    The Committee appreciates the detailed quarterly reports on 
the obligation and expenditure of capital funds provided by HUD 
during fiscal year 2004. Due to improvements in the timely 
expenditure of these funds, the Committee no longer requires 
the detailed status report for all open and closed capital 
grants, but instead only requires the summary information 
quarterly. However, the Department is requested to continue to 
provide the quarterly detailed reports on those PHA with 
obligation rates of less than 90 percent.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $3,425,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     3,578,760,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     3,573,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........      -153,760,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......      -148,000,000


    The Public Housing Operating Fund (PHOF) subsidizes the 
costs associated with operating and maintaining public housing. 
This subsidy supplements funding received by public housing 
authorities (PHA) from tenant rent contributions and other 
income. In accordance with section 9 of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937, as amended, funds are allocated by formula 
to public housing authorities for the following purposes: 
utility costs; anticrime and anti-drug activities, including 
the costs of providing adequate security; routine maintenance 
cost; administrative costs; and general operating expenses.
    The Committee recommends $3,425,000,000 to subsidize PHAs' 
fiscal year 2005 operating costs, a decrease of $153,760,000 
below the PHAs' fiscal year 2004 payment level, and 
$148,000,000 below the request. Language is continued, proposed 
for deletion, designating $10,000,000 for transfer to the 
Department of Justice to be allocated by the Attorney General 
through existing programs, such as Weed and Seed, to those 
areas where additional assistance is needed to augment Federal, 
State and local efforts to effectively fight crime and drugs in 
public housing. In addition, the Committee notes that PHAs are 
authorized to use their operating and capital funds for anti-
crime and anti-drug activities. All activities previously 
authorized under the public housing drug elimination program 
(PHDEP) are permissible activities under the operating and 
capital fund accounts.
    Includes language, as proposed in the budget, restating 
fundamental principles of appropriations law which prohibits 
funds appropriated in this Act for fiscal year 2005 payments 
from being used to supplement a prior year appropriation for 
prior year payments.
    Continues language, carried in prior years, prohibiting 
funds from being used for section 9(k) activities. Proposed 
language is not included making funds available for two years.
    The Committee has not recommended a set-aside of $5,000,000 
for a proposed new voluntary graduation incentive program 
without prejudice to the merits of the proposal. The Committee 
strongly encourages the authorization committee of jurisdiction 
to examine this proposal.

     REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING (HOPE VI)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $143,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       149,115,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        -6,115,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......      +143,000,000


    The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 
program, also known as HOPE VI, provides competitive grants to 
public housing authorities to revitalize entire neighborhoods 
adversely impacted by the presence of badly deteriorated public 
housing projects. In addition to developing and constructing 
new affordable housing, the program provides PHAs with the 
authority to demolish obsolete projects and to provide self-
sufficiency services for families who reside in and around the 
facility.
    The Committee recommends funding HOPE VI at $143,000,000, a 
decrease of $6,115,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level. Of 
this amount up to $4,000,000 is for technical assistance. The 
budget did not request any funding for this program.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $622,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       650,241,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       647,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -28,241,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       -25,000,000


    The Native American Housing Block Grants program provides 
funds to Indian tribes and their tribally-designated housing 
entities (TDHEs) to address housing needs within their 
communities. The block grant is designed to fund a TDHE's 
operating requirements and capital needs.
    The Committee recommends $622,000,000 for this account, a 
decrease of $28,241,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level and 
$25,000,000 below the budget request.
    The recommendation includes the following: $1,914,000 for 
the section 601 Loan Guarantee program to guarantee a total 
loan volume of $17,155,000; $4,300,000 for inspections, 
training, travel costs, and technical assistance; $2,100,000 
for the National American Indian Housing Council to conduct 
training programs and to provide technical assistance; no less 
than $2,600,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund for 
information technology systems development and modifications; 
and $150,000 for transfer to the HUD salaries and expenses 
account for administrative expenses.
    Language is included elsewhere in this title rescinding 
excess prior year funds from the title VI loan guarantee 
program as proposed in the budget.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                       Program account    direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.....        $5,000,000      $145,345,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation......         5,269,000       197,243,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.....         1,000,000        29,070,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004              -269,000       -51,898,000
 appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2005            +4,000,000      +116,275,000
 budget request.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native Americans 
to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides 
access to sources of private financing for Indian families and 
Indian housing authorities that otherwise cannot acquire 
financing because of the unique legal status of Indian trust 
land. This financing vehicle enables families to construct new 
homes or to purchase existing properties on reservations.
    The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the section 184 
Loan Guarantee program to guarantee a total loan volume of 
$145,345,000, a decrease of $269,000 and $51,898,000 in total 
loan commitment authority from the 2004 level. Language is 
included transferring $250,000 to the HUD salaries and expenses 
account for administrative expenses.
    Language is included elsewhere in this title rescinding 
excess prior year funds from this program as proposed in the 
budget.

                  NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................             \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................             \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        $9,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......     \1\-9,500,000


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

    The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide 
grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 
(DHHL) for housing and housing related assistance to develop, 
maintain and operate affordable housing for eligible low-income 
Native Hawaiian families.
    The Committee does not recommend funding this program as a 
separate account as proposed in the budget, but instead 
continues funding for this program under the Community 
Development Fund as provided in fiscal year 2004.

      NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                       Program account    direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.....        $1,000,000       $37,403,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation......         1,029,000        39,712,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.....         1,000,000        37,403,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2004               -29,000        -2,309,000
 appropriation......................
Comparison with Fiscal year 2005                     0                 0
 budget request.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 
the Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund program to 
provide loan guarantees for native Hawaiian individuals and 
their families, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the 
Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and private nonprofit organizations 
experienced in the planning and development of affordable 
housing for Native Hawaiians for the purchase, construction, 
and/or rehabilitation of single-family homes on Hawaiian Home 
Lands. This program provides access to private sources of 
financing that would otherwise not be available because of the 
unique legal status of Hawaiian Home Lands.
    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for this program to 
guarantee a total loan volume of $37,403,000, the full amount 
requested. Language is included transferring $35,000 to the HUD 
salaries and expenses account for administrative expenses.

                   Community Planning and Development


              HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $282,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       294,751,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       294,800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -12,751,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       -12,800,000


    The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 
program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons 
with AIDS Act. This program provides States and localities with 
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive 
strategies to meet the housing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS 
and their families. Ninety percent of funding is distributed by 
formula to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the 
basis of the cumulative number and incidences of AIDS reported 
to the Centers for Disease Control. The remaining 10 percent of 
funding is distributed through a national competition. 
Government recipients are required to have a HUD-approved 
Comprehensive Plan/Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 
(CHAS).
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends 
$282,000,000, a decrease of $12,751,000 below the fiscal year 
2004 level, and a decrease of $12,800,000 below the budget 
request. Within the total amount provided, $2,000,000 is for 
technical assistance, training and oversight as requested. The 
Committee continues to believe that creating new housing 
opportunities for persons with AIDS should be the priority for 
HOPWA funding.
    Bill language is included, carried in previous years, which 
requires the Secretary to renew expiring permanent supportive 
housing contracts previously funded under the national 
competition which meet all program requirements before awarding 
new competitive grants.

                 RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $24,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        24,853,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          -853,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       +24,000,000


    This account provides funding to rural non-profit 
organizations, community development corporations, Indian 
tribes, State housing finance agencies, State economic 
development and/or Federally recognized community development 
agencies.
    The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for the Rural Housing 
and Economic Development program, a decrease of $853,000 below 
the level provided in fiscal year 2004. The budget request had 
proposed to eliminate funding for this program.
    Modified language is included, similar to language carried 
in previous years, requiring the Department to award funds for 
this program no later than September 1, 2005.

                EMPOWERMENT ZONES/ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $14,250,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        14,912,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          -662,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       +14,250,000


    This account provides discretionary grant funding to 15 
urban Enterprise Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/ECs) 
designated in Round II.
    The statute that created Round II EZ/ECs did not authorize 
discretionary grant funding for these communities, but instead 
authorized tax incentives to stimulate revitalization efforts 
in these communities. However, since fiscal year 1999, 
discretionary grant funds have been provided under this 
account. Therefore, the Committee recommends $14,250,000 in 
continued grant funding for the 15 urban Round II EZ/ECs.
    Language is included making these funds available for 
obligation for three years, consistent with the funds 
availability provided for other community development 
activities funded within the Department.

                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $4,711,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     4,920,795,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     4,618,094,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........      -209,795,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       +92,906,000


    The Community Development Fund provides funding to State 
and local governments, and to other entities that carry out 
community and economic development activities under various 
programs.
    The Committee recommends a total of $4,711,000,000 for the 
Community Development Fund account, a decrease of $209,795,000 
from the amount provided in fiscal year 2004 and an increase of 
$92,906,000 to the fiscal year budget request. Funding under 
this account is allocated as follows:
    --$4,304,900,000 for Community Development Block Grant 
formula grants, including funding for insular areas;
    --$69,000,000 for Native American Community Development 
Block Grants, of which up to $4,000,000 may be used for 
emergency grants;
    --$33,500,000 for the National Community Development 
Initiative (NCDI), as follows:
          $4,700,000 for Habitat for Humanity capacity building 
        activities, of which $750,000 is to be used to expand 
        the ability of Indian tribes to participate in the 
        Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity program and other 
        Habitat for Humanity efforts; and
          $28,800,000 for the Enterprise Foundation and LISC 
        capacity building activities, including $4,800,000 for 
        activities in rural areas;
    --$36,700,000 for section 107 activities, as follows:
          $10,000,000 for Historically Black Colleges and 
        Universities, of which up to $2,000,000 may be used for 
        technical assistance;
          $1,400,000 for technical assistance;
          $2,900,000 for Community Development Work Study;
          $6,700,000 for Hispanic Serving Institutions;
          $6,700,000 for Community Outreach Partnerships; and
          $9,000,000 for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block 
        Grant program
    --$3,200,000 for the Housing Assistance Council;
    --$2,400,000 for the National American Indian Housing 
Council;
    --$4,800,000 for the National Housing Development 
Corporation (NHDC), for continuation of its program of 
acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation of at-risk 
affordable housing;
    --$4,800,000 for the National Council of La Raza, for its 
national HOPE Fund to leverage additional investments in 
affordable housing and community development projects;
    --$26,000,000 for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity 
(SHOP) program;
    --$62,000,000 for Youthbuild, including $2,000,000 for 
capacity building;
    --$2,000,000 for a grant for the 2006 Special Olympics in 
Ames, Iowa;
    --$136,500,000 for economic development initiatives. 
Language is again included in the bill prohibiting funds from 
being used for operating expenses of a facility, program or 
organization, and limiting costs associated with grant and 
project administration to no more than 20 percent of the total 
grant award. The Committee notes projects receiving funding 
must comply with the environmental review requirements set 
forth in section 305(c) of the Multifamily Housing Property 
Disposition Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 3547); the Committee will 
not entertain waivers of this requirement. In addition, funds 
may not be used for reimbursement of expenses incurred prior to 
the enactment of the Act providing funding for an economic 
development initiative.
    Targeted grants shall be provided as follows:
          1. $605,000 for Covenant House in Anchorage, Alaska 
        for capital improvement needs;
          2. $100,000 to the City of Gadsden, Alabama for 
        construction of the facility for the New Centurions 
        Substance Abuse Program for Women;
          3. $200,000 to the City of Hanceville, Alabama for 
        construction of the Wallace State Center for Automotive 
        Manufacturing and Plastics;
          4. $200,000 to the City of Rainsville, Alabama for 
        construction of the Rainsville Agricenter;
          5. $150,000 to the City of Guntersville, Alabama for 
        renovation of the Old Rock School Whole Backstage 
        Theater;
          6. $100,000 to the City of Hokes Bluff, Alabama for 
        construction of a Senior Center;
          7. $60,000 to the City of Arab, Alabama for 
        construction of the Lola Boyd Outdoor Education and 
        Wildlife Area facility;
          8. $50,000 to the City of Gordo, Alabama for 
        construction of a public library;
          9. $50,000 to the City of Fayette, Alabama for 
        renovation of the historic old Post Office;
          10. $20,000 to Winston County, Alabama for facilities 
        construction and renovation of the Historic Houston 
        Jail;
          11. $20,000 to Winston County, Alabama for facilities 
        construction and renovation of the Winston County Local 
        Government Record Depository;
          12. $250,000 for the City of Birmingham, Alabama for 
        renovations to the Birmingham Zoo;
          13. $200,000 to the City of Mobile, Alabama for 
        renovations to the Saenger Theater;
          14. $200,000 to Wallace Community College for 
        construction for the Southeast Alabama Nursing 
        Initiative in Dothan, Alabama;
          15. $150,000 to the Chris Hammond Youth Foundation 
        for construction of a youth sports complex in Wedowee, 
        Alabama;
          16. $150,000 to the City of Tuskgee, Alabama for park 
        renovations;
          17. $50,000 to the City of Decatur, Alabama for 
        improvements to Delano Park;
          18. $100,000 to the Madison County Commission in 
        Alabama for countywide planning;
          19. $100,000 to Athens State University for 
        facilities renovation of McCandless Hall;
          20. $125,000 to the Huntsville-Madison County 
        Botanical Gardens in Alabama for improvements to 
        facilities;
          21. $50,000 to the Muscle Shoals Regional Center at 
        the University of North Alabama for a feasibility 
        study;
          22. $125,000 to the Helen Keller Birthplace 
        Foundation for restoration of Ivy Green in Tuscumbia, 
        Alabama;
          23. $100,000 to the Huntsville Museum of Art in 
        Alabama for facilities upgrades;
          24. $50,000 to the Morgan County Child Advocacy 
        Center in Decatur, Alabama for facilities construction 
        and renovation;
          25. $100,000 to the Northwest Alabama Children's 
        Advocacy Center for facilities improvements, 
        expansions, and upgrades;
          26. $75,000 to Parents and Children Together in 
        Decatur, Alabama for facilities construction, 
        renovation, and upgrades to its center;
          27. $75,000 to the Princess Theatre Center for 
        Performing Arts in Decatur, Alabama for facilities 
        renovations;
          28. $50,000 to the Bankhead Educational Foundation, 
        Inc. for facilities planning and construction in 
        Lawrence County, Alabama;
          29. $100,000 to the 1856 Memphis and Charleston 
        Railroad Freight Depot in Huntsville, Alabama, for 
        repairs and renovations;
          30. $75,000 to the City of Hueytown, Alabama for 
        construction of the Hueytown Community Center;
          31. $150,000 to North Arkansas College in Harrison, 
        Arkansas for facilities construction of the North 
        Arkansas College Health Sciences Education Center;
          32. $150,000 to the City of Phoenix, Arizona for 
        construction of the Bob Stump Veteran's Museum;
          33. $200,000 to the Arkansas State University for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the Vada 
        Sheid Community Development Center in Mountain Home, 
        Arkansas;
          34. $100,000 to the Old Independence Regional Museum 
        in Arkansas for facilities renovation;
          35. $75,000 to the City of Prescott, Arkansas for 
        construction of a public swimming pool;
          36. $125,000 to the City of Conway, Arkansas for 
        sidewalks, street furniture, and facade improvements to 
        the Conway Redevelopment project;
          37. $150,000 for the Marc Center in Mesa, Arizona for 
        construction of the Marc Day Treatment and Training 
        Center;
          38. $250,000 to Patronato Sax Xavier for facilities 
        renovation at Mission San Xavier del Bac in Tucson, 
        Arizona;
          39. $450,000 to the Fox Tucson Theatre Foundation for 
        the preservation of the Fox Tucson Theatre in Tucson, 
        Arizona;
          40. $100,000 to the Town of Springerville, Arizona 
        for renovations to the historic Old Springerville 
        Elementary School;
          41. $75,000 to the Dunbar Coalition for the Dunbar 
        Project in Tucson, Arizona for playground equipment, 
        restoration of the school ramada, and renovation of the 
        auditorium;
          42. $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro 
        Phoenix for a new facility for the Glendale Boys & 
        Girls Club in Phoenix, Arizona;
          43. $250,000 to Chicanos Por La Causa for land 
        acquisition at the Buckeye Road Site Development in 
        Phoenix, Arizona;
          44. $250,000 to the Riverside Community College in 
        Riverside, California for facilities construction and 
        renovation improvements;
          45. $200,000 to the Riverside Community College for 
        construction of the School of Nursing in Riverside, 
        California;
          46. $400,000 to HomeAid America for the construction 
        of HomeAid America Temporary homeless shelters in Costa 
        Mesa, California;
          47. $250,000 to the San Diego Food Bank in San Diego, 
        California for facilities improvements;
          48. $1,000,000 to the City of Lincoln, California for 
        construction and renovation of a Cultural and Business 
        Center;
          49. $600,000 to the City of Sierra Madre, California 
        for the construction of the Sierra Madre Youth Activity 
        Center;
          50. $100,000 to the Lompoc Boys & Girls Club for 
        facilities renovation of the Lompoc Boys & Girls 
        Clubhouse;
          51. $150,000 to the Thousand Oaks Boys & Girls Club 
        for construction of a new clubhouse on the campus of 
        Colina Middle School in Thousand Oaks, California;
          52. $200,000 to the City of Redding, California for 
        industrial park development at the Stillwater Business 
        Park;
          53. $375,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of East San 
        Diego County for construction of a new clubhouse in 
        Santee, California;
          54. $250,000 to the City of Oceanside, California for 
        construction of a new Senior Center;
          55. $100,000 to the town of Yucca Valley, California 
        for the Civic Center Park;
          56. $150,000 to the City of Twentynine Palms, 
        California for facilities and land acquisition for the 
        Joshua Tree National Park Visitors Center;
          57. $250,000 for the City of Desert Hot Springs, 
        California for the development and construction of the 
        Civic and Community Center;
          58. $250,000 to the City of Banning, California for 
        construction and renovation of the city pool;
          59. $300,000 to the National Orange Show in San 
        Bernardino, California for facilities construction and 
        renovation of the stadium;
          60. $650,000 to the City of Apple Valley, California 
        for construction of the Civic Center Park project;
          61. $250,000 to the City of Lancaster, California for 
        land acquisition for the North Downtown Transit Village 
        Project;
          62. $200,000 to the City of Whittier, California for 
        the expansion and remodeling of the Whittwood Branch 
        Library;
          63. $200,000 to the International Agri-Center in 
        Tulane, California for facilities construction;
          64. $200,000 to the City of Citrus Heights, 
        California for the Auburn Boulevard Commercial Corridor 
        Enhancements;
          65. $225,000 to the City of Livermore, California for 
        facilities construction and renovations for the Tri-
        Valley Homeownership Clearinghouse;
          66. $250,000 to the North Fork Community Development 
        Council for industrial park development in North Fork, 
        California;
          67. $200,000 to the City of Westminster, California 
        for construction of the Community Cultural and 
        Education Center;
          68. $200,000 to Kern County, California for 
        infrastructure improvements of the Imperial Way 
        Industrial Park;
          69. $300,000 to the City of Bakersfield, California 
        for sidewalks, street furniture and facade 
        improvements;
          70. $500,000 to the University of California for 
        facilities construction and renovation to the Shafter 
        Cotton Research and Extension Center in Shafter, 
        California;
          71. $75,000 to the City of San Bernardino, California 
        for expansion of its senior center;
          72. $175,000 to the City of Los Angeles, California 
        for rehabilitation of the Echo Park Boathouse;
          73. $100,000 to the Sylmar Recreation and Park Center 
        in Sylmar, California for facilities construction and 
        renovation;
          74. $100,000 to the Valley Economic Development 
        Center in Pacoima, California for facilities 
        construction of the Pacoima Community Development 
        Federal Credit Union;
          75. $125,000 to the City of Santa Barbara, California 
        for construction and restoration associated with the 
        Arroyo Burro Beach Park;
          76. $75,000 to the City of Stockton, California for 
        renovation of the El Dorado Teen Center;
          77. $75,000 to the Vietnam Veterans of San Diego for 
        the construction of a new homeless shelter in San 
        Diego, California;
          78. $75,000 to the City of Fresno, California for 
        improvements in the Southern Fresno Industrial Park;
          79. $175,000 to the City of Palo Alto, California for 
        restoration of the Palo Alto Children's Library;
          80. $300,000 to the Second Harvest Food Bank in Santa 
        Cruz and San Benito Counties, California for facilities 
        construction and renovations;
          81. $100,000 to the County of Imperial, California 
        for project planning of the Imperial County Eco Park;
          82. $75,000 to the City of Los Angeles, California 
        for land acquisition and development of the East 
        Wilmington Park;
          83. $75,000 to the City of San Jose, California for 
        renovations and upgrades to a shopping district;
          84. $125,000 to the County of Alameda Public Works 
        Agency for sidewalks improvements in Cherryland and 
        Ashland, California;
          85. $100,000 to the City of San Jose, California for 
        construction of a multipurpose community center;
          86. $300,000 to the Sacramento Area Regional 
        Technology Alliance for an economic development 
        planning study;
          87. $125,000 to the City of Long Beach, California 
        for renovation and expansion of the Museum of Latin 
        American Art;
          88. $75,000 to the City of Montebello, California for 
        renovations to the George Hensel Aquatic Center;
          89. $300,000 to the International Museum of Women in 
        San Francisco, California for rehabilitation and 
        buildout;
          90. $400,000 to the Filipino Cultural Center in San 
        Francisco, California for construction and buildout;
          91. $125,000 to the East Los Angeles Community 
        Corporation for renovation of office space in Boyle 
        Heights, Los Angeles, California;
          92. $75,000 to the El Proyecto Pastoral for 
        construction of a pre-school center in Los Angeles, 
        California;
          93. $125,000 to the El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historic 
        Park for restoration of a mural in Los Angeles, 
        California;
          94. $100,000 to the City of Anaheim, California for 
        the reconstruction and lighting of the Magnolia High 
        School athletic fields;
          95. $75,000 to the City of Burbank, California for 
        construction of the Ovrom Recreation Center and 
        Community Day School;
          96. $75,000 to the City of Porter Ranch, California 
        for facility expansion of the North Valley YMCA;
          97. $100,000 to the City of Azusa, California for 
        construction of a health care clinic;
          98. $100,000 to the City of Duarte, California for 
        construction of a new library;
          99. $100,000 to the City of Fremont, California for 
        facilities renovations to the Kidango Rix Child Care 
        Center;
          100. $100,000 to the City of San Leandro, California 
        for the construction of the San Leandro Senior Citizens 
        Center;
          101. $125,000 to the City of Lafayette, California 
        for the construction of a veterans memorial building;
          102. $75,000 to the City of American Canyon, 
        California for construction of the Veterans Memorial 
        Park;
          103. $75,000 to the City of Windsor, California for 
        the rehabilitation of Keiser Park;
          104. $175,000 to the City of Inglewood, California 
        for construction of the Inglewood Senior Center;
          105. $100,000 to the City of Lawndale, California for 
        construction of the Lawndale Senior Center;
          106. $75,000 to the City of Los Angeles, California 
        for renovation of the Barnsdall House and Park;
          107. $275,000 to the City of Santa Monica, California 
        for facilities construction and renovation of the Santa 
        Monica National Mountains Gateway Visitors Center;
          108. $100,000 to the Valley of the Moon Children's 
        Home for construction in Santa Rosa, California;
          109. $100,000 to Center Point, Inc. in Marin County, 
        California for renovation of a treatment facility for 
        youth;
          110. $100,000 to the City of Aurora, Colorado for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the 
        Fitzsimmons Redevelopment Authority;
          111. $100,000 to Jefferson County, Colorado for 
        facilities and construction of an early childhood 
        development center;
          112. $150,000 for the City of Arvada, Colorado for 
        the design phase of the community's arts and humanities 
        center;
          113. $75,000 to the Denver Department of Human 
        Services for renovations and buildout of a homeless 
        shelter in Denver, Colorado;
          114. $100,000 to the Bent of the River Audubon Center 
        for facilities renovation of the Visitor's Center;
          115. $150,000 for Trinity-On-Main in New Britain, 
        Connecticut for the Trinity-On Main Arts Education and 
        Community Center for property acquisition and 
        renovation;
          116. $100,000 to Progressive Training Associates in 
        Bridgeport, Connecticut for facilities construction;
          117. $100,000 to the Stamford Center for the Arts for 
        facilities construction of Little Theater & Arts 
        Education Center;
          118. $200,000 to the Stamford Yerwood Center in 
        Stamford, Connecticut for facilities renovation;
          119. $300,000 to the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut 
        for facilities construction and renovation of the Music 
        and Arts Center for Humanity;
          120. $100,000 to the Town of Willington, Connecticut 
        for construction of the Willington Senior Center;
          121. $150,000 to the City of Norwich, Connecticut for 
        the development of Harbor Park;
          122. $200,000 to the Main Street Development 
        Corporation for land acquisition, planning and 
        facilities construction associated with the Nangatuck 
        Valley Economic Growth Initiative in Naugatuck Valley, 
        Connecticut;
          123. $150,000 to the City of Derby, Connecticut for 
        the Sterling Opera House renovation;
          124. $125,000 to the Greater Dwight Development 
        Corporation for construction of the Dwight Community 
        Child Care Center in New Haven, Connecticut;
          125. $125,000 to the University of Hartford, 
        Connecticut for renovations to the Hartt Performing 
        Arts Center;
          126. $100,000 for the Beebe School of Nursing in 
        Lewes, Delaware for facilities construction and 
        renovation;
          127. $250,000 for the City of Clearwater, Florida for 
        facilities construction and renovation improvements for 
        the Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project;
          128. $500,000 for Volunteer Jacksonville for the 
        construction of the Volunteer Jacksonville Facility in 
        Jacksonville, Florida;
          129. $300,000 for the South Florida Goodwill for 
        facility renovations in Miami, Florida;
          130. $500,000 to the Centro Mater Head Start 
        Facilities for construction of a new facility in 
        Hialeah, Florida;
          131. $100,000 to Orange County, Florida for expansion 
        of the Marks Street Senior Center;
          132. $650,000 to the Office of Farmworker Ministries 
        in Apopka, Florida for facilities construction;
          133. $150,000 to the Sebring Airport Authority for 
        industrial park development in Sebring, Florida;
          134. $500,000 to the City of Fort Myers, Florida for 
        the restoration of Edison & Ford Winter Estates;
          135. $200,000 to the City of Sarasota, Florida for 
        the Fredd ``Glossie'' Atkins park expansion;
          136. $150,000 to the City of Ocoee, Florida for 
        facilities construction for a senior citizen veterans 
        services center;
          137. $200,000 to the City of Palatka, Florida for the 
        Palatka Riverfront improvements;
          138. $100,000 to the City of Miami, Florida for the 
        Elderly Assistance Program for facilities construction;
          139. $250,000 to the City of Boca Raton, Florida for 
        sidewalks, street furniture, and facade improvements;
          140. $150,000 to the City of Gainesville, Florida for 
        facilities improvements and upgrades of the Depot 
        Regional Stormwater Park;
          141. $150,000 for Alachua County, Florida for 
        streetscape improvements for the Partners for a 
        Productive Community Enhancement Initiative;
          142. $634,000 to Hubbs/Sea World for facilities 
        construction of a marine and coastal research center in 
        Brevard County, Florida;
          143. $633,000 to Shands/Jacksonville for facilities 
        construction and renovation of an emergency room/trauma 
        center in Jacksonville, Florida;
          144. $633,000 to the Orlando Regional Medical Center 
        for facilities construction and renovation of the 
        Pediatric Trauma Center in Orlando, Florida;
          145. $50,000 to Crosswinds Youth Services for 
        facilities construction of a youth center in Brevard 
        County, Florida;
          146. $200,000 to the City of Largo, Florida for 
        Central Park facilities improvements;
          147. $900,000 to the City of Clearwater, Florida for 
        streetscape improvements for the Beachwalk project;
          148. $250,000 to Pinellas County, Florida for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the Urban 
        League community Center;
          149. $900,000 to the Salvador Dali Museum in St. 
        Petersburg, Florida for planning, design, and 
        construction of facilities;
          150. $900,000 to the City of Dunedin, Florida for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the city 
        community center;
          151. $100,000 to the National Armed Services and Law 
        Enforcement Memorial Museum, in Dunedin, Florida for 
        facilities construction and renovation;
          152. $900,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida 
        for facilities renovation and expansion of the Florida 
        Museum of Fine Arts;
          153. $400,000 to the City of Palm Harbor, Florida for 
        the downtown revitalization project;
          154. $400,000 to the City of Treasure Island, Florida 
        for the community development project;
          155. $900,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida 
        for restoration of the Jordan School;
          156. $300,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida 
        for the Tangerine Avenue community development project;
          157. $300,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida 
        for Dome Industrial Park facilities renovation and 
        construction;
          158. $300,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida 
        for facilities construction and improvements at 
        Bartlett Park;
          159. $250,000 to the City of Tampa, Florida for 
        facilities construction and renovation for the Bay 
        History Center;
          160. $675,000 to Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, 
        Florida for construction of the Youth Opportunity 
        Center;
          161. $200,000 to the City of Clearwater, Florida for 
        construction and renovation for the Homeless 
        Intervention Project;
          162. $300,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida 
        for facilities construction and renovation for the Mid-
        Pinellas Science Center;
          163. $380,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida 
        for construction and renovation for the Catholic 
        Charities Mercy House;
          164. $150,000 to the Tri-County Ag Complex in Altha, 
        Florida for construction of a multipurpose center;
          165. $150,000 to the City of Carrabelle, Florida for 
        construction of a recreation park;
          166. $200,000 to the City of Orlando, Florida for 
        land acquisition in the Parramore Neighborhood;
          167. $75,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida 
        to rehabilitate the Jordan School;
          168. $75,000 to the Urban League of Broward County, 
        Florida for construction of a community building 
        resource center;
          169. $75,000 to Hendry County, Florida for sidewalks, 
        street furniture, and facade improvements at Hendry 
        LaBelle Community Civic Park;
          170. $75,000 to the Miami-Dade County Empowerment 
        Zone Trust for facility construction of the Poinciana 
        Biopharmaceutical Park;
          171. $75,000 for Antioch Micro-Enterprise Network in 
        Augusta, Georgia for the Antioch Micro-Enterprise 
        Network's Entrepreneur Training Program;
          172. $200,000 to Mercer University for facilities 
        construction for the Mercer University Critical 
        Personnel Development Program;
          173. $100,000 to Cobb County, Georgia for 
        construction of the Marietta, Georgia Senior Center;
          174. $100,000 to the City of Marietta, Georgia for 
        capitalization of the Marietta Growth Fund;
          175. $100,000 to the City of Marietta, Georgia for 
        capitalization of the Marietta Growth Fund;
          176. $75,000 to the Joint Development Authority of 
        Ben Hill and Irvin Counties, Georgia for industrial 
        park development;
          177. $500,000 to the Coastal Heritage Society for 
        construction of the Savannah Battlefield Interpretive 
        Center in Savannah, Georgia;
          178. $250,000 to Cherokee County, Georgia for 
        construction of the Cherokee County Emergency 
        Children's Shelter in Canton;
          179. $100,000 to the City of Plains, Georgia for 
        construction and facilities buildout of a history 
        resource center;
          180. $75,000 to the SOWEGA Council on Aging for 
        construction of a senior center in Albany, Georgia;
          181. $100,000 to Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital in 
        Dougherty County, Georgia for building renovation;
          182. $100,000 to the National Infantry Foundation in 
        Columbus, Georgia for construction of a museum and 
        park;
          183. $100,000 to Morris Brown College in Atlanta, 
        Georgia for renovation of a building;
          184. $75,000 to America's Second Harvest of Georgia 
        for facility buildout in centers;
          185. $75,000 to Lowndes Association Ministries to 
        People for renovation of a multipurpose center in 
        Valdosta, Georgia;
          186. $75,000 to the East Baker Historical Society/
        21st Century Community Corporation in Georgia for 
        facility repairs;
          187. $100,000 to the Flint River Auditorium Alliance 
        for renovation of an auditorium in Flint River, 
        Georgia;
          188. $100,000 to the Albany Theater in Albany, 
        Georgia for facilities renovations;
          189. $200,000 to the Miller County Development 
        Authority for construction of a sound stage in 
        Colquitt, Georgia;
          190. $150,000 to the Covenant House of Atlanta, 
        Georgia to purchase and construct a new crisis shelter 
        for homeless youth;
          191. $150,000 to Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia 
        for renovations to Rockefeller Hall;
          192. $125,000 to the Tubman Museum in Macon, Georgia 
        for construction;
          193. $100,000 to the City and County of Honolulu, 
        Hawaii for expansion and renovation of the Makiki 
        Library;
          194. $150,000 to the City of Storm Lake, Iowa for the 
        construction of the Storm Lake Destination Park;
          195. $100,000 to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson 
        County in Iowa City, Iowa, for capitalization of loan 
        funds;
          196. $200,000 to the City of Waterloo, Iowa for 
        industrial park development;
          197. $125,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for 
        land acquisition for a technology park;
          198. $100,000 to the Clearwater Economic Development 
        Association for an economic planning study for the 
        Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Project;
          199. $500,000 to the City of Blackfoot, Idaho for 
        land acquisition and improvements at the Jensen Grove 
        City Park and Jensen Grove Lake;
          200. $150,000 to Franklin County, Idaho for the 
        moving, renovation, restoration of the Oneida Stake 
        Academy building in Preston, Idaho;
          201. $200,000 to Idaho State University for 
        facilities construction for the L.E. and Thelma E. 
        Stephens Performing Arts Center;
          202. $100,000 to Power County, Idaho for the Fort 
        Hall Reservation/Power County Joint Economic 
        Redevelopment Initiative;
          203. $200,000 to the City of Crest Hill, Illinois for 
        facilities construction and renovation of Our 
        Children's Homestead Foster Home Development;
          204. $150,000 to the Village of Zurich, Illinois for 
        industrial park development;
          205. $500,000 to the City of DeKalb, Illinois for 
        industrial park infrastructure improvements;
          206. $350,000 to the City of Downers Grove, Illinois 
        for capital improvements for the Ray Graham Association 
        for People With Disabilities;
          207. $100,000 to the World War II Black Navy Veterans 
        of Great Lakes Memorial Foundation for the North 
        Chicago Veterans' Memorial in North Chicago, Illinois;
          208. $275,000 to the St. Francis Medical Center in 
        Peoria, Illinois for improvements, including 
        consolidation of ambulatory care;
          209. $275,000 to the Lakeview Regional Museum in 
        Peoria, Illinois for facilities construction and 
        renovation of a new building;
          210. $275,000 for PeoriaNEXT in Peoria, Illinois for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the 
        Innovation Center business incubator;
          211. $250,000 for Illinois College in Jacksonville, 
        Illinois for facilities construction and renovation of 
        Whipple Hall;
          212. $275,000 for Glen Oak Zoo in Peoria, Illinois 
        for facilities construction and renovation of a new 
        Africa exhibit;
          213. $100,000 Eureka College, Eureka, IL, for 
        continued construction of Science and Technology 
        Center;
          214. $100,000 Northfield Park District, IL, for 
        facilities renovation and rehabilitation;
          215. $150,000 to the City of Havana, Illinois for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the Havana 
        Rural Center;
          216. $100,000 to the Rockford Literary Council for 
        facilities construction in Rockford, Illinois;
          217. $200,000 to the Burpee Museum-Discovery Center 
        museum campus expansion project in Rockford, Illinois;
          218. $400,000 to the City of Joliet, Illinois for the 
        continued restoration of the Rialto Square Theater;
          219. $175,000 to the City of Benton, Illinois for 
        construction of a new library;
          220. $250,000 to the Night of Ministry in Chicago, 
        Illinois for rehabilitation and construction of the The 
        Night of Ministry Homeless Youth Housing Shelter;
          221. $1,000,000 to the Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's 
        Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois for facilities 
        construction;
          222. $75,000 to the Academy for Urban School 
        Leadership for construction of a gymnasium and playing 
        fields in Chicago, Illinois;
          223. $200,000 to the City of Grafton, Illinois for 
        development of the marina and harbor, including 
        construction of sidewalks;
          224. $200,000 to the Western Illinois University for 
        construction of the Quad City Campus in Moline, 
        Illinois;
          225. $200,000 to the Chicago Park District for the 
        Davis Square Park reconstruction in Chicago, Illinois;
          226. $175,000 to the Calumet Area Redevelopment 
        Initiative for land acquisition and restoration of the 
        Lake Calumet area in Chicago, Illinois;
          227. $125,000 to The Inner Voice/A Little Bit of 
        Heaven for facility upgrades to homeless shelters on 
        the South Side of Chicago, Illinois;
          228. $400,000 to the Village of Western Springs, 
        Illinois for land acquisition and construction of a 
        parking lot;
          229. $350,000 to the Greater Chicago Food Depository 
        for construction of a new foodbank and training 
        facility;
          230. $75,000 to the City of Des Plaines, Illinois for 
        expansion of a senior center;
          231. $350,000 to the City of Marion, Indiana for 
        refurbishing the City of Marion Memorial Coliseum;
          232. $100,000 to Madison Township, Indiana for 
        construction of the Madison Township Community Center;
          233. $250,000 to the City of South Bend, Indiana for 
        industrial park development at the Studebaker Corridor;
          234. $250,000 to the South Bend Heritage Foundation 
        in South Bend, Indiana for facilities construction and 
        renovation;
          235. $150,000 to the City of Anderson, Indiana for 
        industrial park development;
          236. $100,000 to the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana for 
        facilities construction for the Hanna-Creighton 
        Community Enhancement Initiative;
          237. $200,000 to the Tri-State University in Angola, 
        Indiana, for facilities construction for the Center for 
        Technology and Online Resources;
          238. $150,000 to the University of Indianapolis for 
        facility expansion in Indianapolis, Indiana;
          239. $125,000 to the City of Rising Sun, Indiana for 
        the rehabilitation of a building into a community 
        performance center and meeting space;
          240. $500,000 to the Town of Schererville, Indiana 
        for construction of a recreational facility;
          241. $275,000 to the City of Whiting, Indiana for 
        renovation of the Whiting Social Center Facility;
          242. $250,000 to Historic Abilene, Inc., in Kansas 
        for the revitalization of New Old Abilene Town;
          243. $100,000 to the City of Ottawa, Kansas for 
        improvements to the Municipal Swimming Pool;
          244. $200,000 to the City of Topeka, Kansas for 
        industrial park development at the Center Point 
        commerce park;
          245. $250,000 to the City of Wichita, Kansas for the 
        renovations at the Veterans Memorial Park;
          246. $350,000 to the City of Wichita, Kansas for 
        facilities construction for the development of the 21 
        st Street Community Development Corporation;
          247. $125,000 to the Kansas Chapter, National Korean 
        War Veterans' Association for construction of the 
        Korean War Memorial of Overland Park, Kansas;
          248. $75,000 to El Centro, Inc. for facilities 
        construction and renovation in a business park in 
        Kansas City, Kansas;
          249. $100,000 to the City of Radcliff, Kentucky for 
        streetscape improvements;
          250. 150,000 to the Trinity Family Life Center of 
        Louisville, Kentucky for facilities construction of a 
        multi-purpose center;
          251. 700,000 to the Louisville Metro Government in 
        Kentucky for the Newburg neighborhood revitalization;
          252. 100,000 to Dream Foundation, Inc. in Louisville, 
        Kentucky for playground construction;
          253. $250,000 to Breathitt County Fiscal Court for 
        the construction of an intergenerational community 
        entertainment center in Jackson, Kentucky;
          254. $250,000 to the Roy F. Collier Community Center 
        for computer hardware, equipment, and furniture needs 
        in Inez, Kentucky;
          255. $200,000 to Metcalfe County Fiscal Court for 
        construction of the Metcalfe County Enrichment Center 
        in Edmonton, Kentucky;
          256. $125,000 to Morehead State University for 
        construction and expansion of classrooms in Mt. 
        Sterling, Kentucky;
          257. $150,000 to the City of St. Francisville, 
        Louisiana for facilities construction and renovation;
          258. $300,000 to the Biomedical Research Foundation 
        of NW Louisiana for industrial park development in 
        Shreveport, Louisiana;
          259. $250,000 to St. John the Baptist Parish, 
        Louisiana for facilities renovations to the Louisiana 
        War Veterans Home;
          260. $125,000 to the City of Bastrop, Louisiana for 
        renovation of a building into a technology multiplex;
          261. $125,000 to the St. Mary's Women and Infants 
        Center for renovations to its facilities for homeless 
        women and children in Boston, Massachusetts;
          262. $100,000 to the Town of Barnstable, 
        Massachusetts for site preparation, design, sidewalks, 
        street furniture, and facade improvements;
          263. $75,000 to the Town of Dedham, Massachusetts for 
        parks improvements;
          264. $150,000 to the Mystic Valley Development 
        Corporation in Medford, Massachusetts for the 
        development of a technology and research center;
          265. $150,000 to the Malden Immigrant Center in 
        Malden, Massachusetts for facilities construction, 
        upgrades and buildout;
          266. $100,000 to Main South Community Development 
        Corporation in Worcester, Massachusetts for the 
        Gardner-Kilby Hammond Neighborhood Revitalization 
        Project;
          267. $125,000 to the Lowell, Massachusetts Boys and 
        Girls Club for facility improvements;
          268. $150,000 to the City of Springfield, 
        Massachusetts for construction of the Springfield 
        Public Market;
          269. $175,000 to the American International College 
        in Springfield, Massachusetts for increased classroom 
        space at the Reed Mansion and Breck Hall;
          270. $200,000 to the New England Log Homes 
        Redevelopment for demolition in Great Barrington, 
        Massachusetts;
          271. $500,000 to the City of Hatfield, Massachusetts 
        for facilities expansion at the Food Bank of Western 
        Massachusetts;
          272. $150,000 to Salem State College in Salem, 
        Massachusetts for construction and renovation of its 
        Art Glass Works Facility;
          273. $75,000 to the Enterprise Foundation for a 
        feasibility study in Annapolis, Maryland;
          274. $150,000 to the Baltimore School for the Arts 
        for building upgrades in Baltimore, Maryland;
          275. $200,000 to the Town of North Beach, Maryland 
        for construction of a gym and multipurpose room at the 
        Bayside Boys and Girls Club;
          276. $200,000 to the Girl Scout Council of the 
        Nation's Capital for the Girl Scout Camp construction, 
        in Charles and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland;
          277. $250,000 to St. Mary's County for land 
        acquisition and demolishment at the Lexington Manor 
        Northern Parcel in Leonardtown, Maryland;
          278. $75,000 to the Cal Ripken Senior Foundation for 
        construction of a stadium in Aberdeen, Maryland;
          279. $75,000 to Prince Georges County, Maryland for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the Permanent 
        Employment & Training Center and Multicultural Academy;
          280. $125,000 to the Anacostia Watershed Society for 
        facilities renovation of the George Washington House in 
        Prince George's County, Maryland;
          281. $125,000 to the Gulf of Maine Research Institute 
        for facilities construction and renovation in Portland, 
        Maine;
          282. $100,000 to the City of Lewiston, Maine for 
        renovation of a public theatre;
          283. $125,000 to the City of Greenville, Maine for 
        rehabilitation of the Junction Wharf,
          284. $100,000 to the City of Lewiston, Maine for 
        renovation of the the Franco-American Heritage Center;
          285. $350,000 to Boysville of Michigan for facilities 
        construction and renovations;
          286. $150,000 to Global Enterprises for Water 
        Technology for building acquisition and renovation at 
        Clearwater Plaza in Grand Rapids, Michigan;
          287. $250,000 to the Grand Valley State University 
        for acquisition of a research facility, training and 
        education space for the Annis Water Resource Institute 
        in Muskegon, Michigan;
          288. $500,000 to the Michigan Jewish Institute for 
        facilities construction and renovation at the College 
        Academic Center in West Bloomfield, Michigan;
          289. $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Troy, 
        Michigan for facilities construction and renovation;
          290. $100,000 to the Oakland Livingston Human Service 
        Agency for facilities construction and renovation in 
        Pontiac, Michigan;
          291. $200,000 to the City of Durand, Michigan for 
        downtown streetscape improvements;
          292. $125,000 to the City of Detroit, Michigan for 
        demolition;
          293. $175,000 to the Arab Community Center for 
        Economic and Social Services in Dearborn, Michigan for 
        construction of a museum;
          294. $75,000 to Genesee County, Michigan for 
        demolition, rehabilitation, and site preparation;
          295. $75,000 to the Tuscola Human Development 
        Commission for construction of an intergenerational day 
        care facility in Caro, Michigan;
          296. $325,000 to the City of Detroit, Michigan for 
        sidewalks, street furniture, and facade improvements to 
        the Detroit RiverWalk, East River Front;
          297. $150,000 to Marquette General Hospital in 
        Marquette, Michigan for construction of a trauma and 
        emergency center;
          298. $50,000 to the Cities of Manistique and 
        Charlevoix, Michigan for the Northern Michigan Senior 
        Centers Renovation Project;
          299. $100,000 to the St. Cloud Housing & 
        Redevelopment Authority for renovations to Germain 
        Towers;
          300. $150,000 to Scott County, Minnesota for 
        renovation of affordable housing at the Belle Haven 
        Apartment Preservation;
          301. $100,000 to the Cornerstone Advocacy Service in 
        Bloomington, Minnesota for facilities construction;
          302. $75,000 to the City of South St. Paul, Minnesota 
        for site preparation at Port Crosby Park;
          303. $150,000 to the City of Royalton, Minnesota for 
        the renovation of a multi-purpose community facility;
          304. $150,000 to the City of Park Rapids, Minnesota 
        for Teamworks for industrial park development;
          305. $100,000 to Leech Lake Tribal College for 
        facilities construction and renovation in Cass Lake, 
        Minnesota;
          306. $100,000 to the City of Willmar, Minnesota for 
        redevelopment of a closed airport into the City of 
        Willmar Industrial Park;
          307. $100,000 to the City of Canby, Minnesota for 
        construction of the Prairie Farm Preservation Education 
        and Exhibit Center;
          308. $150,000 to the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota 
        for rehabilitation of a multipurpose community center;
          309. $275,000 to the Ritz Theater Foundation in 
        Minneapolis, Minnesota for renovations to the Ritz 
        Theater;
          310. $150,000 to the American Swedish Institute in 
        Minneapolis, Minnesota for facilities construction at 
        the Temblad Mansion;
          311. $150,000 to the Show-Me Aquatics for facilities 
        construction in Saint Charles, Missouri;
          312. $80,000 to Greene County, Missouri for the 
        development of an industrial park;
          313. $250,000 to the City of Springfield, Missouri 
        for the construction of a community multipurpose 
        center;
          314. $500,000 for the Gillioz-Ronald Reagan Theatre 
        in Springfield, Missouri for facilities renovation;
          315. $200,000 for the Missouri Soybean Association 
        for construction of the Missouri Soybean Association's 
        Discovery Research Institute;
          316. $200,000 to the Southeast Missouri State 
        University for construction of the Southeast Missouri 
        State University River Campus in Cape Girardeau, 
        Missouri;
          317. $150,000 to the Missouri Soybean Association for 
        renovations to the New Generation Agribusiness 
        Incubation Center in Kansas City, Missouri;
          318. $200,000 to the Brookfield Industrial 
        Development Authority in Brookfield, Missouri, for 
        industrial park development;
          319. $75,000 to the City of St. Louis, Missouri for 
        construction of the Northside Recreation Center;
          320. $100,000 to the City of St. Louis, Missouri for 
        streetscape improvements, facade improvements, and 
        street furniture in the commercial district;
          321. $100,000 to the Lemay Development Corporation in 
        St. Louis, Missouri for land and site acquisition, 
        demolition, streetscape improvements and renovation of 
        St. Louis neighborhoods;
          322. $200,000 to the Missouri Sheriffs Association 
        for construction of an indoor firing range in Jefferson 
        City, Missouri;
          323. $100,000 to Laderdale County, Mississippi for 
        facilities construction for Mississippi Scrimber Wood 
        Project;
          324. $100,000 to the LeFleur Lakes Development 
        Foundation in Rankin and Hinds Counties, Mississippi 
        for an economic planning study;
          325. $125,000 to Mississippi State University for 
        Phase II expansion of its Research, Technology and 
        Economic Development Park in Mississippi State, 
        Mississippi;
          326. $350,000 to the City of Holly Springs, 
        Mississippi for the North Memphis Street Redevelopment 
        Revitalization Project;
          327. $100,000 to Clarke County, Mississippi for 
        development of an industrial park;
          328. $125,000 to Wayne County, Mississippi for 
        development of an industrial park;
          329. $100,000 to the Mississippi Valley State 
        University in Itta Bena, Mississippi for the renovation 
        and expansion of current facilities for the Center for 
        Rural and Small Town Development;
          330. $75,000 to the Mississippi Valley State 
        University for a feasibility study of the recreation 
        areas at the Boys and Girls Club facilities in Itta 
        Benna, Mississippi;
          331. $200,000 to the Montana State University-
        Northern for facilities equipment and technology 
        upgrades in Havre, Montana;
          332. $150,000 to the Southeastern Center for 
        Contemporary Art for facilities construction and 
        renovation in Winston-Salem, North Carolina;
          333. $200,000 to the Blowing Rock Community Arts 
        Center Foundation in Blowing Rock, North Carolina for 
        construction of the Blowing Rock Performing Arts 
        Center;
          334. $100,000 to the City of Charlotte, North 
        Carolina for facilities construction and renovation at 
        Grier Heights;
          335. $150,000 to the City of Raeford, North Carolina 
        for streetscape improvements;
          336. $150,000 to Scotland County, North Carolina for 
        demolition of the Scotland County Hospital;
          337. $100,000 to the City of Hatteras, North Carolina 
        for construction of the Graveyard of the Atlantic 
        Museum;
          338. $100,000 to Gaston County, North Carolina, for 
        industrial park development for the Gaston County 
        Technology Park Expansion;
          339. $100,000 to Gaston County, North Carolina to 
        establish a revolving loan for investment in downtown 
        Gastonia;
          340. $50,000 for the City of Etowah, North Carolina 
        for the Etowah community park for streetscape 
        improvements;
          341. $250,000 for the Education and Research 
        Consortium at Brevard College in Brevard, North 
        Carolina for science building facilities construction 
        and renovation;
          342. $250,000 for the Education and Research 
        Consortium at Brevard College in Brevard, North 
        Carolina for dormitory facilities construction and 
        renovation;
          343. $100,000 to the Raleigh Area Development 
        Authority in Raleigh, North Carolina for capitalization 
        of a loan fund;
          344. $150,000 to Duplin County, North Carolina for 
        retrofitting and upgrades to the West Park Business 
        Technology Center;
          345. $75,000 to the Wake County Library Foundation 
        for construction of a downtown library in Raleigh, 
        North Carolina;
          346. $100,000 to the North Carolina Community 
        Development Initiative, Inc. for construction and 
        buildout of a community center in Apex, North Carolina;
          347. $150,000 to the North Carolina Community 
        Development Initiative, Inc. for expansion and buildout 
        of substance abuse treatment facilities in Durham, 
        North Carolina;
          348. $100,000 to Durham County, North Carolina for 
        renovation and buildout of a community health center;
          349. $100,000 to the Center for Community Self-Help 
        in Durham, North Carolina for construction and buildout 
        of a farmer's market facility;
          350. $150,000 to the Town of Holly Springs, North 
        Carolina for construction and buildout of a performing 
        and cultural arts center;
          351. $150,000 to the Town of Fuquay-Varina, North 
        Carolina for renovation, expansion, and buildout of a 
        community center;
          352. $150,000 to the Town of Apex, North Carolina for 
        renovation, expansion, and buildout of a performing and 
        cultural arts center;
          353. $100,000 to the Summit House, Inc. for 
        construction and buildout of a residential facility in 
        Greensboro, North Carolina;
          354. $75,000 to the Music Maker Relief Foundation, 
        Inc. in Durham, North Carolina for acquisition, 
        renovation, and buildout of a facility;
          355. $125,000 to the Bennett College Science Center 
        for facilities construction and renovation in 
        Greensboro, North Carolina;
          356. $100,000 to the East Market Street Development 
        Corporation for facility renovations to the old post 
        office site in Greensboro, North Carolina;
          357. $125,000 to the Three Affiliated Tribes at Fort 
        Berthold for construction of a cultural interpretive 
        center;
          358. $200,000 for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska for 
        the Antelope Valley revitalization project;
          359. $400,000 to the Boys and Girls Home of Nebraska 
        for Columbus Hospital renovations;
          360. $250,000 for the Girls and Boys Town USA in 
        Newark, New Jersey, Jersey City, New Jersey, 
        Portsmouth, Rhode Island, Las Vegas, Nevada and New 
        Orleans, Louisiana for construction at the national 
        priority projects of Girls and Boys Town USA;
          361. $100,000 to the City of Concord, New Hampshire 
        for facilities restoration and improvements to the 
        Bicentennial Square;
          362. $250,000 to the City of Nashua, New Hampshire 
        for facilities restoration and improvements to 
        Thoreau's Park;
          363. $150,000 to the Currier Art Museum for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the Currier 
        Museum Gallery in Manchester, New Hampshire;
          364. $100,000 to the Children's Specialized Hospital 
        for facility renovations in Mountainside, New Jersey;
          365. $100,000 to the City of Bernardsville, New 
        Jersey for the downtown streetscape project;
          366. $100,000 to the Hunterdon County YMCA for 
        construction of a child care facility in Hunterdon 
        County, New Jersey;
          367. $100,000 to the Town of Dover, New Jersey for an 
        economic development planning study;
          368. $100,000 to the Borough of Somerville for an 
        economic development planning study;
          369. $100,000 to the Borough of Wanaque, New Jersey 
        for improvements to the Haskell Business District 
        Redevelopment;
          370. $175,000 to the Borough of Washington, New 
        Jersey for sidewalks, street furniture and facade 
        improvements;
          371. $250,000 to the City of Mount Holly, New Jersey 
        for facilities construction and renovation to the Mt. 
        Holly Workforce Development & Economic Revitalization 
        Center;
          372. $250,000 to the City of Greater Trenton, New 
        Jersey for the construction of the Greater Trenton 
        YMCA;
          373. $200,000 to the LEAP Academy University Charter 
        High School for facilities construction and renovation 
        in Camden City, New Jersey;
          374. $125,000 to the Township of Franklin in Somerset 
        County, New Jersey for acquisition of a building to be 
        renovated into a museum;
          375. $175,000 to the City of Perth Amboy, New Jersey 
        for rehabilitation and construction of the Jewish 
        Renaissance Medical Center;
          376. $100,000 to Hudson County Community College for 
        construction of Union City Campus in Union City, New 
        Jersey;
          377. $100,000 to the Jersey City Medical Center in 
        New Jersey for facilities construction and expansion of 
        a heart institute;
          378. $150,000 to Monmouth University in West Long 
        Beach, New Jersey for renovation of the Guggenheim 
        Memorial Library;
          379. $100,000 to the County of Essex, New Jersey for 
        expansion of the Essex County Environmental Center in 
        Roseland, New Jersey;
          380. $150,000 to the City of Newark, New Jersey for 
        land acquisition for the University Heights Science 
        Park;
          381. $150,000 to the Newark Museum in Newark, New 
        Jersey for renovation and expansion of an existing 
        facility;
          382. $175,000 to the Town of Hackensack, New Jersey 
        for streetscape renovation;
          383. $150,000 to the Fort Lee Senior Center in Fort 
        Lee, New Jersey for expansion;
          384. $150,000 for the Association ode Comerciantes 
        Latinos de Nuevo Mexico in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for 
        facilities construction;
          385. $200,000 to the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico 
        for construction of the Santa Barbara/Martineztown 
        Learning Center;
          386. $75,000 to Mora County, New Mexico for 
        construction of the David Cargo Public Library;
          387. $200,000 to Nye County, Nevada for facilities 
        renovation of the Pahrump/Nye County Fairgrounds;
          388. $100,000 to the City of Henderson, Nevada for 
        downtown revitalization;
          389. $200,000 to Boulder City, Nevada for the 
        Historic Boulder City Hotel Rehabilitation;
          390. $100,000 to the Nevada Partners, Inc. for 
        facilities construction and expansion of a training 
        facility in North Las Vegas, Nevada;
          391. $25,000 to the Town of Mentz, New York for 
        renovations to the Senior Center;
          392. $50,000 to the City of Auburn, New York for 
        facilities construction and renovation of Willard 
        Chapel;
          393. $50,000 to the United Cerebral Palsy in Utica, 
        New York for development of children's campus in Rome, 
        New York at the Griffiss Business and Technology Park;
          394. $75,000 to the City of Auburn, New York for 
        renovations of the Merry Go Round Playhouse;
          395. $200,000 to the City of Geneva, New York for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the Cornell 
        Agriculture and Food Technology Park;
          396. $300,000 to the City of Utica, New York for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the Science 
        and Technology Center at Utica College;
          397. $300,000 to the City of Utica, New York for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the Stanley 
        Theater Expansion and Modernization Project;
          398. $50,000 to Brooklyn Remembers Inc. for 
        construction of the Brooklyn Remembers Memorial in 
        Brooklyn, New York;
          399. $150,000 to the Saint Vincent Catholic Medical 
        Centers for facilities construction and renovation of a 
        Primary Care Outpatient Center in Stapleton, New York;
          400. $150,000 to Yeled V'Yalda for construction of 
        the Yeled V'Yalda Treatment Center for Children with 
        Disabilities in Brooklyn, New York;
          401. $500,000 to the Roberts Wesleyan College in 
        Rochester, New York for construction of a new Library 
        and Information Resource Center;
          402. $250,000 to the Town of Monroe, New York for 
        construction of the Monroe Free Library;
          403. $250,000 to the North Shore-Long Island Jewish 
        Health System for facilities construction and 
        renovations to expand the Emergency Department in Bay 
        Shore, New York;
          404. $350,000 to Paul Smith's College in Franklin 
        County, New York for construction of the Joan Weil 
        Student Center;
          405. $50,000 to the Cheektowaga Senior Center in 
        Cheektowaga, New York for facilities improvements;
          406. $150,000 to the Robert H. Jackson Center in 
        Jamestown, New York for facilities renovation;
          407. $268,000 to the Genesee Country Village and 
        Museum in Mumford, New York for facilities 
        improvements;
          408. $250,000 to the Catskill Mountain Foundation for 
        the renovation of the Orpheum Theatre and Sugar Maples 
        Resort in Hunter, New York;
          409. $250,000 to the Warren County Economic 
        Development Corp. in North Creek, New York for 
        facilities construction of the North Creek Ski Bowl;
          410. $500,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        facilities construction and renovations of the Amos 
        Block Redevelopment Project;
          411. $250,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        renovations and streetscape improvements to the ARC of 
        Onondaga facility for developmentally disabled adults;
          412. $250,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        renovations to P.E.A.C.E. Inc. facilities in Central 
        New York;
          413. $75,000 to Ononaga County, New York for the 
        Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame for facilities 
        expansion and renovation;
          414. $400,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        facilities renovations to Syracuse Stage;
          415. $250,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        facilities expansion and renovation of Vera House;
          416. $100,000 to the City of Rochester, New York for 
        planning and expansion of the High Falls Film Festival;
          417. $1,000,000 to St. John Fisher's College in 
        Rochester, New York for construction of a new School of 
        Pharmacy;
          418. $200,000 to the Town of Penfield, New York for 
        renovations to the Camp Haccamo facilities for the 
        disabled;
          419. $600,000 to the Metropolitan Development 
        Association in Syracuse, New York for the Essential New 
        York Initiative;
          420. $100,000 to the Town of Palmyra, New York for 
        renovations to the Palmyra Community Center;
          421. $75,000 to the Wayne County, New York for 
        planning and marketing of an alternative use strategy 
        for the Savannah Elementary School Building;
          422. $400,000 to the Metropolitan Development 
        Association in Syracuse, New York for construction and 
        renovations of the Electronics Park complex;
          423. $500,000 to the New York State Olympic Regional 
        Development Authority for facilities construction;
          424. $250,000 to the Simon Wiesenthal New York 
        Tolerance Center in New York City for facade 
        restoration improvements;
          425. $500,000 to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 
        New York City for facade restoration improvements;
          426. $500,000 to the National Center for Disabilities 
        Services in Albertson, New York for facilities 
        construction and renovation;
          427. $500,000 to Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York 
        City for facilities construction;
          428. $250,000 to the Natural History Museum of the 
        Adirondacks for construction of a new museum in New 
        York State;
          429. $500,000 to Brooklyn Public Library in New York 
        for restoration of the central plaza;
          430. $250,000 to the Rivers and Estuaries Center on 
        the Hudson in New York for facilities construction;
          431. $350,000 to Daemon College in Amherst, New York 
        for facilities improvement;
          432. $75,000 to the North Shore Child and Family 
        Guidance Center for expansion of a building in Long 
        Island, New York;
          433. $125,000 to the City of Holtsville, New York for 
        facilities construction of the Brookhaven/Patchogue 
        Family YMCA;
          434. $125,000 to Elmcor Youth and Adult Activities 
        for construction of an economic development center in 
        Queens, New York;
          435. $150,000 to City of Mt. Vernon, New York for 
        restoration of an abandoned building into a job 
        training and cultural center;
          436. $125,000 to the City of Kingston, New York for 
        the Ulster Performing Arts Center for renovations, 
        upgrades, and repairs;
          437. $125,000 to the Rural Ulster Preservation 
        Company in Kingston, New York for renovations to the 
        Kirkland Hotel;
          438. $75,000 to Johnson City, New York for facilities 
        construction and renovations to the Goodwill Theater;
          439. $75,000 to the City of Northport, New York for 
        construction of the Northport American Legion facility;
          440. $75,000 to the Village of Dobbs Ferry, New York 
        for streetscape improvements;
          441. $150,000 to the Village of Port Chester, New 
        York for construction of a senior center;
          442. $100,000 to the Volunteer Counseling Services of 
        Rockland County, New York for renovations to its 
        building;
          443. $100,000 to the City of Greenburgh for upgrades 
        and renovations in Webb Park;
          444. $100,000 to the Village of West Haverstraw, New 
        York for sidewalk improvements;
          445. $75,000 to the Queens Borough Public Library 
        System for construction of a library in Queens, New 
        York;
          446. $125,000 to the Lower East Side Tenement Museum 
        for facilities construction, renovation and buildout;
          447. $125,000 to the Town of North Hempstead, NewYork 
        for renovation of blighted properties in New Cassel, 
        New York;
          448. $100,000 to the City of Albany, New York for the 
        South End for building demolition;
          449. $100,000 to the City of Albany, New York for 
        expansion of the Palace Theater stage;
          450. $100,000 to the City of Albany, New York for the 
        Corning Preserve Albany Waterfront Development;
          451. $125,000 to Jamaica Hospital in New York, New 
        York for land acquisition;
          452. $75,000 to the Federation of Italian-American 
        Organizations for expansion and renovation of its 
        community center in Brooklyn, New York;
          453. $125,000 to the Brooklyn Public Library for 
        renovation and development of the library's Central 
        Plaza in Brooklyn, New York;
          454. $100,000 to the City of Brooklyn, New York for 
        construction of a computer lab;
          455. $150,000 to The Armory Foundation for facilities 
        renovation in New York;
          456. $150,000 to the Amigos del Museo del Barrio, 
        Inc. in New York, New York for capital improvements to 
        the Heckscher Building;
          457. $100,000 to the Aaron Davis Hall, Inc. for 
        restoration and renovation of the hall into a 
        performing arts building in Harlem, New York;
          458. $500,000 to the Mary Mitchell Family & Youth 
        Center for construction of a multipurpose center in 
        Bronx, New York;
          459. $200,000 to the City of New York Department of 
        Parks & Recreation for renovations to the Bath House at 
        Crotona Park;
          460. $125,000 to the Pergones Theater in Bronx, New 
        York for interior structural renovation work;
          461. $100,000 to the City of Buffalo, New York for 
        renovations to the Broadway Market;
          462. $75,000 to the Town of Tonawanda, New York for 
        repairs to a training facility;
          463. $75,000 to Group 14621 Community Association for 
        renovations to the Pulaski Library in Rochester, New 
        York;
          464. $200,000 to the Brooklyn Academy of Music Local 
        Development Corporation for design, construction, and 
        streetscape improvements to the District's South Site 
        in Brooklyn, New York;
          465. $175,000 to the Brooklyn Economic Development 
        Corporation to rehabilitate a building for business and 
        economic development activities in Brooklyn, New York;
          466. $75,000 to the Electchester Housing Companies 
        for facilities renovations and upgrades in 
        Electchester, New York;
          467. $150,000 to the Victory Videos Ministry in the 
        City of Forest Park, Ohio for the construction of a 
        youth center;
          468. $500,000 to the Westcott House Foundation for 
        facilities construction and renovations to the Westcott 
        House in Springfield, Ohio;
          469. $300,000 to the Lancaster Campus of Ohio 
        University for facilities construction of a Community 
        Event and Conference Center in Lancaster, Ohio;
          470. $100,000 to Fairfield County, Ohio for 
        facilities construction and renovations at the new 
        location for Fairfield Industries;
          471. $50,000 to the Ohio Wesleyan University for 
        facilities construction and renovations in Delaware, 
        Ohio;
          472. $200,000 to the City of Willowick, Ohio for site 
        preparation and construction of the Willowick Lakefront 
        Development;
          473. $200,000 to Newbury Township, Ohio for 
        sidewalks, street furniture and facade;
          474. $350,000 to the Hocking Athens Perry Community 
        Action in Glouster, Ohio for renovations to the 
        community center;
          475. $350,000 for the 14th Street Community Center in 
        Portsmouth, Ohio for facilities construction and 
        renovation;
          476. $1,500,000 for the Canton Regional Chamber of 
        Commerce's Foundation in Canton, Ohio for industrial 
        park development;
          477. $250,000 to the City of Columbus, Ohio for 
        construction of the YWCA Family Center;
          478. $250,000 to Development Projects, Inc. for site 
        preparation for the Downtown Dayton Northeast Quadrant 
        in Dayton, Ohio;
          479. $250,000 to the St. Mary's Development 
        Corporation for land acquisition for the Multi-Family 
        Housing Project in Dayton, Ohio;
          480. $125,000 to the City of Broadview Heights, Ohio 
        for demolition;
          481. $75,000 to Stella Maris, Inc. in Cleveland, Ohio 
        for construction of a community recovery center;
          482. $650,000 to the City of Toledo, Ohio for the 
        Erie Street Market for facilities reconstruction;
          483. $250,000 to the City of Toledo, Ohio for 
        building construction and streetscape improvements 
        along Detroit Avenue;
          484. $100,000 to the City of Toledo, Ohio for 
        economic development planning for the Reynolds Road 
        Green Corridor project;
          485. $100,000 to the Lagrange Development Corporation 
        in Toledo, Ohio for construction of a community center;
          486. $100,000 to Washington State Community College 
        in Marietta, Ohio for construction of a conference 
        center;
          487. $150,000 to the City of Moore, Oklahoma for the 
        expansion of Buck Thomas Park;
          488. $250,000 to the Harrah Industrial and Economic 
        Development Authority for industrial park 
        infrastructure development in Harrah, Oklahoma;
          489. $200,000 to the City of Perkins, Oklahoma for 
        development of the Oklahoma Territorial Plaza;
          490. $150,000 to the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the Tulsa 
        Hispanic Family Resource Center;
          491. $75,000 to Southeastern Oklahoma State 
        University for the purchase and restoration of the 
        Fortenberry Opera House in Durant, Oklahoma;
          492. $200,000 to the Southern Oregon Rehabilitation 
        Center for facilities renovations in white City, 
        Oregon;
          493. $75,000 to the Oregon Museum of Science and 
        Industry for land acquisition in East Portland, Oregon;
          494. $75,000 to the City of Portland, Oregon for the 
        Central City Eastside Streetcar project;
          495. $225,000 to the Port of Brookings Harbor, Oregon 
        for construction of a seafood processing plant;
          496. $75,000 to the City of Salem, Oregon for 
        facility improvements to the Salem Conference Center;
          497. $125,000 to the City of Salem, Oregon for 
        industrial park development at the Mill Creek 
        Industrial and Employment Center;
          498. $150,000 to Gannon University, Erie, 
        Pennsylvania for construction of the Erie Technology 
        Incubator;
          499. $250,000 to the Montgomery County Community 
        College for facilities construction of the Small 
        Business Development & University Transfer Center in 
        Pottstown, Pennsylvania;
          500. $250,000 to ARC of Montgomery County, 
        Pennsylvania for facilities construction of a MARC 
        building;
          501. $100,000 to the Lower Makefield Township, 
        Pennsylvania for construction of the 9-11 Bucks County 
        Memorial ``Garden of Reflection'';
          502. $200,000 to Bucks County Planning Commission for 
        construction of the Freedom Neighborhood One Community 
        Center in Bristol Township, Pennsylvania;
          503. $200,000 to the Vietnam Veterans Leadership 
        Program of Western Pennsylvania for facilities 
        expansion in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
          504. $100,000 for the Westmoreland County Industrial 
        Development Authority for industrial park development 
        in Hempfield Township, Pennsylvania;
          505. $150,000 to Allegheny County Department of 
        Economic Development for site preparation and 
        construction of Clinton Industrial Park in Findlay 
        Township, Pennsylvania;
          506. $100,000 to the Punxsutawney Weather Museum for 
        improvements in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania;
          507. $100,000 to the Brookville YMCA in Brookville, 
        Pennsylvania for facilities renovations;
          508. $150,000 to Tabor Community Services in 
        Lancaster, Pennsylvania for property acquisition and 
        renovation;
          509. $150,000 to the York Street Center and 
        Stillmeadow Child Care Center in York, Pennsylvania for 
        facilities renovations;
          510. $200,000 to Sayre Borough, Pennsylvania for 
        renovation of the Enterprise Center;
          511. $200,000 to Trehab Center in Montrose, 
        Pennsylvania for facilities construction;
          512. $70,000 for the Morrison's Cove Memorial Park 
        Recreation Center in Blair County, Pennsylvania for 
        facilities improvements;
          513. $100,000 for the Penn's Woods Council, Boy 
        Scouts of America for camp upgrades in Tyrone, 
        Pennsylvania;
          514. $130,000 for Indiana University of Pennsylvania 
        for construction of a Regional Development Complex in 
        Indiana, Pennsylvania;
          515. $250,000 to the University Technology Park in 
        Chester, Pennsylvania to develop parking facilities for 
        its first and second phase buildings;
          516. $125,000 to the City of Philadelphia, 
        Pennsylvania for renovations to the Rock School;
          517. $75,000 to the C.C. Mellor Memorial Library in 
        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for infrastructure repairs;
          518. $75,000 to the Homeless Children Education Fund/
        Learning Centers' homeless shelters for facility 
        revitalization and renovations in Allegheny County, 
        Pennsylvania;
          519. $75,000 to the Bloomfield Preservation and 
        Heritage Society for construction of an education 
        center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
          520. $100,000 to the Urban Redevelopment Authority to 
        construct public green space in an urban area in 
        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
          521. $75,000 to the Breachmenders Mentoring Grants 
        Program in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for facility 
        renovations and upgrades;
          522. $75,000 to the Neighborhood Centers Association 
        for facilities construction of a childhood education 
        center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
          523. $200,000 to the Center in the Park in 
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for facility enhancements 
        for a senior housing facility;
          524. $100,000 to the Pinn Business Development Center 
        in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for building renovations;
          525. $50,000 to the American Theater Arts for Youth, 
        Inc. in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for facility 
        enhancements;
          526. $50,000 to the Potters House Mission in West 
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for land acquisition;
          527. $50,000 to The Inglis Foundation for facility 
        upgrades in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for enhanced 
        services;
          528. $100,000 to the Mann Center for Performing Arts 
        in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for rehabilitation and 
        expansion of the performance hall;
          529. $350,000 to the Educational Advancement Alliance 
        in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for acquisition or 
        facilities construction of a multipurpose facility;
          530. $100,000 to the Greater St. Matthew Community 
        Development Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for 
        construction of child development center;
          531. $100,000 to the United Way of Philadelphia, 
        Pennsylvania for facility upgrades of the People's 
        Emergency Center West Philadelphia Digital Community 
        Inclusion Project;
          532. $100,000 to the Borough of Tremont, Pennsylvania 
        for sidewalks and streetscape lighting;
          533. $225,000 to the City of Harrisburg for capital 
        costs associated with the CorridorOne Regional Rail 
        Program of the Modern Transit Partnership in downtown 
        Harrisburg, Pennsylvania;
          534. $150,000 to the City of Wilkes-Barre, 
        Pennsylvania for land acquisition, facilities 
        renovation, and demolition;
          535. $75,000 to the City of Scranton, Pennsylvania 
        for land acquisition, facilities renovation, and 
        demolition;
          536. $150,000 to Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 
        for improvements to the Mount Pleasant Veterans Park;
          537. $500,000 to the Winnie Palmer Nature Reserve in 
        Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania for facilities 
        construction and development;
          538. $400,000 to Cambria County, Pennsylvania for 
        facility construction and improvements to the Johnstown 
        Regional Technology Complex;
          539. $250,000 to Armstrong County, Pennsylvania for 
        construction of replacement facilities at the Belmont 
        Complex;
          540. $300,000 to Fayette County, Pennsylvania for 
        development of a business park;
          541. $200,000 to the Greene County Community Center 
        for construction of a new community center in Greene 
        County, Pennsylvania;
          542. $150,000 to the Cambria County, Pennsylvania War 
        Memorial Authority for construction of a stage and 
        sports floor;
          543. $100,000 to Armstrong County, Pennsylvania for 
        planning and renovation of buildings for reuse 
        associated with the IUP Kittening Campus Reuse Project;
          544. $100,000 to Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 
        for acquisition and reuse of a facility in the Lenox 
        Building Rehabilitation project;
          545. $250,000 to the Waynesburg College Center for 
        Economic Development in Greene County, Pennsylvania for 
        facilities construction and renovations;
          546. $500,000 to Fayette County, Pennsylvania for 
        renovation, revitalization, and improvement associated 
        with the Downtown Uniontown Revitalization Project;
          547. $100,000 to Washington County, Pennsylvania for 
        engineering and design of improvements at the Alta 
        Vista Business Park;
          548. $175,000 to the Cornerstone Adult Services/
        Bristol Center for renovation of a mill building in 
        Bristol, Rhode Island;
          549. $150,000 to the City of East Providence, Rhode 
        Island for facilities construction and renovation of 
        the East Providence Senior Center;
          550. $250,000 to Salve Regina University in Newport, 
        Rhode Island for facilities renovations;
          551. $75,000 to the City of West Warwick, Rhode 
        Island for construction of the West Warwick Senior 
        Center;
          552. $200,000 to the South Carolina School for the 
        Deaf and Blind for renovations of a dormitory building 
        in Spartanburg, South Carolina;
          553. $100,000 to the City of Columbia, South Carolina 
        for capitalization of the Enterprise Revolving Loan 
        Fund;
          554. $100,000 to the City of Columbia, South Carolina 
        for industrial park development;
          555. $150,000 to the Five Rivers Community 
        Development Corporation for the acquisition of land for 
        a community training site in Georgetown County, South 
        Carolina;
          556. $150,000 to the South Sumter Resource Center for 
        facilities construction and renovation in Sumter, South 
        Carolina;
          557. $300,000 to Clinton Junior College in Rock Hill, 
        South Carolina for construction of a new library/
        classroom facility;
          558. $100,000 to the Lee County Public Library in Lee 
        County, South Carolina for facilities expansion and 
        relocation;
          559. $125,000 to the Cheyenne River Youth Project for 
        construction of a teen center in Eagle Butte, South 
        Dakota;
          560. $100,000 to the City of Williamson County, 
        Tennessee for the planning and improvements for the 
        Cool Springs Life Sciences Center;
          561. $250,000 to East Tennessee Historical Society 
        for construction of the East Tennessee History Center 
        in Knoxville, Tennessee;.
          562. $500,000 to the East Tennessee Veterans Memorial 
        Association for construction of an East Tennessee 
        Veterans Memorial in Knoxville, Tennessee;
          563. $100,000 to the Second Harvest Food Bank of 
        Northeast Tennessee for facilities renovations;
          564. $100,000 to Oak Ridge/Knoxville, Tennessee for 
        facilities construction of a Center for Entrepreneurial 
        Growth Incubator;
          565. $250,000 to Hamilton County, Tennessee for 
        facilities construction for a Center for 
        Entrepreneurial Growth Incubator;
          566. $75,000 to Fisk University in Nashville, 
        Tennessee for development of a physical facilities 
        master plan;
          567. $125,000 to the Arts Center of Cannon County in 
        Woodbury, Tennessee for construction and renovation of 
        the Cannon County Cultural Tourism Complex;
          568. $75,000 to the Southwest Tennessee Community 
        College for expansion of a biotechnology building in 
        Memphis, Tennessee;
          569. $175,000 to the Arts Center of Cannon County for 
        expansion and construction of the Cannon County 
        Cultural Tourism Complex in Woodbury, Tennessee;
          570. $150,000 to the Lauderdale County Economic 
        Development Board in Ripley, Tennessee for industrial 
        park development at the North Industrial Park;
          571. $250,000 to the City of Arlington, Texas for 
        facilities construction and land acquisition and 
        including up to $100,000 for an economic development 
        planning study;
          572. $250,000 to the City of Arlington, Texas for 
        facilities construction and renovation of the Central 
        Arlington Housing Development Corporation;
          573. $1,000,000 for Texas A&M International 
        University for facility improvements in the City of 
        Laredo, Texas;
          574. $200,000 to the City of Houston, Texas for the 
        Super Block renovations;
          575. $750,000 to the City of Forth Worth, Texas for 
        construction of the Trinity River Vision project;
          576. $150,000 to the City of Leonard, Texas for 
        streetscape infrastructure including sidewalks 
        projects;
          577. $200,000 to the Audie Murphy/American Cotton 
        Museum in Greenville, Texas for facilities construction 
        and renovation;
          578. $100,000 to the City of Lubbock, Texas for the 
        Breedlove Dehydrated Foods facility expansion;
          579. $200,000 to the South Plains Food Bank in 
        Lubbock, Texas for facilities upgrades;
          580. $250,000 to the City of Dallas, Texas for 
        renovation to the Texas Theatre;
          581. $100,000 for the World Congress on Information 
        Technology in Austin, Texas for facilities construction 
        and renovation of the International Center;
          582. $100,000 to the NABA International Park for the 
        construction and renovations of its visitor center;
          583. $100,000 to Southwest Key in Austin, Texas for 
        facilities construction;
          2584. $100,000 to Quinn Campus, Inc. for renovation 
        and upgrades at Paul Quinn College in Waco, Texas;
          585. $100,000 to the City of Killeen, Texas for 
        construction of a senior citizens center;
          586. $350,000 to the City of Waco, Texas for 
        construction of a homeless shelter;
          587. $375,000 to the City of Dallas, Texas for 
        renovation of the Dallas Texas Theater;
          588. $100,000 to the City of Fort Worth, Texas for 
        the redevelopment of the Magnolia Oleander Walk;
          589. $150,000 to Harris County, Texas Precinct 2 for 
        the Harris County Unincorporated Area Revitalization 
        Program in Harris County, Texas to enhance economic 
        development in the area;
          590. $150,000 to the City of Houston, Texas for 
        construction and buildout of a park and family center;
          591. $75,000 to Texas A&M University in Kingsville, 
        Texas for facility expansion of the Center for Young 
        Children;
          592. $125,000 to the City of Houston, Texas for 
        capital improvements to the Guadalupe Plaza Park;
          593. $75,000 to the City of Houston, Texas for the 
        renovation of a school building to house an African-
        American archive and cultural center;
          594. $125,000 to the City of Dallas, Texas for 
        rehabilitation of the Black Dance Theater;
          595. $75,000 to the City of Dallas, Texas for 
        facilities construction and buildout of the Joppa 
        Rodeo;
          596. $225,000 to the City of Beaumont, Texas for the 
        replacement of existing sidewalks;
          597. $75,000 to the Port Arthur International 
        Seamen's Center in Port Arthur, Texas for facilities 
        construction;
          598. $175,000 to the Corpus Christi Regional 
        Transportation Authority for the sidewalk improvements 
        in Corpus Christi, Texas;
          599. $125,000 to the Canutillo, Texas Independent 
        School District for construction of a Science and 
        research center;
          600. $200,000 to the City of Gilmer, Texas for 
        facilities construction and renovation to the Upshur 
        County Library;
          601. $100,000 to the City of Marshall, Texas for 
        facilities construction and renovation of a hotel;
          602. $280,000 to the Texas Frontier Trails in Mineral 
        Wells, Texas for construction of an amphitheater;
          603. $75,000 to the Texas Cowboy Reunion Old-timers 
        Association for renovation of the Bunkhouse and Round-
        up Hall in Stamford, Texas;
          604. $150,000 to Brigham City, Utah for facilities 
        construction and renovation of the Box Elder Dance 
        Academy;
          605. $125,000 to the Utah Shakespearean Festival for 
        architectural and engineering design and construction 
        of a performance facility;
          606. $100,000 to Salt Lake County, Utah for 
        construction of the East Side Senior Center;
          607. $150,000 for the Virginia Holocaust Museum in 
        Richmond, Virginia for facilities renovation;
          608. $500,000 to the Virginia Performing Arts 
        Foundation for construction of the Virginia Performing 
        Arts Foundation Education Center in Richmond, Virginia;
          609. $150,000 to the Mary Washington College 
        Foundation for facilities construction and renovation 
        of the Maury Center Project;
          610. $200,000 to the City of Fairfax, Virginia for 
        the City of Fairfax Downtown Redevelopment Project;
          611. $250,000 to the Lutheran Housing Services, Inc. 
        for in Burke, Virginia for facilities construction;
          612. $100,000 to the Town of Smithfield, Virginia for 
        the Smithfield Downtown Revitalization Project;
          613. $100,000 for the Franklin County Library in 
        Rocky Mount, Virginia for facilities renovation and 
        equipment replacement;
          614. $100,000 for Piedmont Arts Association for 
        technology improvements in Martinsville, Virginia;
          615. $150,000 to the Town of Appomattox, Virginia for 
        facilities construction of an African-American cultural 
        and heritage museum at the Carver-Price building;
          616. $100,000 for the Town of South Boston, Virginia 
        for renovations and creation of a community arts center 
        at the Prizery;
          617. $125,000 for the City of Moneta, Virginia for 
        facilities construction and renovation of an art, 
        education and community outreach center;
          618. $150,000 to Kenbridge, Virginia for facilities 
        and construction at the Kenbridge Town Center;
          619. $75,000 to the Town of Boydton, Virginia for 
        revitalization efforts of the central business 
        district;
          620. $150,000 for Henry County, Virginia Motorsports 
        in conjunction with Patrick Henry Community College for 
        facilities improvements;
          621. $75,000 to the City of Big Island, Virginia for 
        the Sedalia Center restoration;
          622. $500,000 to the Total Action Against Poverty to 
        restore and revitalize the Dumas Center for Artistic 
        and Cultural Development in downtown Roanoke, Virginia;
          623. $75,000 to the United Way of Front Royal in the 
        City of Front Royal, Virginia for construction for a 
        transitional housing program;
          624. $100,000 to the City of Leesburg, Virginia for 
        facilities construction of Loudoun Cares;
          625. $250,000 for the Good Shepard Alliance in 
        Leesburg, Virginia to build a homeless and poverty 
        center;
          626. $250,000 to the City of Leesburg, Virginia for 
        construction/renovation of the Dodona Manor;
          627. $500,000 to the City of Winchester, Virginia for 
        construction of the Museum of the Shenandoah Valley;
          628. $200,000 to the Dabney S. Lancaster Community 
        College for construction of the Virginia Packaging 
        Applications Center;
          629. $75,000 to the Chicago Board of Education for 
        construction and renovations for a high school in 
        Chicago, Illinois;
          630. $175,000 to the Northern Virginia Urban League 
        for rehabilitation of the Freedom House in Alexandria, 
        Virginia;
          631. $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of 
        Alexandria, Virginia for renovation and expansion of 
        its facility;
          632. $100,000 to the Shirlington Incubation Center in 
        Arlington, Virginia for construction of an incubator;
          633. $100,000 to the Arlington Housing Corporation in 
        Arlington County, Virginia for property acquisition, 
        building demolition, and facilities renovation;
          634. $150,000 to New Market Heights for site 
        preparation and construction of a memorial and 
        visitor's center in Henrico County, Virginia;
          635. $300,000 to Edgehill Recovery Retreat Center in 
        Winchester, Virginia for facilities construction;
          636. $200,000 to the City of Covington, Washington 
        for facilities construction and renovation of the 
        Community Recreation Center;
          637. $300,000 to the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary 
        Center in Prosser, Washington for facilities 
        construction;
          638. $100,000 for the Spokane Symphony for 
        renovations to the Fox Theater in Spokane, Washington;
          639. $75,000 to the Fire Mountain Arts Council for 
        renovation of a theatre in Morton, Washington;
          640. $200,000 to the Town of Port Townsend, 
        Washington for construction on the Northwest Maritime 
        Center;
          641. $75,000 to the City of Hoquiam, Washington for 
        renovation of the Senior Nutrition Center;
          642. $200,000 to the Port of Bremerton, Washington 
        for expansion of a marina;
          643. $200,000 to the Boys and Girls Clubs of South 
        Puget Sound, Washington for facilities construction in 
        Lakewood, Gig Harbor, and Kitsap County, Washington;
          644. $75,000 to the Edmonds Public Facilities 
        District for renovations at the Edmonds Center for the 
        Arts in Edmonds, Washington;
          645. $125,000 to the City of Bellingham, Washington 
        for renovations to the Mount Baker Theater;
          646. $75,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of King 
        County, Washington for renovation of the Greenbridge 
        Community Center in White Center;
          647. $75,000 to the Asian Counseling and Referral 
        Service for construction of a new building in Seattle, 
        Washington;
          648. $75,000 to the City of Federal Way, Washington 
        for the West Hylebos Wetlands Boardwalk Replacement;
          649. $70,000 to the Paper Industry International Hall 
        of Fame in Appleton, Wisconsin for facilities 
        construction and renovation;
          650. $100,000 to the City of Green Bay, Wisconsin for 
        the National Railway Museum for exhibits;
          651. $250,000 to the City of Cedarburg, Wisconsin for 
        the Cedarburg Site revitalization project;
          652. $175,000 to the City of Beloit, Wisconsin for 
        sidewalks, street furniture, and facade improvements;
          653. $100,000 to Dakota County Technical College and 
        Chippewa Valley Technical College for construction of 
        the Center of Technology Innovation and Learn Lab in 
        Eau Claire, Wisconsin and Rosemount, Minnesota;
          654. $1,000,000 to the Ashwabay Outdoor Education 
        Foundation in Washburn, Wisconsin for acquisition of 
        land;
          655. $1,000,000 to the Marshfield Clinic for 
        construction of the Laird Center for Applied Sciences;
          656. $250,000 to the Wisconsin Rapids Heart of 
        Wisconsin Chamber of Commerce for a loan fund;
          657. $150,000 to the Business and Industrial 
        Development Corporation for renovations at the Mid-
        Atlantic Technology, Research and Innovation Center in 
        South Charleston, West Virginia;
          658. $775,000 to the Greenbrier Valley Economic 
        Development Corporation in Lewisburg, West Virginia for 
        facilities construction and buildout;
          659. $1,000,000 to the 4-County Economic Development 
        Corporation in Oak Hill, West Virginia for facilities 
        construction;
          660. $2,000,000 to Glenville State College in 
        Glenville, West Virginia for the construction of a new 
        campus community education center;
          661. $500,000 to Wheeling Hospital in Wheeling, West 
        Virginia for facilities upgrades and buildout;
          662. $1,000,000 to Vandalia Heritage Foundation, Inc. 
        for land acquisition;
          663. $1,120,000 to the West Virginia High Technology 
        Consortium Foundation, Inc. for facilities 
        construction;
          664. $400,000 to the Monongalia County Schools 
        Foundation, Inc. in West Virginia for construction of 
        recreational facilities;
          665. $100,000 to Alderson-Broaddus College in 
        Philippi, West Virginia for facilities construction, 
        upgrades and buildout;
          666. $75,000 to the Mountaineer Area Council in 
        Fairmont, West Virginia for facilities construction;
          667. $200,000 to the Ritchie County Commission in 
        West Virginia for facilities upgrades;
          668. $130,000 to the Fremont County Association of 
        Governments for improvements to the Fremont County War 
        Memorial.
    --$21,735,000 for the Neighborhood Initiatives program.
    Targeted grants shall be provided as follows:
    1. $250,000 to Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois for 
facilities construction and renovation of Bradley Hall; -
    2. $250,000 to Pathway Services in Jacksonville, Illinois 
for facilities construction and renovation of a respite care 
facility;
    3. $100,000 to Teen Challenge in Decatur, Illinois for 
facilities construction and renovation;
    4. $100,000 to Quincy University in Quincy, Illinois for 
design and construction of a science building;
    5. $100,000 to Tri-State University in Angola, Indiana for 
facilities construction and renovation of the Center for 
Technology and Online Resources;
    6. $100,000 to Tazewell/Woodford Head Start in East Peoria, 
Illinois for facilities construction and renovation of a new 
facility;
    7. $100,000 to the City of Peoria, Illinois for Southern 
Gateway revitalization project;
    8. $275,000 to the First Gethsemane Center for Family 
Development in Louisville, Kentucky for the purchase of a 
multi-purpose facility;
    9. $600,000 to Maryhurst, Inc. in Louisville, Kentucky for 
facilities construction and renovation of a multi-purpose youth 
activities center;
    10. $675,000 to the YMCA of Greater Louisville, Kentucky 
for streetscape improvements;
    11. $200,000 to the Visually Impaired Preschool Services in 
Louisville, Kentucky for facilities construction and 
renovation;
    12. $735,000 to the Monroe County Heritage Christian Home 
for costs associated with construction of the Springdale Farm 
Demonstration Project located in Ogden, Monroe County, New 
York;
    13. $500,000 to NYSERNET for optical networking 
infrastructure;
    14. $550,000 to the Central New York Regional Planning and 
Development Board for Finger Lakes Open Lands Conservation 
Project;
    15. $475,000 to the Genessee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning 
Council for the Finger Lakes Open Lands Conservation Project;
    16. $6,000,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for the 
Neighborhood Initiative Program;
    17. $1,000,000 for The Ohio State University in Columbus, 
Ohio for facilities construction and renovation in the 
Community Properties of Ohio Initiative;
    18. $5,000,000 to the Institute for Scientific Research for 
construction related to a high-technology diversification 
initiative;
    19. $2,225,000 to the West Virginia High Technology 
Consortium Foundation, Inc. for mission purposes and economic 
development initiatives;
    20. $1,000,000 to the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, Inc. 
for community and neighborhood revitalization and economic 
diversification initiatives;
    21. $500,000 to Wheeling Jesuit University for education 
and research initiatives at the university;
    22. $1,000,000 to the City and County of San Francisco for 
capital improvements, upgrades and buildout for a senior 
homeless facility.
    Additionally, not less than $3,465,000 is provided for 
transfer to the Working Capital Fund to support the development 
of and modifications to information technology systems that 
serve programs or activities under Community Planning and 
Development.
    The Committee has not provided funds for the Development 
Challenge Pilot or the Faith Based Pilot, which were included 
as new items in the budget request. The Committee takes this 
action due to larger funding pressures in this bill and without 
prejudice.
    Language is included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior Acts, which: (1) designates amounts available 
for the various programs and activities funded under this 
account; (2) limits administrative expenses to no more than 20 
percent of any grant with certain exceptions; and (3) provides 
three-year availability for obligation of funds provided under 
this heading.
    Language is also included which makes technical changes to 
grants provided in prior years.

         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program costs   guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.....        $7,000,000      $275,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation......         7,282,000       275,000,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.....                 0                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2004              -282,000                 0
 appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2005            +7,000,000      +275,000,000
 budget request.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Section 108 Loan Guarantees program underwrites private 
market loans to assist local communities in the financing of 
the acquisition and rehabilitation of publicly-owned real 
property, rehabilitation of housing, and certain economic 
development projects.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 for 
program costs associated with the section 108 loan guarantee 
program. This amount is $282,000 below the enacted level and 
$7,000,000 above the budget request. Of the funds provided, 
$6,000,000 is for credit subsidy costs to guarantee 
$275,000,000 in section 108 loan commitments in fiscal year 
2005, and $1,000,000 is for administrative expenses to be 
transferred to the salaries and expenses account.

                       BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $24,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        24,853,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          -853,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       +24,000,000


    The Brownfields Redevelopment program provides competitive 
economic development grants in conjunction with section 108 
loan guarantees for qualified brownfield projects. Grants are 
made in accordance with section 108(q) selection criteria.
    The goal of the program is to return contaminated sites to 
productive uses with an emphasis on creating substantial 
numbers of jobs for lower-income people in physically and 
economically distressed neighborhoods.
    The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for this program, a 
decrease of $853,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 
The budget request proposed to eliminate this program. The 
Committee expects HUD to closely coordinate its brownfields 
efforts with the Environmental Protection Agency, which is 
responsible for cleanup and assessment components of the 
program, and whose Administrator has lead responsibility for 
the federal brownfields effort.

                  HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $1,920,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     2,005,597,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     2,084,200,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -85,597,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......      -164,200,000


    The HOME investment partnerships program provides grants to 
States, units of local government, Indian tribes and insular 
areas, through formula allocation, for the purpose of expanding 
the supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction. Upon 
receipt, State and local governments develop a comprehensive 
housing affordability strategy that enables them to acquire, 
rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing, or to 
provide rental assistance to eligible families.
    The Committee recommends $1,920,000,000 for activities 
funded under this account, a decrease of $85,597,000 below the 
fiscal year 2004 level and $164,200,000 below the request. 
Funds are provided as follows:
          --Formula Grants: $1,776,000,000 for formula grants 
        for participating jurisdictions (States, units of local 
        government and consortia of units local government) and 
        insular areas, a decrease of $79,850,000 below the 
        fiscal year 2004 level. Of the amount provided, 
        pursuant to the statute, at least 15 percent of each 
        participating jurisdiction's allocation is reserved for 
        housing that is developed, sponsored, or owned by 
        Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs);
          --Down-payment Assistance Initiative: $85,000,000 for 
        the Down-payment Assistance Initiative to be allocated 
        by the Secretary to participating jurisdictions to 
        provide down-payment assistance to low-income families 
        to help them achieve homeownership. The 2005 budget 
        request had included $200,000,000 for down-payment 
        assistance. The reduction to the request for the down-
        payment assistance program is taken without prejudice, 
        and is due to other significant funding pressures in 
        this bill;
          --Housing Counseling: $38,000,000 for housing 
        counseling programs. The Committee has continued 
        funding for this activity within this account rather 
        than creating a separate account as proposed in the 
        budget request;
          --HOME/CHDO Technical Assistance: $17,400,000 for 
        technical assistance activities for State and local 
        participating jurisdictions and non-profit CHDOs. The 
        Committee notes that the HOME statute authorizes 
        technical assistance to be provided through contracts 
        with eligible non-profit intermediaries as well as with 
        other organizations recommended by participating 
        jurisdictions and therefore expects HUD to use 
        $8,000,000 to contract with qualified non-profit 
        intermediaries to provide CHDO technical assistance in 
        fiscal year 2005;
          --Working Capital Fund: no less than $2,000,000 for 
        transfer to the Working Capital Fund to support the 
        development and modification of information technology 
        systems which serve programs and activities under 
        Community Planning and Development.
    The budget request had proposed to transfer the Partnership 
for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) program from the 
Policy Development and Research (PD&R) account to the HOME 
account, with a funding level of $2,000,000. Instead, the 
Committee has continued to fund PATH in the PD&R account at a 
level of $7,000,000 in fiscal year 2005.
    The Committee is concerned that recent changes to 
metropolitan statistical area (MSA) boundaries may 
significantly lower area median incomes (AMI) in some 
communities with high housing costs, making ineligible many 
families and individuals who are currently eligible for housing 
subsidized through the Community Development Block Grant 
program and the HOME program, which have AMI eligibility 
requirements. The Committee encourages HUD to explore ways to 
help such MSAs transition to the new AMIs, other than through 
any adjustment of funding formulas, to reduce the impact of MSA 
boundary changes on affordable housing and homeownership 
opportunities.

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $1,206,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     1,259,525,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     1,282,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -53,525,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       -76,400,000


    The homeless assistance grants account provides funding for 
the following homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney 
Act: (1) the emergency shelter grants program; (2) the 
supportive housing program; (3) the section 8 moderate 
rehabilitation (single room occupancy) program; and (4) the 
shelter plus care program. This account also supports 
activities eligible under the innovative homeless initiatives 
demonstration program.
    The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at 
$1,206,000,000, a decrease of $53,525,000 below the level 
provided in fiscal year 2004 and $76,400,000 below the budget 
request. The recommendation includes no less than $186,000,000 
to provide full funding for the costs associated with the 
renewal of all expiring Shelter Plus Care contracts. Language 
is included in the bill requiring funds to be made available 
for this purpose.
    The recommendation includes $11,500,000 for the national 
homeless data analysis project and for technical assistance, 
and no less than $2,500,000 for transfer to the Working Capital 
Fund for development and modifications of information 
technology systems that serve activities under Community 
Planning and Development.
    Language is included in the bill which: (1) requires not 
less than 30 percent of the funds appropriated, excluding 
amounts made available for renewals under the shelter plus care 
program, be used for permanent housing; (2) requires the 
renewal of all expiring shelter plus care contracts; (3) 
requires funding recipients to provide a 25 percent match for 
social services activities; (4) requires all homeless programs 
to coordinate their programs with mainstream health, social 
services and employment programs; and (5) provides two-year 
availability for obligation of funds provided under this 
account, except that no year availability is provided for the 
portion of funding necessary to meet initial contract 
requirements for the Single Room Occupancy program.
    Within this account, funding is not provided for a new 
Prisoner Reentry initiative, which was proposed at $25 million 
in the budget request.

                      SAMARITAN HOUSING INITIATIVE




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................                 0
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       $50,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       -50,000,000


    The Committee has not included $50,000,000 requested in the 
budget for the Samaritan Housing Initiative because the 
necessary authorization legislation has not yet been passed by 
Congress.

                            Housing Programs


                        HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $741,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       773,728,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       773,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -32,718,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       -32,300,000


    The housing for the elderly (Section 202) program provides 
eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants 
to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of 
housing intended for low-income elderly people. In addition, 
the program provides project-based rental assistance (PRAC) to 
support operational costs for units constructed under the 
program.
    The Committee recommends a $741,000,000 for the Section 202 
program for fiscal year 2005, a decrease of $32,728,000 from 
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $32,300,000 below the 
request. The recommendation allocates funding as follows:
    --$654,550,000 for new capital and project rental 
assistance contracts (PRAC);
    --$3,000,000 for one-year renewals of expiring PRAC 
payments;
    --$48,000,000 for service coordinators and the continuation 
of congregate services grants;
    --$20,000,000 for grants to convert section 202 projects to 
assisted living facilities;
    --$15,000,000 for grants for planning, preliminary design 
and site control activities; and
    --no less than $450,000 for transfer to the Working Capital 
Fund to support the development of and modifications to 
information technology systems which support programs and 
activities for elderly programs.
    Language is included, carried in prior years, relating to 
the initial contract and renewal terms for assistance provided 
under this heading.

               HOUSING FOR THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $238,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       249,092,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       248,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -11,092,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       -10,700,000


    The housing for the persons with disabilities (Section 811) 
program provides eligible private, non-profit organizations 
with capital grants to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation 
or construction of supportive housing for disabled persons and 
provides project-based rental assistance (PRAC) to support 
operational costs for such units. The Committee recommends a 
$238,000,000 for Section 811 activities, a decrease of 
$11,092,000 from the fiscal year 2004 enacted level, and 
$10,700,000 below the request. The recommendation allocates 
funding as follows:
    --$146,311,000 for capital grants and PRAC;
    --$50,000,000 for renewals of expiring tenant-based rental 
assistance;
    --$2,349,000 PRAC renewals;
    --$10,000,000 for incremental tenant-based assistance; and
    --$28,890,000 is provided for amendments required for 
tenant-based contracts (vouchers) entered into prior to fiscal 
year 2004. The Committee has also provided the authority to 
amend $14,610,000 in tenant-based contracts with fiscal year 
2004 appropriated funds.
    --$450,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund for the 
development and maintenance of information technology systems 
for programs and activities for housing for persons with 
disabilities programs.
    The Committee had provided funding and authority to provide 
a total of $43,500,000 needed to amend tenant-based contracts 
entered into prior to fiscal year 2004. The Committee is 
frustrated that HUD had entered into contracts without a 
reasonable anticipation of the full cost of the contracts, 
leading to a substantial liability for the housing for persons 
with disabilities program in a time when additional funds to 
correct this problem are simply not available in this overall 
bill. The Committee is also dismayed that this amendment need 
came to its attention several months following the submission 
of both the fiscal year 2005 budget justification and the 
fiscal year 2004 operating plan. The Committee has made every 
effort to minimize the impact of this amendment need on the 
housing for persons with disabilities program, and provides 
adequate funds to maintain construction contracts at the full 
level in the budget request, while limiting new incremental 
vouchers to $10,000,000. The Committee expects that HUD will 
currently and in the future properly manage its housing for 
persons with disabilities contracts so that the Department will 
never again create a substantial funding liability that shifts 
funds away from current needs to address mistakes of the past.
    The Committee directs HUD to issue program guidance for the 
Section 811 ``mainstream'' tenant-based program by March 15, 
2005. HUD shall include guidance on: (1) targeting of rental 
assistance consistent with 811 eligibility criteria; (2) 
maintenance of these vouchers exclusively for persons eligible 
under Section 811 upon turnover; (3) retention of a meaningful 
role for non-profit disability organizations. The Committee is 
aware of concerns that funding for Section 811 tenant-based 
rental assistance may be diverted to the Section 8 voucher 
program. Such diversion would be a violation of Section 811 
statute.

                           HOUSING COUNSELING




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................             \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................             \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       $45,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........             \1\ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......   \1\ -45,000,000


\1\ In fiscal year 2004, $39,764,000 was appropriated for housing
  counseling as a set-aside under the HOME Investments Partnership
  Program account.

    Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 
1968 authorized HUD to provide housing counseling services to 
homebuyers, homeowners, low and moderate income renters, and 
the homeless. The Committee does not recommend the creation of 
a separate account for housing counseling activities, but 
instead has provided $38,000,000 for this activity as a set-
aside within the HOME Investments Partnership Program account.

                         FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 
HUD to establish a revolving fund into which rental collections 
in excess of the established basic rents for units in section 
236 subsidized projects are deposited. Subject to approval in 
appropriations acts, the Secretary is authorized under the 
Housing and Community Development Amendment of 1978 to transfer 
excess rent collections received after 1978 to the Troubled 
Projects Operating Subsidy program, renamed the Flexible 
Subsidy Fund.
    The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve 
as a repository of excess rental charges appropriated from the 
Rental Housing Assistance Fund. Although these resources will 
not be used for new reservations, they will continue to offset 
Flexible Subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures 
to support affordable housing projects.
    The recommendation includes language identical to language 
carried in prior years, to allow surplus funds derived from 
rental collections which were in excess of allowable rents 
levels to be returned to project owners only for the purposes 
of rehabilitating and renovating those properties.

                  MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $13,000,000
Offsetting collections................................       -13,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        12,923,000
Offsetting collections................................       -12,923,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        13,000,000
Offsetting collections................................       -13,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........           +77,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 
Improvement Act of 2000, authorized the Secretary to establish 
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 
the construction, design, and performance of manufactured 
homes.
    All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal 
standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs 
of administering the Act.
    The Committee recommends up to $13,000,000 for the 
manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees 
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 
Fund established pursuant to the Manufactured Housing 
Improvement Act of 2000. The amount recommended is an increase 
of $77,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level and equal to the 
fiscal year 2005 request.

                     Federal Housing Administration


               MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Limitation of      Limitation of      Administrative
                                                            direct loans     guaranteed loans       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation........................        $50,000,000   $185,000,000,000       $356,882,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation.........................         50,000,000    185,000,000,000        356,882,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request........................         50,000,000    185,000,000,000        366,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation.........                  0                  0                  0
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request........                  0                  0         -9,118,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHA mutual mortgage insurance program account includes 
the mutual mortgage insurance (MMI) and cooperative management 
housing insurance (CMHI) funds. This program account covers 
unsubsidized programs, primarily the single-family home 
mortgage program, which is the largest of all the FHA programs. 
The cooperative housing insurance program provides mortgages 
for cooperative housing projects of more than five units that 
are occupied by members of a cooperative housing corporation.
    The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 
commitments in the MMI program account as follows: 
$185,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and $50,000,000 for direct 
loans. The recommendation also includes $356,882,000 for 
administrative expenses, of which $352,906,000 is transferred 
to the Salaries and expenses account, and $3,976,000 is 
transferred to the Office of Inspector General. In addition, 
$78,000,000 is provided for non-overhead administrative 
contract expenses, of which no less than $15,000,000 is 
transferred to the Working Capital Fund for development and 
modifications to information technology systems that serve 
programs or activities under Housing Programs or the Federal 
Housing Administration. Language is continued as requested and 
carried in previous years appropriating additional 
administrative expenses in certain circumstances.

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Limitation of     Limitation of    Administrative
                                            direct loans    guaranteed loans      expenses        Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.........       $50,000,000   $35,000,000,000      $227,649,000       $10,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation..........        50,000,000    25,000,000,000       227,649,000        14,912,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.........        50,000,000    35,000,000,000       234,000,000        10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004                         0   +10,000,000,000                 0        -4,912,000
 appropriation..........................
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget                  0                 0        -6,351,000                 0
 request................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHA general and special risk insurance (GI and SRI) 
program account includes 17 different programs administered by 
the FHA. The GI fund includes a wide variety of insurance 
programs for special purpose single and multi-family loans, 
including loans for property improvements, manufactured 
housing, multi-family rental housing, condominiums, housing for 
the elderly, hospitals, group practice facilities and nursing 
homes. The SRI fund includes insurance programs for mortgages 
in older, declining urban areas which would not be otherwise 
eligible for insurance, mortgages with interest reduction 
payments, mortgages for experimental housing and for high-risk 
mortgagors who would not normally be eligible for mortgage 
insurance without housing counseling.
    The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 
commitments for the general and special risk insurance program 
account as requested: $35,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and 
$50,000,000 for direct loans.
    As requested, the recommendation includes a $10,000,000 
direct appropriation for credit subsidy which is equal to the 
budget request, and $4,912,000 below the fiscal year 2004 
level. The recommendation also includes $227,649,000 for 
administrative expenses, of which $207,767,000 is transferred 
to the Salaries and Expenses account and $19,882,000 is 
transferred to the Office of Inspector General. An additional 
$86,000,000 is provided for non-overhead administrative 
expenses, of which no less than $9,600,000 is transferred to 
the Working Capital Fund for development and modifications to 
information technology systems that serve activities under 
Housing Programs or Federal Housing Administration.
    Language is continued, carried in previous years, 
appropriating additional administrative expenses in certain 
circumstances.

                GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Limitation of      Administrative
                                   guaranteed loans        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.    $200,000,000,000         $10,695,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation..     200,000,000,000          10,695,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.     200,000,000,000          10,986,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004                   0                   0
 appropriation..................
Comparison with fiscal year 2005                   0            -291,000
 budget request.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The guarantee of mortgage-backed securities program 
facilitates the financing of residential mortgage loans insured 
or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Rural Housing 
Services program. The Government National Mortgage Association 
(GNMA) guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest 
on securities issued by private service institutions such as 
mortgage companies, commercial banks, savings banks, and 
savings and loan associations which assemble pools of 
mortgages, and issues securities backed by the pools. In turn, 
investment proceeds are used to finance additional mortgage 
loans. Investors include non-traditional sources of credit in 
the housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life 
insurance companies and individuals.
    The recommendation includes a $200,000,000,000 limitation 
on loan commitments for mortgage-backed securities as 
requested, the same level provided in fiscal year 2003. The 
Committee also recommends $10,695,000 for administrative 
expenses to be transferred to the Salaries and Expenses 
account, the same amount provided in fiscal year 2004 and a 
reduction of $291,000 below the request.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $45,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        46,723,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        46,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        -1,723,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......        -1,700,000


    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the 
Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing, 
and demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions 
are carried out internally through contracts with industry, 
non-profit research organizations, and educational institutions 
and through agreements with state and local governments and 
other federal agencies.
    The bill includes $45,000,000 for research and technology, 
a decrease of $1,717,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level and $1,700,000 below the budget request. Within this 
account, $7,000,000 is provided for the Partnership for 
Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) Initiative.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity


                        FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $46,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        47,717,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        47,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        -1,717,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......        -1,700,000


    The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 
prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of 
housing and authorizes assistance to State and local agencies 
in administering the provision of fair housing statutes. The 
Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) assists State and local 
fair housing enforcement agencies that are certified by HUD as 
``substantially equivalent'' to HUD with respect to enforcement 
policies and procedures. The FHAP assures prompt and effective 
processing of complaints filed under title VIII that are within 
the jurisdiction of State and local fair housing agencies. The 
Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) alleviates housing 
discrimination by providing support to private nonprofit 
organizations, State and local government agencies and other 
nonfederal entities for the purpose of eliminating or 
preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair 
housing opportunities.
    The Committee recommends a total of $46,000,000 for this 
account, a decrease of $1,717,000 below the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level and $1,700,000 below the budget request.
    Of this amount, $26,500,000 is for FHAP and $19,500,000 is 
for FHIP.
    The Committee expects HUD to continue to provide quarterly 
reports on obligation and expenditure of these funds, 
delineated by each program and activity.
    Language is included, carried in previous years, 
designating the amount available for FHIP.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control


                         LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $167,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       173,968,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       139,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        -6,968,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       +28,000,000


    The Lead Hazard Reduction Program, authorized under the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, provides grants 
to State and local governments to perform lead hazard reduction 
activities in housing occupied by low-income families. The 
program also provides technical assistance, undertakes research 
and evaluations of testing and cleanup methodologies, and 
develops technical guidance and regulations in cooperation with 
EPA.
    The Committee recommends $167,000,000 for this account, an 
increase of $28,000,000 above the budget request. Amounts 
provided are to be allocated as follows:
    --$138,300,000 for the lead-based paint hazard control 
grant program to provide assistance to State and local 
governments and Native American tribes for lead-based paint 
abatement in private low-income housing;
    --$8,900,000 for Operation LEAP (Lead Elimination Action 
Program), which provides competitive grants to non-profit 
organizations and the private sector for activities which 
leverage funds for local lead hazard control programs;
    --$9,900,000 for technical assistance and support to State 
and local agencies and private property owners. This is an 
increase of $100,000 over the budget request;
    --$9,900,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative for 
competitive grants for research, standards development, and 
education and outreach activities to address lead-based paint 
poisoning and other housing-related diseases and hazards;
    Language is included, as requested in the budget, 
delegating the authority and responsibility for performing 
environmental review for the Healthy Homes Initiative, LEAP, 
and Lead Technical Studies projects and programs to 
governmental entities that are familiar with local 
environmental conditions, trends and priorities. This delegated 
environmental review authority is currently available in the 
CDBG, HOPWA, SHOP, SHP, and special projects programs.
    The Committee reminds the Department that all funding 
provided under this heading is to be competitively awarded as 
required under the HUD Reform Act of 1989 and section 205 under 
Administrative Provisions under this title.

                     Management and Administration


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           By transfer
                                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                       Indian      Hawaiian
                                                                   Appropriation       FHA funds        GNMA funds           CPD         Title VI     housing      housing           Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2005 recommendation.........................................      $543,773,000      $560,672,000       $10,695,000      $1,000,000     $150,000     $250,000      $35,000      $1,116,575,000
FY 2004 appropriation..........................................       543,773,000       560,672,000        10,695,000       1,000,000      150,000      250,000       35,000       1,116,575,000
FY 2005 budget request.........................................       591,579,000       576,000,000        10,986,000               0      150,000      250,000       35,000       1,179,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2004 appropriation.................                 0                 0                 0               0            0            0            0                   0
Comparison with Fiscal year 2005 budget request................       -47,806,000       -15,328,000          -291,000      +1,000,000            0            0            0         -62,425,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A single appropriation has been provided to finance all 
salaries and related costs associated with administering the 
programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
except the Office of Inspector General and the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. These activities include 
housing, mortgage credit and secondary market programs 
community planning and development programs, departmental 
management, legal services, and field direction and 
administration.
    The Committee recommends total funding of $1,116,575,000 
for the salaries and expenses of the Department, a decrease of 
$62,425,000 below the request and the same level provided in 
fiscal year 2004.
    Language is included in the bill setting forth the amounts 
and staffing levels provided for the various offices funded 
under this heading as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Office                       FTE               Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Housing.................              3,301       $310,663,000
Office of Public and Indian                     1,643        174,910,000
 Housing..........................
Office of Community Planning and                  856         88,653,000
 Development......................
Office of Policy Development and                  180         23,405,000
 Research.........................
Office of Fair Housing and Equal                  640         61,234,000
 Opportunity......................
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead                   49          5,171,000
 Hazard Control...................
Government National Mortgage                       73          8,599,000
 Association......................
Departmental Management...........                207         23,844,000
Center for Faith-Based and                          8          2,142,000
 Community Initiatives............
Office of the Chief Financial                     227         37,832,000
 Officer..........................
Office of the General Counsel.....                710         78,779,000
Office of Field Policy and                        500         52,426,000
 Management.......................
Office of Administration..........                792        245,646,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Management and                       9,214     $1,116,575,000
     Administration...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amounts provided are consistent with a pro-rata 
distribution of staffing among offices based on revised 
Department's Resource Allocation and Estimation Process (REAP) 
studies completed to date. However, the Committee understands 
REAP refresh studies are ongoing for the Offices of Housing, 
Public and Indian Housing, and the Chief Financial Officer and 
therefore the Committee considers these distributions to be 
preliminary and expects the Department to provide revised 
distributions upon completion of all REAP refresh studies. 
Further, the Department is reminded that it may reallocate 
funds and FTE between the amounts specified above for these 
offices only in accordance with operating plan and/or 
reprogramming procedures.
    The recommendation reflects the Committee's believe that 
necessary staffing must be maintained to ensure continued 
improvements in the Department's oversight and administration 
of its programs, particularly in the areas of financial 
management. Within the total amount made available, the 
Department is directed to provide no less than 75 FTE for the 
Section 8 Quality Assurance Division created in fiscal year 
2004. Therefore, the object classification distribution, which 
shall also serve as the basis for operating plan and 
reprogramming changes is as follows:
          Personal Services--$908,984,000
          Travel and Transportation of Persons--$17,031,000
          Transportation of Things--$548,000
          Rent, Communications and Utilities--$131,791,000
          Printing and Reproduction--$2,740,000
          Other Services--$48,058,000
          Supplies and Materials--$4,687,000
          Furniture and Equipment--$2,511,000
          Indemnities--$255,000
    Operating Plans/Reprogramming Requirements.--The Committee 
appreciates the need for management flexibility to allocate 
management and administrative resources or reorganize offices 
and programs to address changing requirements at the 
departments and agencies funded in the bill, including HUD. To 
provide such flexibility, while ensuring appropriate 
consultation and oversight, all Departments within the 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction are required to submit operating 
plans and reprogramming letters and reorganization proposals 
for Committee approval. On a number of occasions, the Committee 
has expressed its concerns that HUD has not adhered to these 
requirements and instead has reallocated resources among 
programs, projects and activities, reorganized offices and 
created new offices without prior notification and approval by 
the Committee. The Committee directs HUD to follow the 
Committee's requirements regarding operating plans, 
reprogrammings and reorganizations so that the Committee is 
kept informed of, and therefore is better able to respond to, 
changing requirements at the Department. HUD is reminded that 
operating plans or reprogramming requirements apply to any 
reallocation of resources totaling more than $500,000 among any 
program, project or activity as well as to any significant 
reorganization within offices or the proposed creation or 
elimination of any program or office, regardless of the dollar 
amount involved; and any reorganization, regardless of the 
dollar amount involved. Object classification changes above 
$500,000 also are subject to operating plan or reprogramming 
requirements. Unless otherwise specified in this Act or the 
accompanying report, the approved level for any program, 
project, or activity is that amount detailed for that program, 
project, or activity in the Department's annual detailed budget 
justification document. These requirements apply to all funds 
provided to the Department. The Department is expected to make 
any necessary changes during fiscal year 2004 to its current 
procedures and systems to ensure that it is able to meet the 
necessary operating plan and reprogramming requirements applied 
to other agencies funded in the bill.
    Budget Submission.--The Committee commends the Department 
for working with the Committee over the last two years to 
improve the quality of the annual Budget Justification 
submission. The fiscal year 2005 submission was significantly 
improved from previous years submissions. The submission was 
formatted in the traditional appropriations account structure 
and included the necessary detail for most programs required by 
the Committee to assess funding requests and program 
requirements. The Committee appreciates the Department's 
cooperation and efforts to ensure that the submission is a 
useful document. The Committee requests that the Department 
continue to work to make refinements in certain areas as part 
of the fiscal year 2006 budget submission. The Committee 
expects the Department's fiscal year 2006 submission to be 
submitted in the identical format and continues its direction 
that strategic planning document, formats or materials are not 
to be incorporated into the submission. Language has been 
continued under Administrative Provisions, carried in fiscal 
year 2004, setting forth such requirements.
    Language is included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior Acts, which designates amounts provided from 
various accounts for salaries and expenses and which requires 
the Department to implement appropriate funds control and 
financial management procedures. Language carried in previous 
years regarding limitations on certain positions at the 
Department is deleted as proposed in the budget.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $100,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       233,614,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       234,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........      -133,614,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......      -134,000,000


    The Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. 3535 to provide necessary capital for the development 
of, modifications to, and infrastructure for Department-wide 
information technology systems, and for the continuing 
operation of both Department-wide and program-specific 
information technology systems.
    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 direction 
appropriation for the Working Capital Fund to support 
Department-wide information technology system activities, a 
reduction of $133,614,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level and 
$134,000,000 below the request. The recommendation does not 
include language proposed in the budget to give the Department 
the authority to divert funding provided to address information 
technology needs in various HUD programs to instead augment 
funding for Department-wide infrastructure.
    The Committee is frustrated that the Department has, to 
date, been unable to successfully award a new contract to 
provide for its Department-wide information technology 
infrastructure and maintenance support. As a result, during 
fiscal year 2004, the Department has significantly overspent 
for outdated technology to the detriment of critical financial 
and management systems. The Committee can no longer accept the 
extraordinary costs associated with continued delays which have 
prohibited the Department from modernizing its information 
technology infrastructure. The Committee does not intend to 
provide continued funding to support the status quo. The 
Committee expects the Department to develop and be prepared to 
implement alternative approaches to meeting its information 
technology needs should the Department be unable to 
successfully and expeditiously put in place a modernized 
information technology infrastructure. Therefore, the Committee 
has reduced funding for this account, and will re-evaluate the 
Department's funding needs based upon the Department's success 
in completing its efforts to implement a modernized information 
technology infrastructure.
    In addition to the direct appropriation for Department-wide 
systems, funds are transferred from various accounts to be used 
exclusively for program-specific information technology 
requirements. The Committee recommends transfers totaling 
$52,654,000 as follows:
          FHA, Mutual mortgage insurance fund--$15,000,000
          FHA, General and special risk insurance fund--
        $9,600,000
          Community development fund--$4,700,000
          HOME investment partnerships program--$2,000,000
          Homeless assistance--$2,500,000
          Public housing capital fund--$10,150,000
          Native American Indian block grants--$2,600,000
          Tenant-Based Rental Assistance--$2,940,000
          Project-Based Rental Assistance--$1,960,000
          Housing for the elderly--$450,000
          Housing for the disabled--$450,000
          Office of Inspector General--$300,000
    The Committee remains committed to improving HUD's 
information technology capacity. To a large extent, both HUD's 
and Congress' ability to oversee the effectiveness of HUD's 
programs is undermined due to the failure of HUD's information 
systems to provide the information necessary to assess program 
performance and ensure effective resource management. The 
Committee continues to have concerns regarding the Department's 
progress in implementing several of its major information 
technology projects. The Department is directed to continue to 
work with the Committee to further develop and define and 
update its five-year IT requirements based upon the format 
previously requested by the Committee. The Department is 
directed to provide an updated five-year IT plan consistent 
with such format no later than November 15, 2004. In addition, 
the Department is directed to submit to the Committee no later 
than September 15, 2004 a report on updating the status of, 
funds spent to date, and estimated fiscal year 2005 funding 
requirements for the following major projects: PIH Information 
Center (PIC), FHA Subsidiary Ledger, HUD Integrated Financial 
Management Improvement Project (HIFMIP), HUD Integrated HR and 
Training System (HIHRTS), and the Single Family Integration 
System. Such report shall include a comparison to the 
information submitted to the Committee on November 15, 2003.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Appropriation       FHA funds           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation...........................       $77,000,000       $23,858,000      $100,858,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation............................        76,546,000        23,858,000       100,404,000
Fiscal year 2005 request..................................        77,000,000        24,000,000       101,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation............          +454,000                 0          +454,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request...........                 0          -142,000          -142,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office of Inspector General provides agency-wide audit 
and investigative functions to identify and correct management 
and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for 
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and 
mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit, 
contract audit, and inspection services. Contract audits 
provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on 
accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, 
award, administration, re-pricing and settlement of contracts. 
Internal audits evaluate all facets of agency operations. 
Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of 
agency operations. The investigative function provides for the 
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 
involving programs, personnel and operations.
    The Committee recommends $100,858,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General, an increase of $454,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2004 and $142,000 below the budget 
request. Of this amount, $23,858,000 is derived from transfers 
from FHA funds.
    Language is included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior Acts, which: (1) designates amounts available 
to the Inspector General from other accounts; and (2) clarifies 
the authority of the Inspector General with respect to certain 
personnel issues.
    The Committee directs the IG to increase its audits and 
investigative efforts related to Public Housing Agencies' 
administration of the Section 8 voucher program. The Committee 
requests that the IG provide a workplan for these activities no 
later than January 1, 2005.

  Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Salaries and Expenses


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $59,209,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        39,680,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        59,209,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       +19,529,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) 
was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and 
soundness of the two housing government-sponsored enterprises 
(GSEs)--the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) 
and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). 
The office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprises 
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also provided 
the regulator enhanced authority to enforce these standards. In 
addition to financial regulation, the OFHEO monitors the GSEs 
compliance with affordable housing goals that were contained in 
the Act.
    The Committee recommends a total of $59,209,000 for OFHEO, 
an increase of $19,529,000 over the enacted level and equal to 
the budget request, to be derived from fees assessed to the 
GSEs and deposited into the Federal Housing Enterprises 
Oversight Fund. The funding increase supports an additional 59 
FTE for OFHEO, for a total of 237 FTE. In addition, the funding 
increase will provide $3,300,000 for contract services for 
special examinations, $2,500,000 to complete the automated 
examination workstation, and $1,400,000 for analytical software 
to improve oversight of interest rate risk. These enhancements 
will strengthen annual examinations, accounting treatment 
examinations, and capital management analyses, adding the 
necessary supervision to ensure that OFHEO performs as an early 
warning system for control and management problems and 
providing the necessary capabilities to address emerging 
financial issues.

                       Public and Indian Housing


                        HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

                              (RESCISSION)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.....................     -$1,557,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation......................      -2,844,000,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.....................      -1,557,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation......      +1,287,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.....                   0


    The Committee recommends a rescission of $1,557,000,000 
from unobligated balances and carryover remaining in the 
Housing Certificate Fund from the Section 8 tenant-based and 
project-based rental assistance programs as proposed in the 
budget. The Committee directs that a portion of this rescission 
be met by reducing public housing authorities tenant-based 
Section 8 program reserves to one-week as assumed in the 
budget.
    Language is included under this account clarifying that 
excess balances in the Housing Certificate Fund shall not be 
used to augment fiscal year 2005 funding for the tenant-based 
rental assistance. The Committee believes such practice is 
inappropriate since it results in total program spending in 
excess of the levels appropriated in the bill leading to future 
funding problems that create instability and uncertainty for 
the individuals who rely on the program and jeopardize funding 
for other important housing programs.

             DRUG ELIMINATION GRANTS FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING

                              (RESCISSION)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       -$5,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        -5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        -5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The recommendation rescinds $5,000,000 from excess balances 
remaining from funds appropriated in fiscal year 2001 and prior 
years for the Public Housing Drug Elimination program as 
proposed in the budget. The program was terminated in fiscal 
year 2002.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

                              (RESCISSION)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      -$21,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       -21,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -21,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Committee recommends a rescission of $21,000,000 from 
unused credit subsidy appropriated in prior years for the title 
VI Indian Housing Federal Loan Guarantee program as proposed in 
the budget.

             INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                              (RESCISSION)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      -$33,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       -33,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -33,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Committee recommends a rescission of $33,000,000 from 
unused credit subsidy appropriated in prior years for the 
Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee fund as proposed in 
the budget.

                    Other Assisted Housing Programs


                       RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

                              (RESCISSION)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................     -$675,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................      -303,000,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................      -675,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........      -372,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Committee recommends a rescission of $675,000,000 from 
amounts appropriated in the fiscal year 1983 Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for amendment funding for both State-aided, 
non-insured Rental Supplement and Rental Housing Assistance 
Payment contracts as proposed in the budget.
    The Committee recommends this rescission with reservation 
because these funds will need to be restored in future years to 
fund these contracts. While the Committee has adopted this 
rescission proposed in the budget in order to avoid significant 
cuts in departmental programs, the Committee believes it 
imprudent for the Department to propose additional rescissions 
from funding known to be required to fulfill existing long-term 
contracts in the future.

                     Federal Housing Administration


                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                              (RESCISSION)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      -$30,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       -30,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -30,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Committee recommends a rescission of $30,000,000 from 
unused credit subsidy appropriated in prior years for the 
general and special risk insurance funds as proposed in the 
budget.
    The bill contains a number of administrative provisions.
    Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment 
factors, as requested.
    Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to 
investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair 
Housing Act, which was proposed for deletion.
    Section 203 continues language to correct an anomaly in the 
HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain 
States.
    Section 204 authorizes the Secretary to waive certain 
requirements related to an assisted living pilot project, as 
requested.
    Section 205 continues language requiring funds appropriated 
to be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.
    Section 206 continues language, carried in previous years, 
regarding the availability of funds subject to the Government 
Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950.
    Section 207 continues language, carried in previous years, 
regarding allocation of funds in excess of the budget 
estimates.
    Section 208 continues language, carried in previous years, 
regarding the expenditure of funds for corporations and 
agencies subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
    Section 209 continues language, carried in previous years, 
requiring submission of a spending plan for technical 
assistance, training and management improvement activities 
prior to the expenditure of funds.
    Section 210 continues language requiring the Secretary to 
provide quarterly reports on uncommitted, unobligated and 
excess funds in each departmental program and activity.
    Section 211 continues language requiring the Secretary to 
maintain section 8 assistance on certain properties occupied by 
elderly or disabled families.
    Section 212 extends a technical amendment included in the 
fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act relating to the allocation 
of HOPWA funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary 
metropolitan areas. A proviso is added to allow a state to 
administer the HOPWA program in the event that a local 
government is unable to undertake the HOPWA grants management 
functions.
    Section 213 continues language allowing the Secretary to 
maintain and dispose of certain elderly and disabled projects 
upon foreclosure.
    Section 214 continues language setting certain requirements 
for the Department's annual congressional justification of 
appropriations.
    Section 215 continues language carried in previous years 
elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to 
continue to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous 
years for persons with disabilities upon turnover.
    Section 216 clarifies an equitable title issue for the 
section 202 program.
    Section 217 relates to state authority regarding 
participation on housing boards.
    The Committee does not recommend ten new administrative 
provisions requested in the budget to amend various housing 
authorization statutes. The Committee strongly recommends that 
the relevant authorization Committees address these 
authorization proposals, particularly in light of the reforms 
needed to address cost and management concerns associated with 
programs funded by the Department.

                    TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                  American Battle Monuments Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $41,100,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        41,056,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        41,100,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........           +44,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Commission is responsible for the administration, 
operation and maintenance of cemetery and war memorials to 
commemorate the achievements and sacrifices of the American 
Armed Forces where they have served since April 6, 1917. In 
performing these functions, the American Battle Monuments 
Commission maintains twenty-four permanent American military 
cemetery memorials and thirty-one monuments, memorials, markers 
and offices in fifteen foreign countries, the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the British dependency of 
Gibraltar. In addition, six memorials are located in the United 
States: the East Coast Memorial in New York; the West Coast 
Memorial, The Presidio, in San Francisco; the Honolulu Memorial 
in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, 
Hawaii; and the American Expeditionary Forces Memorial and the 
World War II and Korean War Veterans Memorials in Washington, 
DC.
    The Committee recommends $41,100,000 for fiscal year 2005 
for the Commission's salaries and expenses account as proposed 
in the budget.
    The recommendation includes $9,100,000 for continued 
construction costs of the Normandy Interpretive Center at the 
Normandy American Cemetery in France, the full amount 
requested. The Cemetery averages nearly two million visitors 
per year, and the existing facilities are over 40 years old and 
inadequate to serve this large number of visitors. The new and 
expanded center will provide a fuller array of interpretive 
services to put the D-Day landings and the following battles in 
Europe in perspective as one of the greatest military 
achievements of all time. The Committee understands that 
exchange rate fluctuations may impact construction costs and 
expects the Commission's fiscal year 2006 budget submission to 
accommodate such changes.
    The responsibility for operation and maintenance of the 
World War II Memorial passed to the National Park Service when 
the memorial was dedicated. The Commission, however, retains a 
fiduciary role in overseeing the remainder of funding donated 
by the public for construction of the memorial. The Commission 
is directed to report annually to the Committee on the 
financial position of the fund including any expenditures 
during the prior year.
    Language is included allowing up to $7,500 to be used for 
official reception and representation expenses.

                 FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATIONS ACCOUNT




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................        $9,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        +9,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......        +9,000,000


    The Commission's foreign currency fluctuations account is 
authorized pursuant to 36 U.S.C. 2109 to pay the costs of 
salaries and expenses that exceed the amount appropriated for 
salaries and expenses because of fluctuations in currency 
exchange rates of foreign countries occurring after a budget 
request for the Commission is submitted to the Congress. The 
account may not be used for any other purpose.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,000,000 to 
re-capitalize the Commission's Foreign Currency Fluctuations 
account. Due to declining exchange rates during fiscal year 
2004, all available resources in the account have been depleted 
and necessary Commission activities have been deferred. Current 
estimates of exchange rates during fiscal year 2005 indicate 
that the Commission's budget submission will be insufficient to 
support Commission activities. Re-capitalization of the account 
ensures that funds are available to offset dollar losses during 
fiscal year 2005.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................        $9,451,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................         8,201,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................         9,451,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        +1,250,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............                +0


    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board was 
authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to 
investigate accidental releases of certain chemical substances 
resulting in, or that may cause, serious injury, death, 
substantial property damage or serious adverse effects on human 
health. The Board became operational in fiscal year 1998.
    For salaries and expenses in fiscal year 2005, the 
Committee is recommending $9,451,000, an increase of $1,250,000 
from the level for fiscal year 2004 and an equal to the 
request.
    Again this year, bill language has been included which 
limits the number of career senior executive service positions 
to three.
    The Committee directs that of the amounts approved in this 
appropriation, the Board must limit transfers of funds between 
object classifications or program activities to not more than 
$100,000 without prior notification of the Committees on 
Appropriations. Changes from the budget request in excess of 
$250,000 shall be subject to the normal Committee reprogramming 
guidelines as outlined at the beginning of this report. No 
changes may be made to any expense as reflected in the budget 
justification, except as approved by the Committees on 
Appropriations, if it is construed by the Committee to be 
policy or change in policy.
    The Committee notes that, pursuant to Congressional 
direction, the Board has been seeking discussions with the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a Memorandum 
of Understanding (MOU) to ensure efficient coordination of 
fieldwork and appropriate exchange of technical expertise. The 
Committee lauds the Board's attempt to work with DHS, and urges 
DHS to work with the Board to complete the MOU expeditiously.

                             EMERGENCY FUND




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................          $400,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................           447,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................           400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........           -47,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............                +0


    The emergency fund provides a funding mechanism by which 
periodic accident investigation cost fluctuations can be met 
without delaying critical phases of the investigations. Amounts 
provided to the Emergency fund are available until expended and 
may be added to in future appropriations acts.
    The purpose of the fund is to address investigation costs 
that greatly exceed the amounts already budgeted and provided 
for in the current fiscal year and is not to be used to offset 
the agencies normal operating expenses. The Board is directed 
to notify the Committee in writing of any withdrawals from the 
emergency fund within 2 business days of such withdrawal. Such 
notification shall include the amount being withdrawn from the 
fund, the purpose and need for the withdrawal, and any relevant 
budget implications.

                       Department of the Treasury


              Community Development Financial Institutions


   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $60,640,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        60,640,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        48,403,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............       +12,237,000


    The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund 
provides grants, loans and technical assistance to new and 
existing community development financial institutions such as 
community development banks, community development credit 
unions, revolving loan funds and micro-loan funds. Recipients 
must use the funds to support mortgage, small business and 
economic development lending in currently underserved, 
distressed neighborhoods. The Fund is also responsible for 
implementation of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $60,640,000 
for the program in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $12,237,000 
when compared to the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes bill language designating $4,000,000 
for financial and technical assistance for Native American, 
Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native communities.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $62,650,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        59,646,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        62,650,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        +3,004,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............                 0


    The Consumer Product Safety Act established the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an independent Federal 
regulatory agency, to reduce unreasonable risk of injury 
associated with consumer products. Its primary responsibilities 
and overall goals are: to protect the public against 
unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer products; 
to develop uniform safety standards for consumer products, 
minimizing conflicting State and local regulations; and to 
promote research into prevention of product-related deaths, 
illnesses, and injuries.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $62,650,000 
for fiscal year 2005 the same level as requested and an 
increase of $3,004,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
    The Committee urges the CPSC to expand its relationship 
with the Home Safety Council and its Great Safety Adventure 
Program.

             Corporation for National and Community Service





Fiscal year 2005 recommendation......................       $572,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation.......................        581,027,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request......................        642,232,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation.......         -9,027,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request......        -70,232,000


    The Corporation for National and Community Service was 
established by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 
1993 to enhance opportunities for national and community 
service and provide national service educational awards. The 
Corporation makes grants to States, institutions of higher 
education, public and private nonprofit organizations, and 
others to create service opportunities for a wide variety of 
individuals through full-time national and community service 
programs. Funds for the Volunteers in Service to America and 
the National Senior Service Corps are provided in the Labor-
Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill.
    The Committee recommends the same three-account structure 
that was included in the fiscal year 2004 enacted bill, which 
included a separate salaries and expenses account. The budget 
request integrated salaries and expenses into the general 
funding account.

       NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS OPERATING EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $541,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       549,961,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request\1\....................       607,338,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        -8,961,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       -66,338,000


 \1\ This amount represents the budget request for operational expenses
  excluding salaries and expenses. While the budget request integrated
  $28,894,000 of salaries and expenses into the larger Corporation
  appropriation, the Committee continues to provide a separate account
  for this purpose.

    The Committee recommends $290,000,000 for AmeriCorps 
competitive and formula state grants and $144,000,000 for the 
trust, including $13,000,000 to be held in reserve, and 
$3,900,000 for the President's Freedom Scholarships. The 
Committee expects that this level for AmeriCorps grants and the 
trust will support a minimum of 70,000 volunteers, a reduction 
of 5,000 volunteers from the 75,000 volunteers supported by the 
fiscal year 2004 enacted budget. The reduction in volunteers 
supported by this bill is taken without prejudice, and is a 
consequence of broader funding constraints in this bill 
overall.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
program levels:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     FY 2005
                                                             FY 2004 enacted   FY 2005 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn and Serve...........................................       $42,746,000       $46,000,000       $40,000,000
National Civilian Community Corps.........................        24,852,000        27,027,000        25,500,000
Innovation and Demonstration..............................        11,159,000        30,010,000        12,000,000
Evaluation................................................         2,982,000         6,000,000         3,000,000
State Commissions.........................................        11,929,000        14,568,000        12,000,000
Points of Light Foundation................................         9,941,000        10,000,000         9,700,000
America's Promise.........................................         4,971,000         7,500,000         4,800,000
Teach for America.........................................                 0         4,000,000                 0
Silver Scholarships.......................................                 0        10,000,000                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee's recommendation for Learn and Serve grants 
does not include the requested increase of $3,000,000 for a 
higher education initiative. The decrease below the fiscal year 
2004 enacted budget should be applied on a pro rata basis to 
ongoing grants, which will be in their third and final year in 
fiscal year 2005.
    The Committee's recommendation of $25,500,000 for the 
National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) does not provide the 
full $2,000,000 increase for capital improvement costs at NCCC 
facilities requested in the budget. The Committee directs the 
Corporation to address the most crucial capital improvement 
needs for fiscal year 2005 with the $500,000 increase provided 
by the Committee, and any necessary additional amounts within 
remaining available funds. Less critical capital improvements 
should be deferred to subsequent years.
    The Committee does not recommend an earmark for Teach for 
America (TFA) requested in the budget. The Committee notes that 
Teach for America operates an outstanding program that has 
successfully competed for AmeriCorps grants and has placed 
thousands of teachers in underserved areas. TFA is encouraged 
to continue to compete for AmeriCorps grants in fiscal year 
2005.
    The Committee does not recommend funding for the new Silver 
Scholarships initiative, which is not authorized.
    The Committee is pleased with the progress made to date by 
the Corporation on the rulemaking directed in the fiscal year 
2004 appropriations Act. As the Corporation moves into the 
notice and comment period, the Committee expects to continue to 
be kept informed of its progress. Further, consistent with the 
direction of the fiscal year 2004 Act, the Committee expects 
the rulemaking to establish policy guidelines for the long-
term.
    The Committee directs the Corporation to submit an 
operating plan within 90 days of enactment of this bill and 
abide by the reprogramming requirements outlined at the 
beginning of this report.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $25,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        24,853,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request\1\....................        28,894,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          +147,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......        -3,894,000


 \1\ While the budget request did not include a separate salaries and
  expenses account, this is the comparable level in the budget request
  for these activities.

    For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $147,000 
more than the fiscal year 2004 level and $3,894,000 below the 
budget request. The Committee does not recommend increases for 
publications, marketing, and outreach, as requested in the 
budget.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................        $6,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................         6,213,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................         6,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          -213,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Office of Inspector General is authorized by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. This Office provides 
an independent assessment of all Corporation operations and 
programs, including those of the Volunteers in Service to 
America and the National Senior Service Corps, through audits, 
investigations, and other proactive projects.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2005, $213,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 level 
and equal to the budget request.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    The Committee has included two administrative provisions 
carried in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations Act regarding 
qualified student loans eligible for education awards and the 
availability of funds for the placement of volunteers with 
disabilities.
    The Committee has repeated an administrative provision 
carried in the fiscal year 2004 Act regarding Inspector General 
audits to ensure proper use of AmeriCorps grant funding.

               U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $16,725,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        15,844,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        17,623,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          +881,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......          -898,000


    The Veterans' Judicial Review Act established the Court of 
Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Court reviews appeals from 
Department of Veterans Affairs claimants seeking review of a 
benefit denial. The Court has the authority to overturn 
findings of fact, regulations and interpretations of law.
    The bill includes $16,725,000 for the Court of Appeals for 
Veterans Claims in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $881,000 
above the current year appropriation and $898,000 below the 
budget request.
    The bill also identifies $1,100,000 to be used for the pro 
bono representation program, the same as proposed in the budget 
request.
    The Committee has not included the budget request of 
approximately $900,000 for the GSA to conduct feasibility 
studies preparatory to design and construction of the Veterans 
Courthouse and Justice Center. The Committee notes that there 
has been no independent assessment of the need for such a 
facility and contrary to the recommendations of the Committee 
included in its report from last year, the Court has not 
provided information concerning its efforts to resolve issues 
with its current facility. Nor has the Court addressed the 
Committee recommendation that alternative Federal office space 
may well meet its needs. The Committee directs the Court to 
seek an independent assessment of its basic needs, which may 
then lead to inclusion of a new facility as part of the General 
Services Administration 5-year plan. Until such an assessment 
is completed and presented to the Congress, the Committee will 
continue to oppose funding for the Veterans Courthouse and 
Justice Center.

                      Department of Defense--Civil


                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $29,600,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        28,829,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        29,600,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          +771,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Secretary of the Army is responsible for the 
administration, operation and maintenance of Arlington National 
Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. 
At the close of fiscal year 2003, the remains of 302,054 
persons were interred/inurned in these cemeteries. There were 
3,903 interments and 2,342 inurnments in fiscal year 2003. It 
is projected that there will be 3,925 interments and 2,775 
inurnments in fiscal year 2004. In addition to its principal 
function as a national cemetery, Arlington is the site of 
approximately 3,100 non-funeral ceremonies each year and has 
approximately 4,000,000 visitors annually.
    The Committee recommends $29,600,000 for operations and 
maintenance of the Cemetery, an increase of $771,000 from the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level and equal to the budget request.
     The Committee believes it is extremely important that the 
Cemetery be able to expand into continguous space to maintain 
the Cemetery as a unified site to honor the nation's veterans. 
The Committee requests the Cemetery to keep the Committee fully 
informed of any proposals to divert land currently slated for 
the Cemetery's use for other purposes, including Navy Annex and 
Fort Myer land, and report on the impact of such proposals on 
the Cemetery's long-term requirements.
    The recommendation includes $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2005 
for the Cemetery's automation project, bringing the total 
provided for this project over the last two years to 
$4,200,000. The Committee remains supportive of this effort but 
notes that detailed information on the overall project plan, 
cost and schedule has yet to be provided. The Committee expects 
the Cemetery to continue working with the Office of Management 
and Budget, the Veterans Administration and other governmental 
agencies to capitalize on the most efficient and cost effective 
solutions to meet its technology needs as it finalizes its 
plans. The Cemetery is directed to provide a report to the 
Committee not later than November 15, 2004, on its plan for the 
project, including but not limited to, current status of the 
project, estimated total project cost, timeline for completion, 
and recurring out-year funding requirements.

                     National Institutes of Health


          NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $80,486,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        78,309,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        80,486,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        +2,177,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 
(NIEHS), an agency within the National Institutes of Health, 
was authorized in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
to conduct certain research and worker training activities 
associated with the nation's Hazardous Substance Superfund 
program.
    For fiscal year 2005 the Committee has recommended a 
funding level of $80,486,000, an increase of $2,177,000 above 
the enacted level and equal to the budget request. The 
Committee directs that funds be divided between the research 
and the worker training programs in the same proportions as in 
the budget request.

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


            TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $76,654,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        73,034,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        76,654,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        +3,620,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR), an agency of the Public Health Service, was created in 
section 104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The ATSDR's primary 
mission is to conduct surveys and screening programs to 
determine relationships between exposure to toxic substances 
and illness. Other activities include the maintenance and 
annual update of a list of hazardous substances most commonly 
found at Superfund sites, the preparation of toxicological 
profiles on each such hazardous substance, consultations on 
health issues relating to exposure to hazardous or toxic 
substances, and the development and implementation of certain 
research activities related to ATSDR's mission.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has recommended a 
funding level of $76,654,000, which is $3,620,000 above the 
fiscal year 2004 funding level and the same as the budget 
request.
    The Committee is aware of the high quality of work being 
conducted by the nation's schools of public health in the area 
of environmental hazards research and effective response 
protocols for accidental or intentional releases of toxic 
substances. Within the increase provided, the Committee 
encourages the Agency to expand its collaborations with schools 
of public health in these areas.
    The Committee encourages ATSDR to provide adequate funding 
in fiscal year 2005 for its cooperative agreement with the 
minority health professions community.
    The Committee urges ATSDR, within available funds, to 
conduct a study of the health effects of naturally occurring 
asbestos and report its findings to the Committee by September 
30, 2005.

                    Environmental Protection Agency





Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $7,753,069,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     8,365,817,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     7,789,245,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........      -612,748,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       -36,176,000


    The Environmental Protection Agency was created by 
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which consolidated nine 
programs from five different agencies and departments. Major 
EPA programs include air and water quality, drinking water, 
hazardous waste, research, pesticides, radiation, toxic 
substances, enforcement and compliance assurance, pollution 
prevention, oil spills, Superfund, Brownfields, and the Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program. In addition, EPA 
provides Federal assistance for wastewater treatment, sewer 
overflow control, drinking water facilities, and other water 
infrastructure projects. The agency is responsible for 
conducting research and development, establishing environmental 
standards through the use of risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis, monitoring pollution conditions, seeking compliance 
through a variety of means, managing audits and investigations, 
and providing technical assistance and grant support to states 
and tribes, which are delegated authority for actual program 
implementation. Under existing statutory authority, the Agency 
may contribute to specific homeland security efforts and, 
additionally, may participate in some international 
environmental activities.
    Among the statutes for which the Environmental Protection 
Agency has sole or significant oversight responsibilities are:
          National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 
        amended.
          Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 
        as amended.
          Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended.
          Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
          Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended.
          Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 
        1972, as amended.
          Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
          Public Health Service Act (Title XIV), as amended.
          Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended.
          Clean Air Act, as amended.
          Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended.
          Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002.
          Bioterrorism Act of 2002.
          Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
        and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.
          Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields 
        Revitalization Act of 2002 (amending CERCLA).
          Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 
        1986.
          Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
          Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended.
          Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990.
          Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has recommended a total 
program and support level of $7,753,069,000, a decrease of 
$612,748,000 below last year's appropriated level and a 
decrease of $36,176,000 below the budget request.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Agency must limit transfers of funds between 
objectives to not more than $500,000, except as specifically 
noted, without prior approval of the Committee. No changes may 
be made to any account or objective except as approved by the 
Committee, if it is construed to be policy or a change in 
policy. Any activity or program cited in the report, including 
specific funding amounts, shall be construed as the position of 
the Committee and should not be subject to reductions or 
reprogramming without prior approval of the Committee, unless 
adjusted by the subsequent Conference Report. It is the intent 
of the Committee that all carryover funds in the various 
appropriations accounts are subject to the normal reprogramming 
requirements outlined above. The Agency is expected to comply 
with all normal rules and regulations in carrying out these 
directives. Reprogramming requests associated with States and 
Tribes applying for Partnership Grants do not need to be 
submitted to the Committee for approval should such grants 
exceed the normal reprogramming limitations. Finally, the 
Committee wishes to continue to be notified regarding 
reorganizations of offices, programs, or activities prior to 
the planned implementation of such reorganizations.
    The bill includes sufficient funding to support a level of 
federal enforcement personnel throughout the Agency's programs 
equal to the fiscal year 2004 level of 3,471 FTE's.
    The Committee notes that the General Accounting Office 
staff review of EPA's fiscal year 2005 budget request was 
received by the Committee on July 16, 2004, more than five 
months after the President's Budget was transmitted to the 
Congress and less than one week prior to scheduled action by 
the Committee on this request. The Committee has noted 
previously in discussions with GAO staff that such analysis in 
order to be useful to the Congress must be more timely. The 
Committee requests that the Comptroller General inform his 
staff that any future reviews of the EPA budget be submitted to 
the House and Senate Committee's on Appropriations not later 
than 45 days after the budget is released to the public.
    The Committee wishes to recognize the leadership EPA has 
assumed by integrating GPRA into their budget process over the 
last five years. The Committee also supports the continuation 
of the Agency's recent efforts to reformat their budget 
justification with the goal of having a more concise and 
transparent document for fiscal year 2006.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................  \1\ $729,029,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       781,685,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       689,185,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -52,656,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 budget request.......       +39,844,000


\1\ Total does not include transfer of $36,097,000 from the Hazardous
  Substance Superfund account.

    The Science and Technology account funds all Environmental 
Protection Agency research (including, by transfer of funds, 
Hazardous Substances Superfund research activities) carried out 
through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with 
other Federal agencies, states, universities, and private 
business, as well as in-house research. This account also funds 
personnel compensation and benefits, travel, supplies and 
operating expenses for all Agency research. Research addresses 
a wide range of environmental and health concerns across all 
environmental media and encompasses both long-term basic and 
near-term applied research to provide the scientific knowledge 
and technologies necessary for preventing, regulating, and 
abating pollution, and to anticipate emerging environmental 
issues.
    The Committee has recommended an appropriation of 
$729,029,000 for Science and Technology for fiscal year 2005, a 
decrease of $52,656,000 below last year's spending level, and 
an increase of $39,844,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
changes to the funding levels included in the budget 
submission:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     FY 2005
                                                            FY 2004  enacted  FY 2005  request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification.....       $57,875,400       $64,466,500       $58,000,000
Research: Particulate Matter..............................        58,644,000        63,690,800        59,000,000
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs......................         4,633,600         9,352,900         4,750,000
Research: Drinking Water..................................        44,127,700        46,118,100        44,500,000
Research: Water Quality...................................        45,073,600        46,809,800       $45,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee's recommended appropriation also includes the 
following increases to the budget request:
          1. +$16,232,000 for the STAR and STAR Fellowship 
        programs, which fully restores these activities to the 
        fiscal year 2004 level.
          2. +$2,450,000 for EPSCoR;
          3. +$3,900,000 for Water Environmental Research 
        Foundation;
          4. +$4,900,000 for the American Water Works 
        Association Research Foundation;
          5. +$1,950,000 for the National Decentralized Water 
        Resource Capacity Development Project, in coordination 
        with EPA, for continued training and research and 
        development of the program;
          6. +$1,000,000 to the Florida Department of Citrus to 
        provide for the manufacture of an adequate amount of 
        abscission chemical compound for testing and to provide 
        for any comprehensive environmental and toxicological 
        studies and other relevant research required by the 
        federal government in order to register this product 
        for use as an abscission chemical agent for citrus;
          7. +$4,000,000 for continuation of building 
        decontamination research.
          8. +$1,500,000 for the Mickey Leland National Urban 
        Air Toxics Research Center in Houston, Texas;
          9. +$1,500,000 for the clean automotive technology 
        program for advanced diesel, hybrid, and high 
        efficiency, low emission vehicle development.
          10. $200,000 to the Arkansas State University in 
        Jonesboro, Arkansas for the Delta Center for water 
        quality;
          11. $150,000 to the University of Arkansas for 
        environmental resource management to develop watershed 
        technologies and management tools;
          12. $350,000 to the University of California 
        Riverside for the Center for Environmental Research and 
        Technology in Riverside, California;
          13. $200,000 to Florida International University for 
        research activities in the greater Everglades in Miami, 
        Florida;
          14. $250,000 for the Florida Gulf Coast University 
        for the Novel Early Detection and Detoxification 
        Technologies for Toxic Red Tide in Fort Myers, Florida;
          15. $200,000 for the City of New College, Florida for 
        ecotoxicology training;
          16. $750,000 for the University of South Florida 
        Study, Protection and Amelioration of Coastal 
        Environments;
          17. $200,000 for the management of waste from 
        navigating vessels in U.S. tidal waters;
          18. $1,000,000 for the Karmanos Cancer Institute to 
        create a National Center for Vermiculite-Related 
        Cancers in the Detroit metropolitan area;
          19. $250,000 for the Iowa Foundation for Education 
        Administration for the Bus Emissions Education Program;
          20. $100,000 to the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus for 
        the Clean Air Counts Campaign in Chicago land 
        Metropolitan Area, Illinois;
          21. $400,000 to the Lawerence Technology University 
        for sustainable alternative energy technologies Green 
        Building in Southfield, Michigan;
          22. $750,000 to the National Center for Manufacturing 
        Sciences for Life Cycle Analysis in Ann Arbor, 
        Michigan;
          23. $1,250,000 to the National Center for 
        Manufacturing Sciences for the sustainable produce 
        initiative in Ann Arbor, Michigan;
          24. $200,000 to Green Hills Regional Planning in 
        Princeton, Missouri for the Biomass Processing System;
          25. $150,000 for the University of Nebraska for the 
        Nebraska Water Resources Model in Lincoln, Nebraska;
          26. $250,000 to Ramapo College in Mahwah, New Jersey 
        for a new Sustainability Education Center;
          27. $150,000 to the State University of New York at 
        Brockport for the Center of Excellence for Great Lakes 
        Research;
          28. $450,000 to the State University of New York 
        Environmental School of Forestry for research and 
        demonstration of contaminant mitigation strategies for 
        rural/suburban run-off affecting water quality along 
        the rural-urban interface in Central New York 
        watersheds;
          29. $500,000 to the Center for Environmental 
        Information in Rochester, New York for continued 
        research, planning and environmental remediation for 
        the Lake Ontario Coastal Initiative;
          30. $7,000,000 for the Environmental Systems Center 
        of Excellence at Syracuse University for research and 
        technology transfer in the fields of indoor 
        environmental quality and urban ecosystems 
        sustainability;
          31. $750,000 to the Syracuse Research Corporation in 
        Syracuse, New York for a Microbial Risk Assessment 
        Center;
          32. $1,500,000 to Onondaga County's Metropolitan 
        Water Board for a demonstration project to determine 
        the feasibility of bringing naturally chilled water 
        from Lake Ontario to Onondaga and Oswego County;
          33. $300,000 to the State University of New York 
        Environmental School of Forestry for training, 
        education and research related to the, Summer Eco-
        Science Camp Initiative;
          34. $500,000 to Alfred University, New York for the 
        Center for Environmental and Energy Research;
          35. $575,000 to Orbital Research Inc., Fuel Efficient 
        Diesel Sensor for Advanced Vehicle Emission Reduction 
        (FED-SAVER), for research that may reduce fuel 
        consumption and will help diesel engines meet EPA 
        standards, Ohio;
          36. $600,000 to the Ohio Air Quality Development 
        Authority/Ohio Coal Development Office for research and 
        development of the Jupiter Oxy-Fuel Technology, Ohio;
          37. $650,000 to the University of Toledo for the Lake 
        Erie Center in Toledo, Ohio;
          38. $250,000 to the University of Tulsa, University 
        of Oklahoma, University of Arkansas, and Oklahoma State 
        University for the Integrated Petroleum Environmental 
        Consortium;
          39. $100,000 for the Oregon Department of Human 
        Services for the View Master Water Contamination Study 
        in Washington County, Oregon;
          40. $225,000 for California University of 
        Pennsylvania for the Monongahela Valley River Research 
        Project in California, Pennsylvania;
          41. $200,000 to the Middle Tennessee State University 
        for research in Development and Transmission of 
        Emerging Diseases;
          42. $500,000 for the University of Houston, Texas for 
        the GulfStar Grid Program in Houston, Texas;
          43. $1,700,000 for the Canaan Valley Institute to 
        continue to develop a regional sustainability support 
        center and coordinated information system in the Mid 
        Atlantic Highlands;
          44. $1,000,000 for the Canaan Valley Institute in 
        close coordination with the ORD Restoration Plus 
        program to demonstrate, validate and report on critical 
        ecological hubs and corridors within the Mid-Atlantic 
        Highlands and approaches to Highlands ecological 
        prioritization, restoration and conservation Research 
        and educational tools are to be developed using 
        integrative technologies to predict future 
        environmental risks and support informed, proactive 
        decision-making to be undertaken in conjunction with 
        the Highlands Action Program;
          45. $900,000 to the Polymer Alliance Zone's MARCEE 
        Initiative with oversight provided by the Office of 
        Solid Waste.
    The Committee has recommended a general reduction of 
$3,938,000 in this account.
    In addition to the funds provided through appropriations 
directly to this account, the Committee has recommended that 
$36,097,000 be transferred to ``Science and Technology'' from 
the ``Hazardous Substance Superfund'' account for ongoing 
research activities consistent with the intent of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
    The Committee is fully supportive of the collaborative 
partnership of the EPA and the National Institutes of Health in 
their system of Centers for Children's Environmental Health and 
Disease Prevention Research.
    The Committee recognizes the EPA's commitment to developing 
a Computational Toxicology program to reduce the cost and use 
of animal testing, and has funded this activity at the 
requested level. This program was fully funded and the 
Committee encourages EPA to consider validation of existing 
non-animal and alternative chemical screening and 
prioritization methods that might not typically be considered 
``computational toxicology'' methods. The Committee continues 
to await EPA's report regarding expenditures for fiscal year 
2004 funds for research, development and validation of non-
animal and other alternative methods by the Office of Research 
and Development.
    The Committee directs that the EPA continue its technology 
transfer activities initially funded by this Committee in 
fiscal year 2000 at not less than the current level of support 
and that those activities be carried out through the West 
Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation.
    In 2001 EPA requested that NAS review the situation 
regarding use of human studies in EPA regulatory programs. 
Congress has also expressed a concern in this area. The NAS 
Committee published its findings and recommendations in 
February 2004. The Committee urges EPA to consider these 
conclusions in developing policy and regulation to govern use 
of human studies in its regulatory programs and 
responsibilities.
    The Committee has also included funding to continue the 
endocrine disruptor research program at the fiscal year 2004 
level of $10,887,000.

                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $2,241,476,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     2,280,046,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     2,316,959,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -38,570,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......       -75,483,000


    The Environmental Programs and Management account 
encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, and 
compliance activities, and personnel compensation, benefits, 
travel, and expenses for all programs of the Agency except 
Science and Technology, Hazardous Substance Superfund, Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, Oil Spill Response, and 
the Office of Inspector General.
    Abatement, prevention, and compliance activities include 
setting environmental standards, issuing permits, monitoring 
emissions and ambient conditions and providing technical and 
legal assistance toward enforcement, compliance, and oversight. 
In most cases, the states are directly responsible for actual 
operation of the various environmental programs. In this 
regard, the Agency's activities include oversight and 
assistance in the facilitation of the environmental statutes.
    In addition to program costs, this account funds 
administrative costs associated with the operating programs of 
the Agency, including support for executive direction, policy 
oversight, resources management, general office and building 
services for program operations, and direct implementation of 
all Agency environmental programs--except those previously 
mentioned--for Headquarters, the ten EPA Regional offices, and 
all non-research field operations.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has recommended 
$2,241,476,000 for Environmental Programs and Management, a 
decrease of $38,570,000 below the budget request and a decrease 
of $75,483,000 below the fiscal year 2004 funding level. For 
this account only, the Agency may transfer funds of not more 
than $500,000 between programs and activities without prior 
notice to the Committee, and of not more than $1,000,000 
without prior approval of the Committee. All other 
reprogramming procedures as outlined earlier shall apply.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     FY 2005
                                                            FY 2004  enacted  FY 2005  request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Legacy Act....................................        $9,941,000       $45,000,000       $10,000,000
IT / Data Management......................................       103,077,700       133,182,400       103,000,000
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations..................       307,035,400       326,793,800       308,000,000
Surface Water Protection..................................       184,222,700       191,796,600       188,000,000
Federal Support for Air Quality Management................        86,631,800        93,283,600        87,000,000
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides        51,714,400        58,053,900        52,000,000
Pollution Prevention Program..............................        16,822,800        22,496,200        17,000,000
Human Resources Management................................        39,109,000        44,139,500        40,000,000
Drinking Water Programs...................................        93,186,900        97,948,000        94,000,000
Regulatory Innovation.....................................        17,338,300        21,992,200        18,000,000
Exchange Network..........................................        21,801,400        25,419,700        22,000,000
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling......................        10,828,400        14,301,700        11,000,000
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management..............        17,179,000        20,328,900        20,000,000
Brownfields...............................................        24,938,500        28,002,300        23,000,000
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund....................        10,935,100        13,500,000        11,000,000
Geographic Program: Great Lakes...........................        18,837,400        21,195,000        19,000,000
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways..............        24,348,100        19,229,300        25,000,000
Environmental Justice.....................................         5,810,600         4,230,500         5,900,000
Environmental Education...................................         9,109,400                 0         9,200,000
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program.............        14,821,100        11,082,600        14,800,000
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound.....................         2,286,300           477,400         2,300,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee's recommended appropriation also includes the 
following increases to the budget request:
          1. +$1,000,000 for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin 
        Restoration Program;
          2. +$17,640,000 for rural water technical assistance 
        activities and groundwater protection with distribution 
        as follows: $9,800,000 for the NRWA; $4,165,000 for 
        RCAP, to be divided equally between assistance for 
        water programs and assistance for wastewater programs; 
        $735,000 for GWPC; $1,960,000 for Small Flows 
        Clearinghouse; $980,000 for the NETC;
          3. +$1,470,000 for the Water Systems Council Wellcare 
        Program;
          4. +$980,000 for implementation of the National 
        Biosolids Partnership Program;
          5. +$2,000,000 for source water protection programs;
          6. +$2,000,000 for the Water Information Sharing and 
        Analysis Center (Water ISAC) to gather, analyze, and 
        disseminate sensitive security information to water and 
        wastewater systems;
          7. +$2,940,000 for EPA's National Computing Center to 
        provide for the remote mirroring of all critical 
        information and related systems to achieve a Continuity 
        of Operations (COOP)/Disaster Recovery capability;
          8. +$5,000,000 to support a demonstration project for 
        deployment of idle reduction technology including 
        advanced truck stop electrification, as part of the 
        Agency's Smartway Transport Program.
          9. $1,000,000 to the Environmental Monitoring and 
        Assessment Program within the State of Alaska;
          10. $100,000 to the Salton Sea Authority in Salton 
        Sea, California for air quality mitigation projects;
          11. $75,000 for Operation Clean Air for the Hot Spot 
        Pilot Program in the Town of Malaga, California;
          12. $250,000 to Calleguas Municipal Water for the 
        Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan 
        Implementation in Ventura County, California;
          13. $100,000 to the University of Redlands in 
        California for the Salton Sea Database;
          14. $300,000 for the City of Highland, California for 
        the City of Highland Environmental Learning Center;
          15. $200,000 for the Operation Clean Air Advocates, 
        Inc. in San Joaquin Valley, California for Operation 
        Clean Air;
          16. $100,000 for the California State University--
        Fullerton, California for the National Center for Water 
        Hazard Mitigation;
          17. $100,000 to the University of Connecticut Health 
        Center to implement a model asthma intervention program 
        for the State of Connecticut;
          18. $250,000 to the University of North Florida for 
        the Real-Time Regional Environmental Modeling in 
        Jacksonville, Florida;
          19. $900,000 to Osceola County, Florida for abatement 
        and prevention of hydrilla and hygophila;
          20. $400,000 to the Georgia Water Conservation Team 
        for the development and implementation of the Georgia 
        Water Planning and Policy Center, Offset Banking Water 
        Quality Improvement program;
          21. $150,000 to the Spokane Region Chamber of 
        Commerce for the Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley 
        Aquifer Study in Spokane County, Idaho;
          22. $1,700,000 to Boise State University for research 
        projects aimed at developing and demonstrating multi-
        purpose sensors to detect and analyze contaminants and 
        time-lapse imaging of shallow subsurface fluid flow;
          23. $300,000 for the Selenium Information System 
        Project at the Idaho National Engineering and 
        Environmental Laboratory;
          24. $100,000 to the City of Rexburg, Idaho for the 
        Teton River Mill Site Redevelopment and Learning 
        Project;
          25. $150,000 to the City of Chicago, Illinois for the 
        Beach Contamination Identification/Elimination Study;
          26. $200,000 to the Ohio River Valley Water 
        Sanitation Commission for the Ohio River Watershed 
        Pollutant Reduction Program;
          27. $100,000 for PRIDE in the 2nd District of 
        Kentucky for PRIDE in the Heartland of Kentucky;
          28. $500,000 to the Olmsted Parks Conservancy in 
        Louisville, Kentucky to remove invasive species and 
        correct erosion in Cherokee and Seneca Parks;
          29. $1,000,000 to the Olmsted Parks Conservancy in 
        Louisville, Kentucky to correct riverbank erosion in 
        Chickasaw Park;
          30. $550,000 to the Olmsted Parks Conservancy in 
        Louisville, Kentucky to correct erosion in Iroquois 
        Park;
          31. $850,000 to the Louisville Waterfront Development 
        Corporation, Kentucky for anti-erosion strategies;
          32. $200,000 to the Louisiana State University in 
        Shreveport, Louisiana for the Red River Watershed 
        Management Institute;
          33. $100,000 to Prince George's County, Maryland for 
        the Low Impact Development demonstration project in the 
        Anacostia River Watershed;
          34. $100,000 to Wayne County, Michigan for the Lead 
        Prevention Initiative;
          35. $100,000 to Wayne County, Michigan for the lead 
        prevention initiative;
          36. $200,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute 
        in East Lansing, Michigan for the Michigan 
        Biotechnology Institute International's Nanocomposite 
        Surfaces;
          37. $850,000 for the North Carolina Central 
        University for research initiative to assess 
        environmental exposure and impact in communities of 
        color and economically disadvantaged communities in 
        Durham, North Carolina;
          38. $100,000 to the New Hampshire Department of 
        Environmental Services to develop a statewide water 
        resources management plan;
          39. $250,000 to the Ten Towns Great Swamp Watershed 
        Management Committee in New Jersey for a water quality 
        monitoring program in the Great Swamp National Refuge;
          40. $100,000 to Monmouth University for the Coastal 
        Watershed Program in West Long Branch, New Jersey;
          41. $150,000 for Monmouth University for the Center 
        for Coastal Watershed Management in West Long Beach, 
        New Jersey;
          42. $200,000 to Madison County, New York for the 
        Landfill Gas to Electricity Project;
          43. $250,000 for the New York University in Bronx, 
        New York for health disparity studies;
          44. $1,500,000 for continued work on water management 
        plans for the Central New York Watersheds in Onondaga 
        and Cayuga counties;
          45. $750,000 to Cortland County, New York for 
        continued work on the aquifer protection plan, of which 
        $350,000 is for continued implementation of the 
        comprehensive water quality management program in the 
        Upper Susquehanna Watershed;
          46. $250,000 to Wayne County, New York for continued 
        work on a county-wide lakeshore embankments resource 
        preservation and watershed enhancement plan;
          47. $250,000 to the Central New York Regional 
        Planning and Development Board for continued research 
        and planning for the Oneida Lake Watershed Management 
        Program;
          48. $200,000 for the NADO (National Association of 
        Development Organizations) Research Foundation for 
        environmental training and information dissemination 
        related to rural brownfields, air quality standards and 
        water infrastructure;
          49. $250,000 to Lake Erie Coastal Ohio for planning, 
        research, and analysis of coastal Lake Erie community, 
        environmental, and educational efforts;
          50. $200,000 to the Oklahoma State University, the 
        University of Oklahoma, the University of Tulsa, and 
        the University of Arkansas for the Integrated Petroleum 
        Environmental Consortium in Tulsa, Oklahoma;
          51. $1,500,000 to the American Cities Foundation 
        (ACF) for the Neighborhood Environmental Action Team 
        program and other community environmental efforts;
          52. $700,000 to Caribbean American Mission for 
        Education Research and Action, Inc. (CAMERA), to 
        support a youth environmental stewardship program in 
        Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania;
          53. $700,000 to the Environment and Sports Inc., of 
        Philadelphia to continue support of an environmental 
        awareness program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
          54. $350,000 for the Concurrent Technologies Corp for 
        the Small Partner Environmental Information Exchange 
        Network;
          55. $100,000 to Cabrini College in Radnor, 
        Pennsylvania for the Center for Science Education and 
        Technology;
          56. $100,000 to the University of Memphis for 
        Environmental Programs Hazard Management in Memphis, 
        Tennessee;
          57. $250,000 to the Tarrant County Watershed District 
        in Tarrant County, Texas to develop and implement an 
        integrated watershed protection plan;
          58. $750,000 to the University of Texas at Austin for 
        environmental resource management and technical 
        assistance activities for the Rio Bravo-Rio Grande 
        Physical Assessment Program;
          59. $250,000 to the University of North Texas for the 
        Texas Institute for Environmental Assessment and 
        Management;
          60. $200,000 to the City of Lubbock, Texas for a 
        comprehensive study to address regional water and 
        wastewater concerns;
          61. $75,000 to the Brazos River Authority for the 
        Brazos/Navasota Watershed Management Project in Texas;
          62. $200,000 to the Puget Sound Action Team of Hood 
        Canal, Washington for the Hood Canal Depleted Oxygen 
        Study;
          63. $100,000 for the Spokane Regional Chamber of 
        Commerce for the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie 
        Aquifer Study;
          64. $200,000 to the Upper Kanawha Valley Enterprise 
        Community for the Shrewsbury Riverbank Erosion Project 
        in Shewsbury, West Virginia;
          65. $2,000,000 for on-going activities at the Canaan 
        Valley Institute, including activities relating to 
        community sustainability;
          66. $1,500,000 to support and implement the Highlands 
        Action Program (HAP) of the Agency, including, but not 
        limited to, federal personnel and related costs;
          67. $150,000 for Marshall University, Center for 
        Environmental, Geotechnical and Applied Sciences for 
        Environmental Management Incubator in Huntington, West 
        Virginia.
    The Committee has recommended a general reduction of 
$20,859,000 in this account.
    The Agency has been provided $9,200,000 for Environmental 
Education programs. The Agency is directed to distribute funds 
under the Environmental Education program proportionally in a 
manner consistent with the provisions of the National 
Environmental Education Act.
    The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for source water 
protection programs. The Committee intends that these funds be 
used to continue and to expand the statewide grassroots 
sourcewater protection programs being carried out by state 
rural water associations.
    EPA Brownfields funding is the same as FY 2004; while this 
account's portion is reduced by $2,000,000 additional resources 
are available for the Brownfields revolving loan fund in the 
State and Tribal Assistance Grants.
    The Committee commends the Agency for resolving a large 
number of pending Title VI environmental justice cases and has 
restored funds so that the program can continue to address the 
backlog of cases.
    The Committee clarifies that ``shall conform'' in Clean 
Water Act (CWA) Sec. 402(q) means that National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authorities 
should evaluate the facts and circumstances of each CSO 
community's program against the CSO Control Policy's themes of 
flexibility, site specificity, cost effectiveness, and water 
quality standards achievement after long-term control plan 
implementation (LTCP). NPDES permits should be used to impose 
LTCP obligations whenever possible. In authorized states, state 
administrative orders or state judicial orders should be the 
primary alternative implementation mechanism to NPDES permits 
for imposing LTCP obligations. This clarification does not 
preclude state and/or federal enforcement actions where 
appropriate.
    According to recent data from the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC), about 2.2% of children living in 
the United States have an unacceptably high level of lead in 
their blood, which may result in learning disabilities, reduced 
intellectual ability, or other problems. The Committee is 
particularly concerned about recent reports of elevated lead 
levels in drinking water supplied to schools in the Washington, 
DC metropolitan area. Therefore, theCommittee directs EPA, in 
cooperation with the states, to evaluate and report state compliance of 
the Control of Lead and Copper Rule (56 FR 26460-26564) as it applies 
to drinking water monitoring requirements for the public.
    The Committee is concerned about the occurrences of 
combined sewage overflow from wastewater treatment facilities 
into Lake Michigan. The committee is also concerned that 
existing regulations concerning such discharges are not 
sufficiently enforced so as to prevent negative impacts on the 
Lake Michigan ecosystem. The committee directs the EPA to 
report, by September 30, 2005, outlining what future steps it 
plans to take to minimize such overflows.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................   \1\ $37,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        37,336,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        37,997,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          -336,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......          -997,000


\1\ Total does not include transfer of $13,000,000 from the Hazardous
  Substance Superfund account.

    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, 
evaluation, and investigation products and advisory services to 
improve the performance and integrity of EPA programs and 
operations. This account funds personnel compensation and 
benefits, travel, and expenses (excluding rent, utilities, and 
security costs) for the Office of Inspector General. The 
appropriation for the OIG is funded from two separate accounts: 
Office of Inspector General and Hazardous Substance Superfund. 
In addition, the IG also holds the position of Inspector 
General for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends a total 
appropriation of $37,000,000 for the Office of Inspector 
General, a decrease of $336,000 below last year's funding level 
and $997,000 below the budget request. An additional amount of 
$13,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the Hazardous 
Substance Superfund account. Of the total funding, $750,000 
shall be used to carry out the duties of Inspector General for 
the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $39,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        39,764,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        42,918,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          -764,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......        -3,918,000


    This appropriation provides for the design and construction 
of EPA-owned facilities as well as for the repair, extension, 
alteration, and improvement of facilities utilized by the 
Agency. The funds are to be used to correct unsafe conditions, 
protect health and safety of employees and Agency visitors, and 
prevent deterioration of structures and equipment.
    The Committee is recommending $39,000,000, the budget 
request, for Buildings and Facilities. This funding level 
represents a decrease of $764,000 below the fiscal year 2004 
funding level and a decrease of $3,918,000 below the amount 
requested. This recommendation provides for necessary 
maintenance and repair and improvement costs at Agency 
facilities.

                     HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $1,257,537,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     1,257,537,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     1,381,416,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......      -123,879,000


    The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) program was 
established in 1980 by the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to clean up emergency 
hazardous materials, spills, and dangerous, uncontrolled, and/
or abandoned hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Amendments 
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) expanded the program 
substantially in 1986, authorizing approximately $8,500,000,000 
in revenues over five years. In 1990, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act extended the program's authorization through 
1994 for $5,100,000,000 with taxing authority through calendar 
year 1995.
    The Superfund program is operated by EPA subject to annual 
appropriations from a dedicated trust fund and from general 
revenues. Enforcement activities are used to identify and 
induce parties responsible for hazardous waste problems to 
undertake clean-up actions and pay for EPA oversight of those 
actions. In addition, responsible parties have been required to 
cover the cost of fund financed removal and remedial actions 
undertaken at spills and waste sites by Federal and State 
agencies. Through transfers to the Office of Inspector General 
(OIG) and Science and Technology accounts, the OIG and the 
Office of Research and Development also receive funding from 
this account. Due to the site-specific nature of the Agency's 
Superfund program, site-specific travel is not considered part 
of the overall travel ceiling set for the Superfund account.
    For fiscal year 2005, $1,257,537,000 has been recommended 
by the Committee, the same amount as last years funding and a 
decrease of $123,879,000 below the budget request. Bill 
language is included which provides up to the full amount of 
the appropriated amount from general revenues, if sufficient 
amounts are not available from the Superfund Trust.
    Bill language has been included which transfers $13,000,000 
from this account to the Office of Inspector General and 
$36,097,000 to the Science and Technology account.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
program levels:
          1. $879,100,000 for Superfund response and cleanup 
        activities;
          2. $146,514,000 for enforcement activities;
          3. $145,000,000 for management and support;
          4. $13,000,000 transfer to the Office of Inspector 
        General;
          5. $36,097,000 transfer to the Science and Technology 
        account; and
          6. $37,826,000 for other federal agencies.
    The Committee supports the national pilot worker training 
program which recruits and trains young persons who live near 
hazardous waste sites or in the communities at risk of exposure 
to contaminated properties for work in the environmental field. 
The Committee directs EPA to continue funding this effort in 
cooperation and collaboration with NIEHS. The research 
activities of NIEHS can compliment the training and operational 
activities of EPA in carrying out this program.
    The Committee is aware of technologies developed and 
successfully deployed in Eastern Europe that use enzyme 
extracts of earthworms to cleanup contaminants such as 
pesticides and PCB's. The Committee supports innovative 
technologies that may reduce the cost and complication of 
cleanup and encourages the EPA to review this technology for 
field application under the Superfund Innovative Technologies 
Evaluation Program.
    The Committee is aware that naturally-occurring asbestos is 
common in some areas, such as El Dorado County, California, and 
that this asbestos may be disturbed by construction or other 
typical activities. The Committee is concerned that the 
Environmental Protection Agency may be premature in seeking 
remediation of these natural substances. As a result, the 
Committee directs EPA to develop a Standard Test Method for 
naturally occurring asbestos that will provide reproducible 
results; provide a risk analysis using the existing EPA 
Airborne Asbestos Health Assessment Update; and, determine the 
background levels of naturally occurring asbestos in El Dorado 
County.
    The Committee encourages EPA to continue its scientific, 
technical and logistical support to the people of Tallevast, 
Florida in response to findings of ground contamination in the 
area.

              LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $74,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        75,552,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        72,545,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        -1,552,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......        +1,455,000


    Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by 
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, authorized 
the establishment of a response program for clean-up of 
releases from leaking underground storage tanks. Owners and 
operators of facilities with underground tanks must demonstrate 
financial responsibility and bear initial responsibility for 
clean-up. The Federal trust fund is funded through the 
imposition of a motor fuel tax of one-tenth of a cent per 
gallon, which generates approximately $170,000,000 per year.
    Most states also have their own leaking underground storage 
tank programs, including a separate trust fund or other funding 
mechanism, in place. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust 
Fund provides additional clean-up resources and may also be 
used to enforce necessary corrective actions and to recover 
costs expended from the Fund for clean-up activities. The 
underground storage tank response program is designed to 
operate primarily through cooperative agreements with states. 
However, funds are also used for grants to non-state entities 
including Indian tribes under Section 8001 of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has provided 
$74,000,000, a decrease of $1,522,000 below fiscal year 2004 
and $1,455,000 above the request.

                           OIL SPILL RESPONSE




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $16,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        16,113,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        16,425,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          -113,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......          -425,000


    This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 
1990, provides funds to prepare for and prevent releases of oil 
and other petroleum products in navigable waterways. In 
addition, EPA is reimbursed for incident specific response 
costs through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund managed by the 
United States Coast Guard.
    EPA is responsible for directing all clean-up and removal 
activities posing a threat to public health and the 
environment; conducting site inspections; providing for a means 
to achieve cleanup activities by private parties; reviewing 
containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency 
plans; and pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed clean-ups; 
and, conducting research of oil clean-up techniques. Funds for 
this appropriation are provided through the Oil Spill Liability 
Trust Fund which is composed of fees and collections made 
through provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the 
Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act, the 
Deepwater Port Act of 1974, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act Amendments of 1978, and the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act, as amended. Pursuant to law, the Trust Fund is managed by 
the United States Coast Guard.
    The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, 
a decrease of $113,000 over the fiscal year 2004 level and 
$425,000 below the request.

                   STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $3,359,027,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     3,877,785,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     3,231,800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........      -518,758,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......      +127,227,000


    The State and Tribal Assistance Grants account provides 
grant funds for programs operated primarily by state, local, 
tribal and other governmental partners. The account provides 
funding for infrastructure projects through the State Revolving 
Funds, geographic specific projects in rural Alaska and Alaska 
Native Villages, Puerto Rico and on the United States-Mexico 
Border, and other targeted special projects. In addition, the 
account funds Brownfields assessment and revitalization grants, 
grants for clean school buses, as well as miscellaneous 
categorical grant programs.
    The largest portion of the STAG account consists of two 
State Revolving Funds (SRFs), which provide Federal financial 
assistance to protect the nation's water resources. The Clean 
Water State Revolving Funds are intended to help eliminate 
municipal discharge of untreated or inadequately treated 
pollutants and thereby maintain or help restore this country's 
water to a swimmable and/or fishable quality. This program 
provides resources for municipal, inter-municipal, state, 
interstate agencies, and tribal governments to plan, design, 
and construct wastewater facilities and other projects, 
including non-point source, estuary, stormwater, and sewer 
overflow projects. The Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 
program finances improvements to community water systems so 
that they can achieve compliance with the mandates of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act and continue to protect public health.
    This account also funds various categorical grant programs 
to ensure continued environmental protection nation-wide. Among 
these are non-point source grants under Section 319 of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, Public Water 
System Supervision grants, Section 106 water quality grants, 
grants to improve targeted watersheds, Clean Air Act Section 
105 and 103 air grants, a program targeted to environmental 
information, Brownfields cleanup grants, and other grants 
utilized by the states, tribes, and others to meet Federal 
environmental statutory and regulatory requirements.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends a total of 
$3,359,027,000, a decrease of $518,758,000 below the current 
fiscal year spending level, and $127,227,000 above the level 
proposed in the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
program levels:
          $850,000,000 for Clean Water State Revolving Funds;
          $845,000,000 for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving 
        Funds;
          $50,000,000 for high priority U.S./Mexico border 
        projects;
          $20,000,000 for Alaska rural and Native Villages;
          $95,000,000 for Brownfields assessment and 
        revitalization grants;
          $1,161,627,000 for state and tribal program/
        categorical grants;
          $10,000,000 for Clean School Bus Grants; and
          $323,400,000 for targeted grants to communities for 
        the construction of drinking water, wastewater and 
        storm water infrastructure and for water quality 
        protection.
    As was the case in past years, no reprogramming requests 
associated with States and Tribes applying for Partnership 
grants need to be submitted to the Committee for approval 
should such grants exceed the normal reprogramming limitations. 
In addition, the Agency need not submit a request to move funds 
between wastewater and drinking water objectives for those 
grants targeted to specific communities listed below.
    The Committee has also included bill language, as requested 
by the administration and as carried in previous appropriations 
acts, to: (1) extend for an additional year the authority for 
States to transfer funds between the Clean Water SRF and the 
Drinking Water SRF; (2) waive the one-third of 1 percent cap on 
the Tribal set aside from non-point source grants; (3) increase 
to 1.5 percent the cap on the Tribal set-aside for the Clean 
Water SRF; and (4) require that any funds provided to address 
the water infrastructure needs of colonias within the United 
States along the United States-Mexico border be spent only in 
areas where the local governmental entity has established an 
enforceable ordinance or rule which prevents additional 
development within colonias that lacks water, wastewater, or 
other necessary infrastructure. Bill language has been included 
which provides specific dollar amounts for each of the above 
listed programs.
    The Committee has recommended $10,000,000 for grants 
program to local school districts to reduce emissions from 
their buses as proposed in the budget request.
    Bill language has been included which stipulates that, 
consistent with section 603 of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act, as amended, $50,000,000 of the $850,000,000 
proposed for the Clean Water SRF program is to be made 
available by the States for interest-free loans that increase 
non-point and non-structural, decentralized alternatives, to 
expand the choices available to communities in their fight for 
clean water. The Committee continues to enthusiastically 
support this program, and believes that the States will be able 
to increase their participation in this program with the funds 
made available by this provision.
    From within the Committee's $50,000,000 recommendation for 
the United States-Mexico Border program, the Agency is expected 
to provide $1,000,000 for continuation of the Brownsville, 
Texas area water supply project, and $3,500,000 for 
continuation of the El Paso, Texas area desalination and water 
supply project.
    The Committee has provided funding for a grant for drinking 
water infrastructure improvements in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
    The Committee has included bill language that makes 
technical corrections to grants provided in last year's bill.
    The Committee has provided $1,161,627,000 for state and 
tribal program assistance/categorical grants. The Committee's 
recommendation for each categorical grant follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     FY 2005
                                                            FY 2004  enacted  FY 2005  request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Local Air Quality Assistance....................      $227,201,555      $228,550,000      $225,000,000
Tribal Air Quality Assistance.............................        10,984,805        11,050,000        10,830,000
Radon.....................................................         8,101,915         8,150,000         8,000,000
Pollution Control (Section 106)...........................       199,217,640       222,400,000       200,000,000
Beaches Protection........................................         9,941,000        10,000,000        10,000,000
Nonpoint Source (Section 319).............................       237,092,850       209,100,000       235,250,000
Wetlands Program Development..............................        14,911,500        20,000,000        14,500,000
Water Quality Cooperative Agreements (Sec. 104(3)(b)).....        18,887,900        20,500,000        18,620,000
Targeted Watersheds.......................................        14,911,500        25,000,000        14,500,000
Wastewater Operator Training..............................                 0         1,500,000         1,500,000
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)....................       101,994,660       105,100,000       100,550,000
Underground Injection Control (UIC).......................        10,935,100        11,000,000        10,780,000
Homeland Security.........................................         4,970,500         5,000,000         5,000,000
H.W. Financial Assistance.................................       105,772,240       106,400,000       104,300,000
Brownfields...............................................        49,705,000        60,000,000        50,000,000
Underground Storage Tanks.................................        11,879,495        37,950,000        12,000,000
Pesticides Program Implementation.........................        13,022,710        13,100,000        13,000,000
Lead......................................................        13,619,170        13,700,000        13,500,000
Toxic Substances Compliance...............................         5,119,615         5,150,000         5,047,000
Pesticides Enforcement....................................        19,782,590        19,900,000        19,500,000
Environmental Information.................................        19,882,000        25,000,000        19,500,000
Pollution Prevention......................................         5,964,600         6,000,000         6,000,000
Sector Program (Enforcement & Comp Assurance).............         2,236,725         2,250,000         2,250,000
State and Tribal Performance Fund.........................                 0        23,000,000                 0
Indian General Assistance Program.........................        62,131,250        62,500,000        62,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The distribution of targeted grants is as follows:
          1. $400,000 to the City Falkville, Alabama for sewer 
        infrastructure improvements;
          2. $750,000 to the City of Albertville, Alabama for 
        sewer infrastructure improvements;
          3. $180,000 to the City of Boldo, Alabama for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          4. $200,000 to the City of Addison, Alabama for sewer 
        infrastructure improvements;
          5. $220,000 to Lamar County, Alabama for 
        infrastructure improvements to the Lamar County 
        Reservoir;
          6. $350,000 to the City of Arley, Alabama for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          7. $200,000 to the City of Eva, Alabama for sewer 
        infrastructure improvements;
          8. $200,000 to the City of Guin, Alabama for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          9. $250,000 to the City of Phil Campbell, Alabama for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          10. $500,000 to Blount County, Alabama for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          11. $500,000 to the DeKalb-Jackson Water Supply 
        District in Ider, Alabama for construction of a water 
        treatment plant;
          12. $150,000 to Fort Payne, Alabama for a pump 
        station at Wills Valley Industrial Park;
          13. $250,000 to the Helena Utility Board in Helena, 
        Alabama for sewer infrastructure improvements;
          14. $250,000 to the City of Jackson, Alabama for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          15. $200,000 to the City of Athens, Alabama for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          16. $500,000 to Lawrence County, Alabama for the 
        Bankhead Forest Water Project;
          17. $250,000 to the City of Huntsville, Alabama for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          18. $400,000 to Hartselle Utilities for wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements in Hartselle, Alabama;
          19. $100,000 to Harvest-Monrovia Water, Sewer, and 
        Fire Protection in Alabama for a master plan to 
        accomplish the establishment of a sewer system within 
        the service area;
          20. $300,000 to the Limestone County Water and Sewer 
        Authority in Alabama for water infrastructure 
        improvements;
          21. $400,000 to the Waterworks Boards of the Towns of 
        Section and Dutton, Alabama for water infrastructure 
        improvements;
          22. $500,000 to the Scottsboro Waterworks, Sewer, and 
        Gas Board in Scottsboro, Alabama for construction and 
        rehabilitation of a sanitary sewer collection system;
          23. $600,000 to the City of Sheffield, Alabama for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          24. $200,000 to the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water 
        and Sewer Authority for water and wastewater system 
        infrastructure improvements;
          25. $50,000 to Jackson County, Alabama for water and 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          26. $400,000 to the City of Muscle Shoals, Alabama 
        for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          27. $100,000 to the community of Overlook Hills in 
        Dallas County, Alabama for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          28. $100,000 to the Town of Fulton, Alabama to 
        construct a wastewater treatment facility;
          29. $150,000 to the Town of Red Level, Alabama for 
        Phase II water infrastructure improvements;
          30. $150,000 to the City of Valley, Alabama to 
        purchase Langdale Mill and Fairfax Utilization Plant;
          31. $200,000 for the Millerville Water Authority 
        (Clay County Commission) for water infrastructure 
        improvements in Millerville, Alabama;
          32. $250,000 to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          33. $250,000 for the Faulkner County Public 
        Facilities Board for Lake Conway Sewer Improvements in 
        Faulkner County, Arkansas;
          34. $200,000 for the City of Goodyear, Arizona for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          35. $150,000 to the City of Avondale, Arizona for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          36. $150,000 to the City of Chandler, Arizona for the 
        Chandler Arsenic Mitigation Program;
          37. $1,000,000 to the University of Arizona, College 
        of Pharmacy for the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental 
        Protection Program;
          38. $250,000 to the City of Stafford, Arizona for 
        construction of a wastewater treatment plant;
          39. $500,000 to the City of St. Johns, Arizona for 
        new water transmission pipeline construction;
          40. $150,000 to the City of Rialto, California for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          41. $250,000 to the Box Springs Mutual Water Company 
        of the City of Moreno Valley, California for 
        installation of a sewer system;
          42. $200,000 to the City of Oxnard, California for 
        the Headworks Expansion Project and Redwood Trunk 
        Project;
          43. $150,000 to the City of Modesto, California for 
        the neighborhood storm water, sewer, and water 
        infrastructure project (Ninth Street Corridor Storm 
        Drain Project);
          44. $500,000 to the Orange County Sanitation District 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements in Fountain 
        Valley, California;
          45. $600,000 to the City of Laguna Beach, California 
        for emergency sewer repairs;
          46. $1,000,000 to the City of Solana Beach, 
        California for wastewater treatment improvements in the 
        municipal sewer system;
          47. $250,000 to the City of Roseville, California for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          48. $400,000 to the City of Monrovia, California for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvement;
          49. $1,000,000 to the Cities of Arcadia and Sierra 
        Madre, California for the Joint Water Infrastructure 
        Restoration Program;
          50. $200,000 to the City of East Palo Alto, 
        California for the storm water infrastructure 
        improvements;
          51. $350,000 to the Monterey County Water Resource 
        Agency for the Salinas Valley Water Project in Monterey 
        County, California;
          52. $100,000 to the Sweetwater Authority for the 
        water quality monitoring in Chula Vista, California;
          53. $250,000 to the City of El Segundo, California 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements for Smoky 
        Hollow;
          54. $350,000 for the City of Redding, California for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          55. $750,000 to the San Diego County Water Authority 
        for the San Diego County Water Authority Regional 
        Seawater Desalination Initiative in San Diego, 
        California;
          56. $350,000 to the City of Brisbane, California for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          57. $150,000 for the Bighorn Desert Water Agency for 
        water infrastructure improvements in Yucca Valley, 
        California;
          58. $200,000 to the City of San Bernardino, 
        California for Lakes and Stream Project;
          59. $200,000 to the City of Lake Arrowhead, 
        California for the Community Services District;
          60. $750,000 for Mission Springs Water District for 
        the Groundwater Protection, Supply Enhancement/Reuse 
        Program in Desert Hot Springs, California;
          61. $750,000 to the City of Banning, California for 
        the Brinton Reservoir;
          62. $200,000 for the City of San Jose, California for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          63. $500,000 to the City of Sacramento, California 
        for combined sewer system improvement rehabilitation 
        project;
          64. $250,000 for the Castaic Lake Water Agency in 
        California for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          65. $250,000 to the City of Barstow, California for a 
        sewer master plan implementation project;
          66. $250,000 to the City of Victorville, California 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          67. $200,000 for the California State University, 
        Dominguez Hills for the Center for Urban Environmental 
        Research in Carson, California;
          68. $200,000 to the City of Brea, California for 
        sewer infrastructure improvements;
          69. $200,000 to the City of Mission Viejo, California 
        for the Oso Creek Barrier Project;
          70. $300,000 to the City of Vallejo, California for 
        the Mare Island Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain 
        Improvement Project;
          71. $250,000 to the City of Norwalk, California for 
        the Balancing Facility Project;
          72. $150,000 to the Strathmore Public Utility 
        District for a wastewater treatment plant;
          73. $250,000 to the City of Folsom, California for 
        the sewer rehabilitation project;
          74. $1,000,000 to the City of San Francisco, 
        California for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          75. $800,000 for the Santa Clara Valley Water 
        District in Santa Clara County, California for 
        Perchlorate Cleanup;
          76. $200,000 to the City of Westminster, California 
        for the Westminster Water Quality Pilot Project;
          77. $300,000 to the City of Huntington Beach, 
        California for the Wintersberg Channel Urban Run-Off 
        Treatment;
          78. $250,000 to the City of Downey, California for 
        storm water infrastructure improvements;
          79. $150,000 for the Municipal Water District of 
        Orange County, California for an Orange County water 
        reliability study;
          80. $200,000 for the Orange County Sanitation 
        District for a new secondary treatment facility in 
        Fountain Valley, California;
          81. $250,000 to the City of Eurka, California for the 
        Martin Slough Interceptor;
          82. $250,000 to the City of Gardena, California for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          83. $250,000 to the City of Santa Monica, California 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          84. $200,000 for Sonoma County, California for the 
        Monte Rio sanitation project in Monte Rio, California;
          85. $250,000 to Jefferson County, Colorado to 
        implement a new storm water improvement program;
          86. $250,000 to the City of Ouray, Colorado for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          87. $150,000 to the City of Meriden, Connecticut for 
        the City Center Initiative Flood Control and 
        Demolition;
          88. $300,000 to the City of New Britain, Connecticut 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          89. $500,000 to the City of Southington, Connecticut 
        for the Southington Water Supply Improvement Project;
          90. $200,000 to the City of Stamford, Connecticut for 
        storm water infrastructure improvements;
          91. $350,000 to the City of Groton, Connecticut for 
        water and sewer line extension;
          92. $500,000 to the District of Columbia Government 
        for drinking water infrastructure improvements to 
        address lead problems;
          93. $400,000 for the City of Wilmington, Delaware for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          94. $250,000 to the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida 
        for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          95. $200,000 to the City of Gainesville, Florida for 
        the depot regional storm water park;
          96. $250,000 to Citrus County, Florida for the 
        Chassahowitzka Area Wastewater Collection and Drinking 
        Water Distribution System;
          97. $200,000 to Hillsborough County, Florida for the 
        Hillsborough County Alternative Water Supplies--Phase 
        III;
          98. $700,000 to the City of Miami Beach, Florida for 
        storm water infrastructure improvements;
          99. $200,000 to the City of Pemroke Pines, Florida 
        for water treatment expansion;
          100. $250,000 to the City of Homestead, Florida for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          101. $150,000 for the South Seminole & North Orange 
        County Wastewater Transmission Authority for the 
        replacement of wastewater pipes and mechanical 
        equipment;
          102. $200,000 to the Southwest Florida Water 
        Management District for the Peace River & Myakka River 
        Water Initiative in Polk County, Florida;
          103. $300,000 to the Village of Wellington, Florida 
        for the reconfiguration of storm water system project;
          104. $350,000 for the County of Sarasota, Florida for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          105. $200,000 to the City of Rivera Beach, Florida 
        for the storm water management plan;
          106. $200,000 to the Town of Windermere, Florida for 
        storm water management improvements;
          107. $250,000 to the City of Miami Gardens, Florida 
        for water, wastewater, storm water, and sewer 
        infrastructure improvements;
          108. $200,000 to the City of Bunnell, Florida for the 
        Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal System 
        Rehabilitation Project;
          109. $500,000 for St. Johns County, Florida for the 
        College Park Drainage Improvement Project in West 
        Augustine, Florida;
          110. $250,000 for the Escambia County Utility 
        Authority for Wastewater Treatment/water Reclamation 
        Partnership in Escambia County, Florida;
          111. $350,000 to the City of Davenport, Florida for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          112. $200,000 to the City of Lakeworth, Florida for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          113. $200,000 to the City of Davie, Florida for water 
        main replacement;
          114. $300,000 for the South Central Regional 
        Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board for the 100% 
        Wastewater Reuse Project in the Cities of Delray Beach 
        and Boynton Beach, Florida;
          115. $300,000 to the City of Starke, Florida for the 
        Water Quality Improvement Program;
          116. $500,000 to Osceola County, Florida for drainage 
        basin improvements;
          117. $2,500,000 to the St. Johns River Water 
        Management District for water infrastructure 
        improvements in Central and East Florida;
          118. $4,000,000 to the Southwest Florida Water 
        Management District for continuation of the Tampa Bay 
        Reservoir Project;
          119. $1,000,000 to the Southwest Florida Water 
        Management District for Tampa Bay Reclaimed Water and 
        Downstream Augmentation Project;
          120. $500,000 to the Southwest Florida Water 
        Management District for the Peace River and Myakka 
        River Watershed Restoration Initiative;
          121. $500,000 to the City of Clearwater, Florida for 
        the Wastewater and Reclaimed Water Infrastructure 
        Project;
          122. $1,000,000 to the City of Tampa, Florida for 
        sediment removal from estuaries of the headwaters at 
        the canals;
          123. $500,000 to the City of Treasure Island, Florida 
        for wastewater and sewer system upgrades;
          124. $900,000 to the City of Albany, Georgia storm 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          125. $400,000 to the City of Americus, Georgia for 
        sewer service expansion;
          126. $1,000,000 to the City of Atlanta, Georgia for 
        the McDaniel Basin Combined Sewer Overflow Separation 
        project;
          127. $1,000,000 for Columbus Water Works, Columbus, 
        Georgia for its Biosolids Flow-Through Thermophilic 
        Treatment Demonstration Project;
          128. $250,000 to the City of Plains, Georgia for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          129. $100,000 to the City of Social Circle, Georgia 
        for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          130. $100,000 to the City of Thomasville, Georgia for 
        extension of sewer lines;
          131. $150,000 to the City of Moultrie, Georgia for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          132. $200,000 to Columbus Water Works, Columbus, 
        Georgia for the Columbus Biosolids Flow-Through 
        Thermophilic Treatment Advanced Demonstration Project;
          133. $150,000 to the City of Summerville, Georgia for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          134. $200,000 to Polk County, Georgia for the Polk 
        County Wastewater Collection System;
          135. $250,000 to the City of Roswell, Georgia for the 
        Big Creek Watershed Project;
          136. $1,000,000 to the City of Atlanta, Georgia for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          137. $750,000 to the City of Moultrie, Georgia for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          138. $700,000 for the Metropolitan North Georgia 
        Planning District for water infrastructure improvements 
        in North Atlanta Metropolitan Area, Georgia;
          139. $200,000 to the City of Atlanta, Georgia for 
        pump station improvements;
          140. $150,000 to the City of Byron, Georgia for water 
        and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          141. $250,000 to the City of Social Circle, Georgia 
        for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          142. $250,000 to the Guam Waterworks Authority for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements in the 
        Territory of Guam;
          143. $150,000 to the Maui County Department of Water 
        Supply for the lead reduction in Upcountry Maui in 
        Upcountry Maui, Hawaii;
          144. $150,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for 
        storm water infrastructure improvements to the Closes 
        Creek Watershed;
          145. $250,000 to the City of Storm Lake, Iowa for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          146. $250,000 to the City of Postville, Iowa for the 
        completion of the Postville wastewater facility;
          147. $500,000 to the City of Mason City, Iowa for 
        completion of the Mason City water treatment plant;
          148. $450,000 to the City of Ft. Madison, Iowa for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          149. $450,000 to the City of Ottumwa, Iowa for the 
        South Ottumwa Sewer Separation project;
          150. $500,000 to the City of Davenport, Iowa for the 
        Westside Diversion Tunnel;
          151. $200,000 to the City of Castleford, Idaho for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          152. $450,000 to the City of Castleford, Idaho for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          153. $600,000 to the City of Twin Falls, Idaho for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          154. $750,000 to the City of Pocatello, Idaho for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          155. $150,000 to the City of Lockport, Illinois for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          156. $300,000 to the Village of Johnsburg, Illinois 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          157. $300,000 to the Lake County Storm Water 
        Management Community for the Lake County Watershed Plan 
        in Lake County, Illinois;
          158. $200,000 to the City of Silvis, Illinois for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          159. $200,000 to the Village of Newark, Illinois for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          160. $200,000 to the Village of Paw Paw, Illinois for 
        construction of an elevated water storage tower;
          161. $200,000 to the Village of Annawan, Illinois for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          162. $650,000 to the Salt Creek Sanitary District in 
        Villa Park, Illinois for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements;
          163. $300,000 to the Village of East Hazel Crest, 
        Illinois for water infrastructure improvements;
          164. $200,000 to the City of Lexington, Illinois for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          165. $400,000 to Lake County, Illinois for wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements on the Des Plaines River;
          166. $500,000 to the City of Peoria, Illinois for 
        stormwater management;
          167. $542,500 to the Village of Bartonville, Illinois 
        for storm sewer improvements in Broadmoor Heights;
          168. $500,000 to the Village of Arenzville, Illinois 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          169. $500,000 to the Village of Argenta, Illinois for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          170. $500,000 to the Village of North Pekin, Illinois 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          171. $357,500 to the City of Spring Valley, Illinois 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          172. $250,000 to the City of Virginia, Illinois for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          173. $500,000 to the City of Pekin, Illinois for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          174. $250,000 to the City of Lincoln, Illinois to 
        repair and slip line Pulaski Street sewer line;
          175. $350,000 to the Village of La Grange, Illinois 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          176. $550,000 to the Village of Fox River Grove, 
        Illinois for Phase II sewer plant infrastructure 
        improvements;
          177. $250,000 to the City of Shelbyville, Illinois 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          178. $250,000 to the City of Breese, Illinois for 
        construction of the Breese Water Plant;
          179. $100,000 to the Village of Mazon, Illinois for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          180. $200,000 for Will County, Illinois for the 
        feasibility study for sanitary district expansion;
          181. $300,000 to the City of Marion, Indiana for 
        water infrastructure improvements associated with the 
        Water Loop Project in Grant County, Indiana;
          182. $200,000 to the City of Crawford, Indiana for 
        the design and construction phases of the 
        Crawfordsville Eastside Sanitary Sewer Project;
          183. $500,000 to the City of Frankfort, Indiana for 
        construction of the Eastside Drainage/Detention 
        Facility;
          184. $150,000 to the City of Indianapolis, Indiana 
        for sewer rehabilitation in northeast Indianapolis;
          185. $150,000 to the City of Rockport, Indiana for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          186. $300,000 to the City of Evansville, Indiana for 
        the Pigeon Creek Enhancement Project;
          187. $200,000 to the City of New Castle, Indiana for 
        the sanitary sewer and sanitary forcemain project;
          188. $330,000 to the City of Lowell, Indiana for 
        construction of additional water lines;
          189. $400,000 to the City of Hebron, Indiana for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          190. $250,000 to the City of Mission, Kansas for 
        construction and expansion of a storm water flow 
        management system;
          191. $350,000 to the City of Harper, Kansas for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          192. $150,000 to the Town of North Middletown, 
        Kentucky for North Middletown water and sewer 
        improvements;
          193. $100,000 to the City of Shepherdsville, Kentucky 
        for storm water compliance;
          194. $100,000 to the City of Hillview, Kentucky for 
        the Hillview Storm water Compliance;
          195. $200,000 to Bath County, Kentucky for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          196. $1,000,000 to the Louisville/Jefferson County 
        Metropolitan Sewer District, Kentucky to construct a 
        gravity interceptor sewer;
          197. $500,000 to the City of Whitesburg, Kentucky for 
        construction of a wastewater treatment plant;
          198. $1,000,000 for the Perry County Fiscal Court in 
        Hazard, Kentucky for the construction of a wastewater 
        treatment plant;
          199. $150,000 to the City of Jamestown, Kentucky for 
        the water treatment plant;
          200. $150,000 to the City of Monroe for the Monroe 
        Wastewater Improvement Program in Monroe, Louisiana;
          201. $200,000 to the Village of Slaughter, Louisiana 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          202. $200,000 to the West Baton Rouge Parish, 
        Louisiana for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          203. $150,000 to the Village of Cankton, Louisiana 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          204. $250,000 to the City of Shreveport, Louisiana 
        for the Municipal Water Distribution System--Backflow 
        Prevention;
          205. $200,000 to the City of Shreveport, Louisiana 
        for watershed protection;
          206. $500,000 for the South Central Planning & 
        Development Commission for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements in New Iberia, St. Charles, 
        Morgan City, St. Bernard and St. James, Louisiana;
          207. $250,000 to the City of Slidell, Louisiana for 
        storm water infrastructure improvements;
          208. $200,000 to the City of Boston, Massachusetts to 
        continue efforts to address deteriorating groundwater 
        levels in the Greater Boston area;
          209. $200,000 for the Towns of Braintree, Holbrook 
        and Randolph in Massachusetts for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements;
          210. $950,000 to the Cities of Fall River and New 
        Bedford, Massachusetts for combined sewer overflow 
        projects;
          211. $200,000 to the City of Lawrence, Massachusetts 
        for combined sewer overflow mitigation;
          212. $400,000 to the City of Leomister, Massachusetts 
        for the Rockwell Village revitalization initiative for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          213. $250,000 for the Southwest Sewerage District for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements in Lynn, 
        Newburyport, Gloucester, Ipswich, Amesbury, Manchester, 
        Essex and Rockport, Massachusetts;
          214. $250,000 to the City of Salisbury, Maryland for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          215. $250,000 to the City of Cambridge, Maryland for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          216. $250,000 to the City of Elkton, Maryland for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          217. $100,000 to Prince George's County, Maryland for 
        the Livable Community Initiative in Brentwood, North 
        Brentwood, Edmonston and Cottage City, Maryland;
          218. $250,000 for Prince George's County, Maryland 
        for the Anacostia Trash Reduction Program and Removal 
        of Floatable Trash for the Cities of Brentwood and 
        Edmonston, Maryland;
          219. $200,000 to the Town of Windham, Maine for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          220. $500,000 to the City of Brewer, Maine for the 
        sewer improvements project;
          221. $900,000 to Wayne County, Michigan for the Rouge 
        River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project;
          222. $500,000 to the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan 
        for combined sewer overflows;
          223. $250,000 to the Genesee County Drain Commission 
        for the Northeast Relief Sewer/Kearsley Creek 
        Interceptor project in Genesee County, Michigan;
          224. $350,000 to the City of Detroit, Michigan for 
        the Woodmere Sewage Pump Station Rehabilitation;
          225. $1,000,000 to the Oakland County Drain 
        Commission for Evergreen-Farmington Sanitary Sewer 
        Overflow control project in Farmington Hills, Michigan;
          226. $500,000 to the Oakland County Drain Commission 
        for Footing Drain/Sewer Lead Excess Flow Prevention 
        demonstration project in Waterford, Michigan;
          227. $200,000 for Oakland County, Michigan to 
        identify and eliminate sewage contributions from older 
        urban areas in the Clinton River;
          228. $200,000 to the City of Westland, Michigan for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          229. $650,000 for Macomb County and St. Clair County, 
        Michigan to implement a comprehensive water quality 
        monitoring program;
          230. $300,000 to Brighton Township, Michigan for a 
        waterline construction;
          231. $300,000 for the Livingston County Drain 
        Commission for drain construction in Livingston County, 
        Michigan;
          232. $250,000 to L'Anse Township, Michigan for water 
        and sewer infrastructure improvements;
          233. $250,000 to the City of Roseau, Minnesota for 
        storm water infrastructure improvements;
          234. $600,000 to the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota 
        for the combined sewer overflow;
          235. $350,000 to the City of Joplin, Missouri for the 
        Crossroads Parallel Sewer Phase 4 upgrades;
          236. $200,000 to the City of St. Louis, Department of 
        Public Utilities for the Columbia Bottoms Wellfield 
        Development water project in St. Louis, Missouri;
          237. $250,000 to the Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water 
        Commission for water infrastructure improvements in 
        Monroe County, Missouri;
          238. $250,000 to the Duckett Creek Sanitary District 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          239. $200,000 to the Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
        Indians for an Academic Wetlands and Wetlands 
        Mitigation Project in Neshoba County, Mississippi;
          240. $300,000 for Lamar County, Mississippi for water 
        and sewer infrastructure improvements;
          241. $500,000 to the City of Belmont, Mississippi for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          242. $500,000 to the City of Pontotoc, Mississippi 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          243. $150,000 for the Rosodyn Corporation in Butte, 
        Montana for a waste recovery from municipal waste 
        treatment plant;
          244. $150,000 to the City of Macon, North Carolina 
        for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          245. $200,000 to the Cleveland County Sanitary 
        District of Lawndale, North Carolina for water system 
        improvements;
          246. $250,000 to the Town of Landis, North Carolina 
        for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          247. $200,000 to Harnett County, North Carolina to 
        install pump stations and a forcemain as part of a 
        central wastewater treatment rehabilitation project;
          248. $200,000 to the Towns of Biscoe, Star, and Troy, 
        North Carolina for the Montgomery County, North 
        Carolina Sewer Project;
          249. $200,000 to the Towns of Hamlet-Rockingham, 
        North Carolina for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          250. $200,000 to the Town of Farmville, North 
        Carolina for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          251. $150,000 to the Cities of East Arcadia, Bolton 
        and Sandyfield, North Carolina for a regional water 
        system;
          252. $200,000 to the Town of Wendell, North Carolina 
        for the Buffalo Creek Interceptor project;
          253. $250,000 to the City of Charlotte, North 
        Carolina for the wastewater plant expansion;
          254. $200,000 to the Town of Apex, North Carolina for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          255. $1,500,000 to Wake County, North Carolina for 
        water infrastructure improvements in cooperation with 
        the Town of Cary, North Carolina and Durham County, 
        North Carolina;
          256. $500,000 to Orange County, North Carolina for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          257. $650,000 to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority 
        (OWASA) for a water reuse project;
          258. $200,000 to the Town of Hillsborough, North 
        Carolina for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          259. $880,000 for the Eastern Band of Cherokee 
        Indians for water infrastructure improvements in 
        Cherokee, North Carolina;
          260. $1,000,000 for McDowell County, North Carolina 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          261. $100,000 to the Town of East Spencer, North 
        Carolina for water and sewer rehabilitation project;
          262. $150,000 to the City of Devils Lake, North 
        Dakota for the Devils Lake water line;
          263. $200,000 to South Sioux City, Nebraska for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          264. $300,000 to the City of Lincoln, Nebraska for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          265. $550,000 to the City of Omaha, Nebraska for the 
        Combined Sewerage Overflow Project;
          266. $150,000 to the City of Nashua, New Hampshire 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          267. $200,000 to the New Hampshire Department of 
        Environmental Services for sewer system expansion in 
        Franklin, New Hampshire;
          268. $200,000 to the City of Somerworth, New 
        Hampshire for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          269. $1,000,000 to the Township of Parsippany, New 
        Jersey for water infrastructure improvements;
          270. $250,000 to the City of Wildwood, New Jersey for 
        storm sewer outflow reconstruction;
          271. $250,000 to the New Jersey Municipal Utilities 
        Authority for the Peninsula at Bayonne Harbor Water 
        Infrastructure Improvement Project in Bayonne, New 
        Jersey;
          272. $400,000 for the Passaic Valley Sewerage 
        Commission for the Combined Sewage Overflow Program;
          273. $100,000 for the Bergen County Utilities 
        Authority for wastewater infrastructure improvements in 
        Englewood, New Jersey;
          274. $300,000 for the New Jersey Meadowlands 
        Commission for the Hackensack Meadowlands Ecosystem 
        Restoration;
          275. $100,000 to the City of Lordsburg, New Mexico 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          276. $100,000 to the City of Bayard, New Mexico for 
        the Ft. Bayard Effluent Reuse System;
          277. $150,000 to the City of Ruidoso Downs, New 
        Mexico for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          278. $150,000 to the City of Elephant Butte, New 
        Mexico for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          279. $150,000 to the City of Los Lunas, New Mexico to 
        build a sewer interceptor line;
          280. $150,000 to the City of Espanola, New Mexico for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          281. $200,000 to the City of Tijeras, New Mexico for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          282. $200,000 for Bernalillo County, New Mexico for 
        the South and North water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          283. $400,000 to the City of Fallon, Nevada for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          284. $400,000 to the City of Henderson, Nevada for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          285. $200,000 to the City of Brookhaven, New York for 
        storm water infrastructure improvements;
          286. $100,000 to the Chenango County Agricultural 
        Society of Chenango County, New York for upgrades to 
        the water and septic systems at the Chenango County 
        Fair Grounds and for a study;
          287. $125,000 to the Town of Schulyer, New York for 
        water system improvements;
          288. $200,000 to the Village of Bridgewater, New York 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          289. $200,000 to the Towns of Springport and Fleming, 
        New York for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          290. $300,000 to Rockland County, New York for the 
        Western Ramapo sewer extension and water reuse project;
          291. $250,000 to the Village of Deposit, New York for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          292. $250,000 to the Town of BloomingMove, ew--Yor 
        infrastructure improvements;
          293. $300,000 to the Village of Sea Cliff, New York 
        for the Sanitary Sewer System Infrastructure 
        Development and Management project;
          294. $110,000 for the Village of Mamaroneck, New York 
        for sewer system improvements;
          295. $150,000 to the Town of New Castle, New York for 
        the Phase 11 Storm Water Compliance Program;
          296. $250,000 to the City of Oswego, New York for 
        sewer overflow system improvements;
          297. $275,000 for the Wamerville Water District in 
        Wamerville, New York for a water and sewer project;
          298. $350,000 to the Town of Cheektowaga, New York 
        for the Plant No. 3 overflow retention facility;
          299. $400,000 to the Erie Water Authority for water 
        infrastructure improvements for the Town of Newstead 
        and Village of Williamsville, New York;
          300. $200,000 to the Town/Village of East Rochester, 
        New York for sewer infrastructure improvements;
          301. $1,000,000 for Dutchess County Water and 
        Wastewater Authority in Hyde Park, New York for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          302. $12,000,000 for continued clean water 
        improvements for Onondaga Lake, New York;
          303. $4,000,000 to Monroe County Water Authority in 
        New York State for the Eastside Water Treatment 
        Project;
          304. $900,000 to Wayne County, New York for 
        construction of a waterline along North Geneva Road;
          305. $600,000 to the Wayne County Water and Sewer 
        Authority for water infrastructure improvements in the 
        Town of Huron, New York;
          306. $4,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure 
        needs in the New York City Watershed;
          307. $4,000,000 for water quality infrastructure 
        improvements for Long Island Sound, New York;
          308. $1,000,000 for water quality infrastructure 
        improvements for the Jamesville, New York sewer 
        project;
          309. $350,000 to the Town of Elbridge, New York for 
        the construction of a waterline;
          310. $150,000 to the City of Lorain, Ohio for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          311. $150,000 to Butler County, Ohio for the Butler 
        County Waterline;
          312. $300,000 to the Village of North Baltimore, Ohio 
        for the Water Street Combined Sewer Separation Project;
          313. $300,000 to the Village of Hicksville, Ohio for 
        the Hicksville Wastewater Treatment Plant Project;
          314. $300,000 to the City of Defiance, Ohio for the 
        Sewer Separation Project;
          315. $750,000 to the City of Circleville, Ohio for 
        sewer infrastructure improvements;
          316. $1,000,000 to the Burr Oak Regional Water 
        District for water infrastructure improvements in Perry 
        County, Ohio;
          317. $550,000 to Greene County, Ohio for water and 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          318. $50,000 to the Logan Elm School District for 
        water infrastructure improvements in Circleville, Ohio;
          319. $220,000 to the Lancaster Campus of Ohio 
        University for water infrastructure improvements in 
        Lancaster, Ohio;
          320. $155,000 to Fairfield County, Ohio for water and 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          321. $350,000 to the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer 
        District for the Easterly/Doan Brook Watershed 
        Pollution Abatement Project;
          322. $1,000,000 to the City of Toledo, Ohio for wet 
        weather flow and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          323. $1,000,000 to Ottawa County, Ohio for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          324. $1,000,000 to the City of Sandusky, Ohio for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          325. $350,000 to Ashtabula County, Ohio for the Rock 
        Creek Village Waterline Extension;
          326. $50,000 to Bloomfield Township, Ohio for a water 
        line project for Winchester Vega Road;
          327. $550,000 to Guernsey County, Ohio for a water 
        line extension;
          328. $500,000 for the St. Mary's Municipal Government 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements in St. 
        Mary's, Ohio;
          329. $500,000 for Urbana University in Urbana, Ohio 
        for storm drainage and water and sewer line 
        construction;
          330. $500,000 for the Delphos Municipal Government 
        for the Tri-County regional water system in Delphos, 
        Ohio;
          331. $550,000 to the Metropolitan Sewer District of 
        Greater Cincinnati for the sanitary sewer overflow 
        demonstration project in Cincinnati, Ohio;
          332. $500,000 to the City of Wooster, Ohio for storm 
        water infrastructure improvements along Beall Ave;
          333. $500,000 to the Village of Hayesville, Ohio for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          334. $500,000 to the City of Canton, Ohio for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          335. $150,000 for the Trumbull County Sanitary 
        Engineer for installation of the Maplewood Park sewer 
        system in Hubbard Township, Ohio;
          336. $250,000 for Columbiana County, Ohio for water 
        infrastructure improvements to the Buckeye Water 
        District;
          337. $100,000 to the City of Marlow, Oklahoma for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          338. $200,000 to the City of Sulpher, Oklahoma for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          339. $1,000,000 to the City of Seminole, Oklahoma for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          340. $80,000 to the City of Meeker, Oklahoma to 
        refurbish the water tower;
          341. $100,000 to Skiatook, Oklahoma for water and 
        sewer infrastructure improvements;
          342. $150,000 to the City of Portland, Oregon for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          343. $150,000 to the City of Sweet Home, Oregon for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          344. $150,000 to the City of Salem, Oregon for the 
        Peak Excess Flow Treatment Facility for Sanitary Sewer 
        Overflows;
          345. $200,000 to the City of Klamath Falls, Oregon 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          346. $150,000 to the City of Rainier, Oregon for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          347. $1,000,000 to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania for 
        the 3 Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Project;
          348. $100,000 to the City of Sharon, Pennsylvania for 
        the Budd Street sewer line replacement;
          349. $500,000 to the City of Philadelphia to continue 
        the planning, design, and construction of innovative 
        storm-water management solutions in Philadelphia, 
        Pennsylvania;
          350. $500,000 to Cheltenham Township, Pennsylvania to 
        continue the planning, design, and construction of 
        innovative storm-water management solutions;
          351. $250,000 to Beaver Falls Municipal Authority for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements to the Big 
        Beaver Treatment Facility in Big Beaver, Pennsylvania;
          352. $250,000 to the City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 
        for the Harrisburg Advanced Wastewater Treatment 
        Facility;
          353. $350,000 to the Wyoming Valley Sanitary 
        Authority in Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania for the 
        Wyoming Valley Combined Sewer Overflow Project;
          354. $200,000 to Ligonier Township, Pennsylvania for 
        the Ligonier Township sewage project;
          355. $250,000 for the South Hills Area Council of 
        Governments for the South Hills Area Storm Sewer 
        Project in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania;
          356. $250,000 for the Clarion Area Authority for the 
        Fifth Avenue sewer line replacement project in Clarion, 
        Pennsylvania;
          357. $500,000 to the Nelson Township Authority for 
        water infrastructure improvements in Nelson, 
        Pennsylvania;
          358. $250,000 to the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania 
        for the water treatment membrane project;
          359. $200,000 for York City Sewer Authority for the 
        Clean Water Demonstration Project in York, 
        Pennsylvania;
          360. $500,000 for the Kulpmont-Marion Heights Joint 
        Municipal Authority in Kulpmont, Pennsylvania for sewer 
        infrastructure improvements;
          361. $200,000 to the Town of North Smithfield, Rhode 
        Island for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          362. $200,000 to the City of Newport, Rhode Island 
        for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          363. $200,000 to the Narragansett Bay Commission in 
        Providence, Rhode Island for combined sewer overflow 
        control and wastewater improvement project;
          364. $250,000 to the City of Lake Greenwood, South 
        Carolina for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          365. $150,000 to Mount Pleasant Waterworks for the 
        Mount Pleasant Waterworks Rural Roads Gravity 
        Wastewater Extension Project in Mount Pleasant, South 
        Carolina;
          366. $500,000 to the Myrtle Beach Downtown 
        Redevelopment Corporation for a new storm water 
        drainage system in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina;
          367. $250,000 to the Towns of Olar and Govan, South 
        Carolina for water infrastructure improvements;
          368. $300,000 to the City of Welford, South Carolina 
        for sewer/wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          369. $400,000 for the Chester County Sewer District 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements in Lando, 
        South Carolina;
          370. $200,000 to the Town of Ridgeland, South 
        Carolina for the Wagon Branch Water Project;
          371. $125,000 to the City of Franklin, Tennessee for 
        water system improvements to the Watson Branch 
        Watershed;
          372. $150,000 to the City of Pikeville, Tennessee for 
        the Pikeville/Bledsoe County Water Improvements 
        Project;
          373. $125,000 to the Hampton Utility District in 
        Little Milligan/Fish Springs Community, Carter County, 
        Tennessee for water infrastructure improvements;
          374. $125,000 to the City of Tusculum, Tennessee for 
        first construction phase of a wastewater treatment 
        plant;
          375. $50,000 to the City of Bean Station, Tennessee 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          376. $100,000 for Roane County, Tennessee for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          377. $200,000 to Spring City, Tennessee for water and 
        sewer line replacement;
          378. $250,000 for Anderson County, Tennessee for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          379. $400,000 to the City of Dayton, Tennessee for 
        flocculation and settling basins;
          380. $150,000 for the City of Houston, Texas for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          381. $250,000 to the City of Liberty Hill, Texas for 
        the Liberty Hill Central City Sewer System Project;
          382. $75,000 to the Brazos River Authority for the 
        Brazos/Navasota Watershed Management Project in Fort 
        Bend County, Texas;
          383. $100,000 for the Brazos River Authority for the 
        West Fort Bend County Regional Water Treatment Facility 
        in Fort Bend County, Texas;
          384. $500,000 for Fort Bend County, Texas for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          385. $350,000 to Bosque County, Texas for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          386. $250,000 to the City of Weatherford, Texas for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          387. $250,000 to the City of Pharr, Texas for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          388. $150,000 to the City of Alvin, Texas for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          389. $250,000 for the El Paso Water Utilities for 
        water infrastructure expansion in El Paso, Texas;
          390. $150,000 to the San Antonio Water System for the 
        Espada Road Sewer Project in San Antonio, Texas;
          391. $500,000 to the City of Austin, Texas for the 
        non-structural sanitary sewer overflow prevention 
        project;
          392. $250,000 to the City of Abilene, Texas for the 
        Brazos G regional water plan and water infrastructure 
        improvements;
          393. $150,000 to Logan City, Utah for water and 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements for Phase I and 
        II of the Northwest Park Project;
          394. $250,000 to Smyth County, Virginia for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          395. $500,000 to Hanover County, Virginia for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          396. $150,000 to Fauquier County, Virginia for a 
        sewage treatment plant in the Catlett/Calverton area;
          397. $750,000 to Dale Service Corporation in Dale 
        City, Virginia for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          398. $100,000 to the Isle of Wight County, Virginia 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          399. $500,000 to the Town of Halifax, Virginia for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          400. $1,000,000 to Franklin County, Virginia for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          401. $500,000 to Fluvanna County, Virginia for water 
        infrastructure improvements;
          402. $1,000,000 to the Town of Brookneal, Virginia 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          403. $218,000 to Nelson County, Virginia for water 
        and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          404. $682,000 to Pittsylvania County, Virginia for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          405. $200,000 to the Eastern Shore of Virginia Public 
        Service Authority in Northhampton County, Virginia for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          406. $250,000 to the Government of the Virgin Islands 
        for wastewater infrastructure system improvements in 
        St. Croix, Virgin Islands;
          407. $150,000 to the City of Chehalis, Washington for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          408. $1,000,000 to the City of Tacoma, Washington for 
        an integrated storm water system for Salishan housing 
        development;
          409. $350,000 to the Greenwater Mutual Water 
        Association for water infrastructure improvements in 
        the community of Greenwater, Washington;
          410. $200,000 to the City of Carson, Washington for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          411. $200,000 to the City of Oak Harbor, Washington 
        for water infrastructure improvements;
          412. $150,000 to the Town of Uniontown, Washington 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          413. $500,000 to the Town of Ione, Washington for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          414. $150,000 to the City of Lakewood, Washington for 
        the American Lake Gardens Industrial Sewer Extension;
          415. $150,000 to the City of Sun Prairie, Wisconsin 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          416. $200,000 to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage 
        District for the Central Metropolitan Interceptor 
        System in Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
          417. $1,850,000 to the City of Antigo, Wisconsin for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          418. $862,000 to the City of Vesper, Wisconsin for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          419. $1,500,000 to the City of Boyd, Wisconsin for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          420. $100,000 to the Town of Scott, Wisconsin for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          421. $200,000 to the City of Racine, Wisconsin for 
        water infrastructure improvements;
          422. $500,000 to the City of Waukesha, Wisconsin for 
        systems planning and water infrastructure improvements;
          423. $200,000 to the Kanawha County Commission in 
        Kanawha County, West Virginia for the Upper Fishers 
        Branch/Guthrie Water Project;
          424. $200,000 to the Braxton County Development 
        Authority for the Curry Ridge Water Line Extension in 
        Curry Ridge, West Virginia;
          425. $1,000,000 to the Marshall County Public Service 
        District #4 in West Virginia for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements;
          426. $100,000 to the Jane Lew Public Service District 
        in Harrison County, West Virginia for water and 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          427. $1,500,000 to the Pleasants County Public 
        Service District in West Virginia for water and 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements;
          428. $480,000 to the Grant County Commission in West 
        Virginia to extend water service to the Deep Spring 
        area;
          429. $900,000 to the City of Shinnston in West 
        Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          430. $750,000 to the Town of Pine Grove in West 
        Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          431. $1,000,000 to City of Fairmont Sanitary Sewer 
        Board in West Virginia for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements;
          432. $2,374,000 to the City of Petersburg in West 
        Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          433. $101,000 to the River Road Public Service 
        District in West Virginia to extend water service on 
        National Church Hollow Road;
          434. $935,000 to the Taylor County Public Service 
        District in West Virginia for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements;
          435. $833,000 to the Taylor County Commission in West 
        Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          436. $1,000,000 to the City of Cameron in West 
        Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements;
          437. $55,000 to the Hammond Public Service District 
        in West Virginia for the Lazear's Lane water project;
          438. $1,840,000 to the Canaan Valley Institute to 
        work in conjunction with the Highlands Action Program 
        for the design of an innovative wastewater 
        demonstration program in Canaan Valley in Tucker 
        County, West Virginia;
          439. $350,000 to the City of Cheyenne, Wyoming for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
    As in past years, targeted grants shall be accompanied by a 
cost-share requirement whereby 45 percent of a project's cost 
is the responsibility of the community or entity receiving the 
grant. In those few cases where such cost-share requirement 
poses a particular financial burden on the recipient community 
or entity, the Committee supports the Agency's use of its long-
standing guidance for financial capability assessments to 
determine reductions or waivers from this match requirement. 
But for the limited instances in which an applicant meets the 
criteria for a waiver, the Committee has provided no more than 
55% of an individual project's cost, regardless of the amount 
appropriated below.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    The Committee has again this year included an 
administrative provision giving the Administrator specific 
authority to, in the absence of an acceptable tribal program, 
award cooperative agreements to federally recognized Indian 
Tribes or Intertribal consortia so as to properly carry out 
EPA's environmental programs.
    When Congress enacted the Pesticide Registration 
Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003 to allow EPA to collect new 
pesticide registration fees, it specifically prohibited the 
collection of any new Tolerance Fees by the EPA. However, the 
Administration proposed registration fees as part of its fiscal 
year 2005 budget in conflict with this newly passed statute. 
The Committee is concerned that EPA is needlessly spending time 
proposing fees and promulgating rules when other more 
productive pesticide work could be completed. The Committee 
expects the Agency to use its time and resources on useful 
programs.

                   Executive Office of the President


                OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................        $7,081,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................         6,986,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................         7,081,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........           +95,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............                 0


    The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was 
created by the National Science and Technology Policy, 
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP advises the 
President and other agencies within the Executive Office on 
science and technology policies and coordinates research and 
development programs for the Federal Government.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,081,000 for 
fiscal year 2005, an increase of $95,000 above the fiscal year 
2004 appropriation and the same level as the budget request.
    The Committee is disappointed that the efforts of the High 
End Computing Revitalization Task Force (HEC RTF), under the 
lead of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), did 
not translate into fiscal year 2005 funding requests for any 
non-defense agencies other than the Department of Energy. For 
FY 2006, the Committee expects OSTP to commit time and 
resources coordinating with participating agencies so they take 
into account the need for broad and coordinated participation 
in high-end computing and make their budget requests 
accordingly.

  COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................        $3,284,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................         3,219,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................         3,284,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........           +65,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established 
by Congress under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA). The Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ), which 
provides professional and administrative staff for the Council, 
was established in the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 
1970. The Council on Environmental Policy has statutory 
responsibility under NEPA for environmental oversight of all 
Federal agencies and is to lead interagency decision-making of 
all environmental matters.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has recommended the 
budget request of $3,284,000 for the CEQ and OEQ, an increase 
of $65,000 above last year's spending level.
    As in previous years, bill language is included which 
stipulates that, notwithstanding the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the CEQ can operate with one council member and 
that member shall be considered the chairman for purposes of 
conducting the business of the CEQ and OEQ.
    The Committee requests that the Chairman of the Council on 
Environmental Quality conduct a review of existing federal 
water reuse, recycling, and reclamation programs and report to 
Congress on the authorization level of such programs and 
appropriated funding for such programs. The CEQ Chairman should 
submit this report to Congress not later than March 31, 2005.
    The Committee directs CEQ, in coordination with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, to contract with the National 
Academy of Sciences within 60 days of enactment to conduct a 
study of the environmental, including landscape/viewshed, 
impacts of wind energy projects in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. 
This study is to conclude with appropriate viewshed and other 
criteria for the siting of wind turbines in the Mid-Atlantic 
Highlands.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation


       OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $30,125,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        30,125,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        30,125,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    Funding for the Office of the Inspector General at the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is provided pursuant to 
31 U.S.C. 1105(a)(25), which requires a separate appropriation 
account for appropriations for each Office of Inspector General 
of an establishment defined under section 11(2) of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978.
    The Committee recommendation, the same as the budget 
request, provides for the transfer of $30,125,000 from the Bank 
Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and the 
FSLIC Resolution Fund to finance the Office of Inspector 
General for fiscal year 2004.

                    General Services Administration 


                FEDERAL CITIZEN INFORMATION CENTER FUND




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $14,907,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        13,917,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        14,907,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          +990,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............                 0


    The Consumer Information Center (CIC) was established 
within the General Services Administration (GSA) by Executive 
Order on October 26, 1970, to help Federal departments and 
agencies promote and distribute consumer information collected 
as a byproduct of the Government's program activities.
    The Federal Information Center (FIC) program was 
established within the General Services Administration in 1966, 
and was formalized by Public Law 95-491 in 1980. The program's 
purpose is to provide the public with direct information about 
all aspects of Federal programs, regulations, and services. To 
accomplish this mission, contractual services are used to 
respond to public inquiries via a nationwide toll-free 
telephone call center.
    In 2000, the Consumer Information Center assumed 
responsibility for the operations of the FIC program with the 
resulting organization being officially named the Federal 
Consumer Information Center. The Federal Consumer Information 
Center combines the nationwide toll-free telephone assistance 
program and the database of the FIC with the CIC website and 
publications distribution programs.
    During fiscal year 2002, the Federal Consumer Information 
Center became part of GSA's newly established Office of Citizen 
Services and Communications and was renamed the Federal Citizen 
Information Center (FCIC). The new Office serves as a central 
federal gateway for citizens, businesses, other governments, 
and the media to obtain information and services from the 
government. FCIC assumed operational control of the 
FirstGov.gov website in fiscal year 2002.
    Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a 
revolving fund for the CIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities 
are financed from the following: annual appropriations from the 
general funds of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies for 
distribution of publications, user fees collected from the 
public, and any other income incident to FCIC activities. All 
are available as authorized in appropriation acts without 
regard to fiscal year limitations. The bill includes a 
limitation of $18,000,000 on the availability of the revolving 
fund. Any revenues accruing to this fund in excess of this 
amount shall remain in the fund and are not available for 
expenditure except as authorized in appropriation Acts.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends $14,907,000, 
an increase of $990,000 over the level for fiscal year 2004 and 
the same as the budget request.
    The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, 
user fees from the public, and other income.

    U.S. INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON THE HOMELESSNESS OPERATING EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................        $1,500,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................         1,491,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................         1,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........            +9,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for operating expenses 
of the Interagency Council on Homelessness.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration





Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................   $15,149,369,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................    15,378,032,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................    16,244,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........      -228,663,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............    -1,094,631,000


    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was 
created by the National Space Act of 1958. NASA conducts 
aeronautics research; research, development, and flight 
operations scientific spacecraft, and other activities designed 
to ensure and maintain U.S. preeminence in aeronautics, 
science, and space exploration.
    The Committee has recommended a total program level of 
$15,149,369,000 in fiscal year 2005, which is a decrease of 
$1,094,631,000 from the budget request and a decrease of 
$228,663,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
appropriation.
    The budget submission proposed the renaming of two existing 
appropriations paragraphs. The Committee has accepted the new 
title of Exploration Capabilities for activities that were, for 
the most part, included as Space Flight Capabilities in the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriations Act. The Committee has not 
changed the title of the Science, Aeronautics and Explorations 
account, where the proposed change was to simply reorder the 
three words. While the Committee is supportive of the 
exploration aspect of NASA's vision, the Committee does not 
believe it warrants top billing over science and aeronautics.
    For the second time in the last three years, NASA has 
failed to pass an independent financial audit. Among the 
material weaknesses identified by the most recent audit was a 
$1.743 billion discrepancy between NASA's fund balance and the 
U.S. Treasury's reported balance as of September 30, 2003. The 
Committee understands that NASA has reconciled and corrected 
$1.6 billion of the $1.743 billion in fiscal year 2003 audit 
differences and that NASA expects to reconcile the remaining 
$143 million by September 2004. The Committee requests that 
NASA submit a report to the Committee documenting the 
reconciliation and correction of the full amount by September 
30, 2004.
    The Committee notes that NASA was provided with limited 
Enhanced-Use Lease authority in the fiscal year 2003 
appropriations Act and has selected two locations for pilot 
programs as specified in the Act. The Committee directs NASA to 
provide a report to the Congress within 120 days on the results 
of the program with recommendations for expansion if warranted.

                  SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND EXPLORATION

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $7,621,169,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     7,830,200,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     7,760,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........      -209,031,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............      -138,831,000


    This appropriation provides for the research and 
development activities, and all associated costs of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. These activities 
include: space science, earth science, biological and physical 
research, aeronautics, and education programs.
    The Committee recommends $7,621,169,000 for Science, 
Aeronautics and Exploration in fiscal year 2005. The amount 
recommended is a decrease of $138,831,000 from the budget 
request, and a decrease of $209,031,000 from the fiscal year 
2004 level as estimated in this new account structure.

                             Space Science

    The Committee believes that the planetary exploration and 
space science programs at NASA are essential to the mission and 
success of the federal space program. Therefore, the Committee 
provides full funding for several important NASA missions. The 
Committee supports the continued robust program for the 
exploration of Mars at $691 million. In addition to supporting 
several critical, ongoing missions such as the Mars Exploration 
Rovers and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, this level will 
also fund major initiatives which will usher NASA into a new 
generation of discovery. In addition to Mars exploration, the 
Committee provides $155.1 million for the Space Interferometry 
Mission, which will determine the positions and distances of 
stars several hundred times more accurately than any previous 
program. Project Prometheus is supported at a reduced level, 
with a concentration on basic research into the development of 
space power systems and space nuclear propulsion systems.
    The Committee notes that the National Academy of Sciences 
has recently issued an interim report on the usefulness of the 
Hubble Space Telescope and has provided some observations on 
the options being considered for extending the life of the 
mission. The Committee encourages NASA to heed the advice of 
the Academy, including a further evaluation of the option of 
using the shuttle to perform a servicing mission. The Committee 
has taken no action at this time with regard to funding for the 
Hubble program, but will re-evaluate the programs needs as they 
become more defined.
    The amount provided reflects the following program and 
project adjustments within the space science enterprise.
    1. A decrease of $12,400,000 associated with a delay in the 
Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission;
    2. A decrease of $70,000,000 associated with a one year 
delay in the Lunar Exploration mission;
    3. A decrease of $15,000,000 from other Technology and 
Advanced Concepts;
    4. A decrease of $5,000,000 from other research within the 
Structure and Evolution of the Universe theme;
    5. A decrease of $5,000,000 from Living With a Star in the 
Sun-Earth Connection theme;
    6. An increase of $250,000 for the Detroit Science Center;
    7. An increase of $15,900,000 for the Institute for 
Scientific Research, Inc. for development and construction of 
research facilities;
    8. An increase of $2,100,000 for continued development of a 
lightweight carrier pallet to increase NASA's payload capacity 
for space shuttle servicing missions;
    9. An increase of $500,000 for the Sacramento Space Science 
Center at California State University;
    10. An increase of $2,000,000 for telescope construction at 
the Pisgah Astronomical Research Center;
    11. The Committee directs $3,000,000 from NASA Space 
Science be transferred to the Air Force Research Laboratory to 
begin development of miniature synthetic radar technology.

                             Earth Science

    The amount provided reflects the following program and 
project adjustments within the earth science enterprise.

    1. A decrease of $15,000,000 from the Orbit Carbon 
Observatory mission resulting in a delay in the program;

    2. A decrease of $20,000,000 from the CCRI(Glory) mission 
resulting in a delay in the program;

    3. An increase of $500,000 to the North Carolina Museum of 
Natural Sciences for NASA Earth Science integration planning;

    4. An increase of $500,000 for continuation of emerging 
research that applies remote sensing technologies to forest 
management practices at the State University of New York, 
College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry;

    5. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Advanced Interactive 
Discovery Environment engineering research program at Syracuse 
University;

    6. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Regional Application 
Center for the Northeast;

    7. An increase of $15,900,000 for the Institute for 
Scientific Research, Inc. for development and construction of 
research facilities;

    8. An increase of $1,500,000 for on-going activities of the 
Goddard Institute for Systems, Software, and Technology 
Research, including mission design tools, Earth Science 
analysis, and remote sensing instrumentation development;

    9. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Goddard Space Flight 
Center's Clustering and Advanced Visual Environments 
Initiative;

    10. An increase of $1,000,000 for the University of San 
Francisco Center for Science and the Environment;
    11. An increase of $500,000 for hyper spectral remote 
sensing research and development at the Desert Research 
Institute;
    12. An increase of $400,000 for Space Place;
    13. An increase of $4,500,000 for the implementation of a 
remote data storage capability at the NASA IV&V Facility. 
Appropriated funds are for augmenting available data storage 
capacities; expanding remote data storage capabilities to the 
Goddard Space Flight Center and a second DAAC; and 
communications, facility and integration services at the IV&V 
Facility to support data backup, recovery, and on-line access 
capabilities for the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) ECS 
program.

                    Biological and Physical Research

    The amount provided reflects the following program and 
project adjustments within the biological and physical sciences 
enterprise:
    1. A decrease of $103,000,000 from the bioastronautics 
research program, in the form of a general reduction based upon 
undefined requirements;
    2. An increase of $3,000,000 for space radiation research 
at the Loma Linda University Medical Center;
    3. An increase of $500,000 for the Northwestern University 
Institute for Proteomics and Nanobiotechnology;
    4. An increase of $400,000 for Musculoskeletal for 
Simulator for Injuries at the Cleveland Clinic;
    5. An increase of $1,250,000 for the Michigan Research 
Institute;
    6. An increase of $600,000 to the MCNC-Research and 
Development Institute (RDI) for continued funding for a 
Laboratory for Distributed Chemical and Biological Sensors;
    7. An increase of $500,000 for gravitational space biology 
research at North Carolina State University;
    8. An increase of $3,000,000 for the National Center of 
Excellence in Bioinfomatics in Buffalo, New York;
    9. An increase of $1,000,000 for Cryogenic Power 
Electronics Development at the State University of New York at 
Albany.
    10. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Central New York 
Biotechnology Research Center in Syracuse, New York;
    11. An increase of $900,000 for the State University of New 
York Downtown Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York for the 
Advanced Biotechnology Incubator project.

                              Aeronautics

    The Federal investments in aeronautics research and 
development have delivered countless economic and societal 
benefits to the nation over the years. Challenges in dealing 
with the projected growth in air traffic as well as the need to 
reduce significantly the adverse environmental impacts of 
future aircraft will require that NASA remain deeply engaged in 
aeronautics research and development. The Committee directs 
NASA to develop a prioritized set of aeronautics goals through 
2020, along with the annual funding requirements associated 
with achieving each goal. The plan should be provided to the 
Committee within 120 days. As part of NASA's investments in 
this area, the Committee directs NASA to provide $25,000,000 
for Intelligent Propulsion System Foundation Technologies 
(Propulsion 21) to continue research by the existing coalition 
of NASA, state government, industry, and academia.
    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    1. An increase of $350,000 for Validated Probabilistic 
Lifing Tools;
    2. An increase of $200,000 for the National Center for 
Communication Navigation, and Surveillance at Glenn Research 
Center;
    3. An increase of $350,000 for Aerospace Education Center 
in Cleveland, Ohio;
    4. An increase of $500,000 for the Michigan Small Aircraft 
Transportation System;
    5. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Virginia Institute for 
Performing Engineering and Research;
    6. An increase of $400,000 for COM Simulation Architecture;
    7. An increase of $700,000 to the Virtual Systems 
Laboratory of the National Aviation Technology Center, School 
of Aviation, Dowling College, New York;
    8. An increase of $1,700,000 for the University of Toledo 
Turbine Institute;
    9. An increase of $300,000 for the Bowling Green State 
University Hybrid Engine project;
    10. An increase of $600,000 to the Research Triangle 
Institute, International for Synthetic Vision Systems/Combined 
Vision Systems;
    11. An increase of $500,000 to the University of Alabama in 
Huntsville for a Space Flight Guidance, Navigation, and Control 
Test Bed;
    12. An increase of $3,000,000 for the National Center of 
Excellence in Infotonics in Rochester, New York;
    13. An increase of $2,100,000 for Research on Advanced 
Wireless Communications for Airport Applications;
    14. An increase of $2,700,000 to research Secure Automatic 
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) Surveillance data link 
technology for enhanced aviation security and general aviation 
airspace access;
    15. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Computing, 
Information and Communications Technology Program (CICT) for 
High Information Density Approaches to Mobile Broadband 
Internet Communications;
    16. An increase of $5,000,000 for Project SOCRATES;
    17. An increase of $1,000,000 for the National Aviation 
Technology Center at Dowling College, New York;
    18. An increase of $1,500,000 for Integrated Sensing 
Systems at the Rochester Institute of Technology;
    19. An increase of $500,000 for the development of an 
Aircraft Radio Guidance System (ARGUS) utilizing a new radio 
frequency interferometer that will provide two or three 
dimensional navigation guidance for airborne, space or surface 
vehicles;
    20. An increase of $1,000,000 for the development of a 
Research Flight Computing System in support of the NASA Dryden 
Flight Research Center's Altair/Predator B UAV Technology 
Demonstrator Project;
    21. An increase of $7,500,000 for the Hydrogen Research 
Initiative;
    22. An increase of $1,000,000 to the Applied Polymer 
Technology Extension Consortium for research on polymers;
    23. An increase of $3,000,000 to the Mobile Broadband 
Network project, a joint effort between NASA and the Air Force 
Research Laboratory;
    24. An increase of $3,000,000 to be transferred to the Air 
Force Research Laboratory to continue joint research between 
NASA and the Air Force on emerging areas of computing including 
grid computing, quantum and biomolecular information processing 
technology.

                           Education Programs

    The Committee has included $28,200,000 for the National 
Space Grant College and Fellowship program. This amount is an 
increase of $9,100,000 to the fiscal year 2005 budget request. 
The amount provided will fund 40 states at $575,000 each and 12 
states at $350,000 each as well as $1,000,000 for 
administrative expenses.
    The Committee has included $12,000,000 for the Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). The amount 
provided is $7,400,000 above the budget request of $4,600,000 
and will fund the fourth year of current five-year research 
grants.
    The amount provided reflects the following program and 
project adjustments within the education programs enterprise.
    1. An increase of $9,100,000 for the National Space Grant 
College and Fellowship program, for a total funding level of 
$28,200,000 in fiscal year 2005;
    2. An increase of $7,400,000 for the Experimental Program 
to Stimulate Competitive Research, for a total funding level of 
$12,000,000 in fiscal year 2005;
    3. An increase of $500,000 to the State of Alabama for the 
Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative;
    4. An increase of $250,000 for the Education Training 
Center at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center;
    5. An increase of $2,000,000 to the Educational Advancement 
Alliance, to support the Alliance's K-12 math, science, and 
technology education enrichment program;
    6. An increase of $400,000 for Albany State University/
Darton College in Albany, Georgia for the Science, Engineering, 
Math and Aerospace Academy program;
    7. An increase of $250,000 for South Georgia Technical 
College in Americus, Georgia for the Science, Engineering, Math 
and Aerospace Academy program;
    8. An increase of $250,000 for Albany State University in 
Albany, Georgia for project ``JumpStart'' for a Math, Science 
Education Enhancement program for pre-college students;
    9. An increase of $250,000 for the Georgia Project/ABAC 
College, Tifton, Georgia to implement a K-12 program for 
Hispanic students in science, engineering, math and aerospace 
in SW Georgia who struggle with English as a Second Language;
    10. An increase of $400,000 for the University System of 
Georgia-Board of Regents, Atlanta, Georgia for purchase and 
implementation of a pre-testing software for math and science 
educational and career-related standardized test.
    11. An increase of $100,000 for Georgia Southwestern 
College in Americus, Georgia for grants and scholarships in 
math and science for students implemented through the 
Multicultural Affairs Program;
    12. An increase of $4,000,000 for a new Science Center at 
St. Bonaventure's University in New York State;
    13. An increase of $2,000,000 for the JASON Foundation;
    14. An increase of $300,000 for the Challenger Learning 
Center in Cookeville, Tennessee;
    15. An increase of $3,500,000 for Little River Canyon Field 
School;
    16. An increase of $250,000 for Hollins University for 
upgrades to its science infrastructure;
    17. An increase of $250,000 for the University of New 
England Marine Science Center;
    18. An increase of $500,000 for the Liberty Science Center.

                        EXPLORATION CAPABILITIES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $7,496,800,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     7,520,700,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     8,456,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       -23,900,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............      -959,600,000


    This appropriation provides for the conduct and support of 
exploration capabilities including human and robotic 
technology, transportation systems, international space 
station, space shuttle programs, and flight support. Activities 
include research, development, support and services. Within 
this appropriation, two major subcategories of funding exist, 
exploration systems and space flight.
    Funding in the exploration systems category includes 
technology for new space transportations systems and robotics 
as well as technology transfer programs and activities. Funding 
in the space flight category is provided for continued 
development and operation of the International Space Station, 
operations and upgrades to the performance and safety of the 
space shuttle, and flight support operations.
    The Committee recommends a total of $7,496,800,000 for the 
exploration capabilities account in fiscal year 2005, an 
decrease of $959,600,000 from the budget request and a decrease 
of $23,900,000 to the fiscal year 2004 level as estimated in 
this new account structure.
    The reductions in this portion of the budget include 
$30,000,000 from technology maturation efforts, $230,000,000 
from Project Prometheus efforts related to the Jupiter Icy 
Moons Orbiter, $438,000,000 resulting from delaying the Crew 
Exploration Vehicle, and $100,000,000 from Space Launch 
Initiative by accelerating the termination of activities.
    The Committee finds the significant public support of the 
new Vision for Space Exploration to be noteworthy. The 
Committee is supportive of the new vision, and believes that it 
will serve to preserve our nation's leadership in space. The 
Committee support includes a commitment to the safe return to 
flight of the space shuttle fleet, the completion of the 
International Space Station as a unique scientific research 
facility, the implementation of a sustained and affordable 
robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond, and 
extending human exploration activities beyond low-earth orbit 
in a timely fashion. The Committee expects that NASA will take 
full advantage of the core capabilities and appropriate 
infrastructure of its field centers while implementing the 
vision. The Committee believes that a robust space exploration 
program will help strengthen our nation's economy, benefit our 
national security, and stimulate the education of future 
generations of scientists and engineers. At this time, the 
Committee does not have sufficient resources to meet the full 
budget request for NASA in fiscal year 2005. However, the 
Committee is hopeful that if additional resources are 
identified as the legislative process moves forward, it may be 
possible to augment NASA funding.
    The Committee directs NASA to provide a report to the 
Congress, within 120 days, which comprehensively lists the 
propulsion systems that would be required to implement Project 
Constellation. This report should include, but not be limited 
to, all elements of the Earth-to-Orbit propulsion systems, in-
space propulsion systems, and propulsion systems for landing/
ascent craft.
    With this appropriation, the Committee continues its 
support of the space shuttle program by fully funding the 
budget request. While the Vision for Space Exploration 
indicates that the shuttle fleet will retire in 2010, the 
Committee believes this reflects an optimistic assessment of 
when a replacement system could become operational and believes 
NASA needs to re-evaluate this date in the context of the 
current budget environment and the technical challenges 
associated both with return-to-flight activities and new system 
development needs. Recent information provided to the Committee 
indicates that additional time and money will be required to 
return the shuttle to safe operations. The Committee looks 
forward to learning more about NASA's needs for this program 
and will work with NASA to ensure necessary funding is provided 
in a timely manner.
    The Committee does not agree with the termination of the 
commercial programs within the Innovative Technology Transfer 
Partnerships (ITTP) program as proposed in the budget 
submission, and has therefore provided an increase of 
$30,000,000 to this appropriation for the express purpose of 
continuing the commercial programs, including the activities of 
associated NASA personnel, as they existed in fiscal year 2003 
and prior fiscal years. The Committee notes that the National 
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) has just completed the 
first phase of an analysis of the ITTP program, which 
highlights a number of weaknesses that reduce the program's 
effectiveness at spin-in and spin-out of technology. The 
Committee directs NASA to fully address the recommendations of 
phases I and II of the NAPA study in the context of future 
budget submissions. The Committee supports maintaining a 
vigorous ITTP program at NASA and strongly supports maintaining 
the spin-out of NASA technology to the commercial world as an 
integral part of the program.
    Within this enterprise, the International Space Station 
budget is reduced by $120,000,000, which represents an estimate 
of the underrun associated with this program due to continued 
delays in the shuttle return-to-flight. Additionally, the 
Committee recommends a reduction of $70,000,000 to the budget 
request for cargo/crew services, leaving $70,000,000 for this 
activity. The Committee notes that in the past NASA has not 
always used full and open competition for procurement of 
technical data and had proposed a sole-source contract for 
procurement of launch systems. The Committee finds this 
practice to be unacceptable given today's competitive 
environment and directs NASA to ensure that to the maximum 
extent feasible, competitive procurements should be the order 
of the day. While current regulations allow for a finding of 
other than full and open competition when in the ``best 
interest'' of the government, NASA should be aware that the 
Committee will be very interested in any sole-source contract 
awards and will take more aggressive action if necessary to 
ensure the integrity of competitive procurement.
    The Committee has concerns about the role of materials 
research onboard the International Space Station. NASA has 
developed a backlog of application-oriented materials research 
experiments that have undergone multiple peer-reviews. The 
Committee recognizes that materials research performed in the 
microgravity environment offered by this unique laboratory has 
the potential to play a significant role in developing the 
novel and improved materials, innovative devices, and enhanced 
manufacturing processes of the future. The Committee strongly 
urges NASA to give full consideration to the role of materials 
research in its ISS research program, and to seek independent 
external expert advice on how materials research performed in 
the environment onboard the ISS can support the Nation's Space 
Exploration Initiative.
    The amount provided reflects the following adjustments 
within the exploration systems enterprise:
    1. An increase of $400,000 for the Glennan Microsystems 
Commercialization Initiative;
    2. An increase of $300,000 for Garrett Morgan Commercial;
    3. An increase of $900,000 for Simulation based acquisition 
for manned space flight vehicle, design and testing, MSFC;
    4. An increase of $150,000 to the Technology Research & 
Development Authority of Central Florida for continuing 
investment in IT, and security technologies;
    5. An increase of $850,000 for the Florida Institute of 
Technology in Melbourne, Florida for its Hydrogen, Fuel Cell & 
Sensor Technology Initiative;
    6. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory for development of 
performance, safety, and mission success tools for NASA 
programs;
    7. An increase of $250,000 to the Alabama A&M University 
for Advanced Propulsion Materials Research;
    8. An increase of $500,000 for the Nano and Micro Devices 
Laboratory at the University of Alabama in Huntsville;
    9. An increase of $200,000 for Morehouse College in 
Atlanta, Georgia to support the technology center;
    10. An increase of $6,000,000 for the continuation of the 
Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program for business 
incubators in Florida and New York;
    11. An increase of $1,000,000 for the National Center of 
Excellence in Wireless and Information Technology Programs at 
Stony Brook University, New York;
    12. An increase of $1,000,000 for the National Center of 
Excellence in Small Scale Systems Packaging at the State 
University of New York at Binghamton;
    13. An increase of $2,500,000 for NASA's Independent 
Verification and Validation Facility, of which $800,000 is 
available for continuation of the Code Level Metrics Data 
Program; $400,000 is available for continuation of IV & V of 
Neural Nets; and $400,000 is available for Software Legacy 
Research.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $31,400,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        27,139,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        27,600,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........        +4,261,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............        +3,800,000


    The Office of the Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for audit and 
investigation of all agency programs.
    The Committee recommends $31,400,000 for the Office of the 
Inspector General (OIG) in fiscal year 2005, an increase of 
$4,261,000 to the amount provided in fiscal year 2004 and 
$3,800,000 more than the budget request for fiscal year 2005. 
The increase is for contracting for the annual audit of NASA's 
financial statements. Under current policy, the Office of 
Inspector General is responsible for providing oversight of the 
independent public accounting firm selected to perform the 
annual audit of NASA's financial statements, but funding for 
the audits is provided from other NASA appropriations. With 
this change, the OIG will have consolidated responsibility for 
technical oversight and fiscal management of the contract.

                       Administrative Provisions

    The bill includes three administrative provisions. The 
first provision allows for the availability of funds to remain 
until expended when any activity has been initiative for 
construction of facilities. The second provision makes all 
amounts appropriated for construction of facilities to remain 
available until September 30, 2007. The final provision allows 
unexpended balances of prior appropriations to be transferred 
to the new account established for the appropriations that 
provides such activity under this Act. The Committee 
recommendation does not include two administrative provisions 
proposed as part of the budget request. The first provision 
would give NASA unlimited transfer authority. The second 
provision would give NASA authority to award prizes and allow 
funding for such prizes to remain available without fiscal year 
limitation.

                  National Credit Union Administration


                       CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on
                                      Limitation on      administrative
                                       direct loans         expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation...   ($1,500,000,000)         ($310,000)
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation....   ($1,500,000,000)         ($310,000)
Fiscal year 2005 budget request...   ($1,500,000,000)         ($310,000)
Comparison with fiscal year 2004                  (0)                (0)
 appropriation....................
Comparison with fiscal year 2005                  (0)                (0)
 request..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act 
established the National Credit Union Administration Central 
Liquidity Facility (CLF) on October 1, 1979, as a mixed-
ownership government corporation within the National Credit 
Union Administration. It is managed by the National Credit 
Union Administration and is owned by its member credit unions. 
Loans may not be used to expand a loan portfolio, but are 
authorized to meet short-term requirements such as emergency 
outflows from managerial difficulties, seasonal credit, and 
protracted adjustment credit for long-term needs caused by 
disintermediation or regional economic decline.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,500,000,000 on 
CLF lending activity to member credit unions from borrowed 
funds. This limitation represents the same level as fiscal year 
2004 and the same as the budget request. The Committee expects 
to be kept apprised of CLF lending activity.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of not more 
than $310,000 for administrative expenses.

               COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................        $1,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................         1,193,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................         1,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          -193,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............                 0


    The Community Development Revolving Loan Fund Program 
(CDRLF) was established in 1979 to assist officially designated 
``low-income'' credit unions in providing basic financial 
services to low-income communities. Low-interest loans and 
deposits are made available to assist these credit unions. 
Loans or deposits are normally repaid in five years, although 
shorter repayment periods may be considered. Technical 
assistance grants are also available to low-income credit 
unions. Earnings generated from the CDRLF are available to fund 
technical assistance grants in addition to funds provided for 
specifically in appropriations acts. Grants are available for 
improving operations as well as addressing safety and soundness 
issues. The Committee's recommendation includes $200,000 for 
loans to community development credit unions and $800,000 for 
technical assistance.

                      National Science Foundation





Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................    $5,466,960,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................     5,577,845,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................     5,744,690,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........      -110,885,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............      -277,730,000


    Established in 1950, the National Science Foundation's 
primary purpose was to develop a national policy on science, 
and support and promote basic research and education in the 
sciences filling the void left after World War II. The 
Committee is committed to keeping the Foundation's current 
activities true to the founding purpose of supporting basic 
science.
    The Committee recommends a total of $5,466,960,000 for the 
Foundation for fiscal year 2005. This recommendation is a 
decrease of $110,885,000 from the fiscal year 2004 level and 
$277,730,000 below the budget request.
    Of the amounts approved the Foundation must limit transfers 
of funds between programs and activities to not more than 
$500,000 without prior approval of the Committee. Further, no 
changes may be made to any account or program element if it is 
construed to be policy or a change in policy. Any activity or 
program cited in this report shall be construed as the position 
of the Committee and should not be subject to reductions or 
reprogramming without prior approval of the Committee. Finally, 
it is the intent of the Committee that all carryover funds in 
the various appropriations accounts are subject to the normal 
reprogramming requirements outlined above.
    The Committee is disappointed that the Foundation failed to 
comply with the direction included in the fiscal year 2004 
conference report regarding submission of the congressional 
budget justifications. The Foundation is once again reminded 
that budget justifications are intended only for the Committees 
on Appropriations' use and therefore must be submitted in a 
format with the necessary level of detail required by the 
Committee so that funding requests may be adequately analyzed. 
As indicated last year, a strategic plan format is not useful 
to the Committee. While materials formatted by strategic goals 
may be submitted as supplementary information, the detailed 
budget justifications are not to be formatted by the strategic 
goals of ``People,'' ``Tools,'' and ``Ideas'' nor is such 
information to be used or integrated into the detailed budget 
justification materials. Instead, the NSF is to present the 
fiscal year 2006 budget justification submission in the 
traditional appropriations account structure with detailed 
information on the prior year, current year, and requested 
funding levels for each program, project or activity funded 
within each division and directorate in each account, and 
provide detailed information on all proposed changes being 
requested. The NSF is directed to submit to the Committee not 
later than October 15, 2004, a template for its fiscal year 
2006 budget justification document that complies with this 
direction.

                    RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation...................    1,2 $4,151,745,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation....................     1,2 4,251,368,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request...................     1,2 4,452,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation....       1,2 -99,623,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..........      1,2 -300,255,000


\1\ The recommendation reflects the transfer of $25,944,000 in
  administrative costs to the Salaries and Expenses account that were
  funded in fiscal year 2004 in the Research and Related Activities
  account. The budget did not propose this transfer.
\2\ The recommendation does not adopt the budget proposal to transfer
  $80,000,000 for the Math and Science Partnerships program to the
  Research and Related Activities account from the Education and Human
  Resources account.

    The appropriation for Research and Related Activities 
covers all programs in the Foundation except Education and 
Human Resources, Salaries and Expenses, Major Research 
Equipment and Facilities Construction, the National Science 
Board, and the Office of Inspector General. These are funded in 
other accounts in the bill.
    The Committee recommends a total of $4,151,745,000 for 
Research and Related Activities in fiscal year 2005. The 
recommendation reflects the transfer of $25,954,000 in 
administrative costs that were funded in this account in fiscal 
year 2004 to the Salaries and Expenses account. The budget did 
not propose this transfer. In addition, funding for the Math 
and Science Partnerships program is continued in the Education 
and Human Resources account instead of under this account as 
proposed in the budget. After accounting for these changes, the 
recommendation is $73,672,000 below the comparable fiscal year 
2004 level and $194,301,000 below the comparable budget 
request.
    Except as specifically noted herein, the recommendation 
does not include specific funding allocations for each 
directorate or for individual programs and activities. The 
Foundation is directed to submit a proposed spending plan to 
the Committee for its consideration within 30 days of enactment 
of this Act that addresses the Foundation's highest priority 
research requirements. In developing this plan, the Foundation 
is urged to be sensitive to maintaining the proper balance 
between the goal of stimulating interdisciplinary research and 
the need to maintain robust single-issue research in the core 
disciplines.
    Given the overall funding constraints, no funds are 
provided for the proposed Workforce for the 21st Century 
program, the proposed new class of Science and Technology 
Centers, or the proposed Innovation Fund.
    Within the amounts provided, the recommendation provides 
$350,000,000 for the Office of Polar Programs, as requested in 
the budget. Expenses for the Antarctic operation programs have 
substantially increased due to rising fuel costs, increased 
Coast Guard support costs, the weather, and extraordinary ice 
conditions in the bay. The Committee expects NSF to provide the 
necessary resources for operations, research support and 
logistics, and science and research grant support to fully fund 
the Antarctic operations.
    Within the amounts provided, $6,000,000 is for continued 
planning and design activities for the National Ecological 
Observatory Network (NEON). The National Research Council's 
(NRC) review of the NEON program, while endorsing a NEON-like 
concept, found that further refinement and more detailed 
implementation plans were necessary to maximum the benefit from 
this investment. NSF is expected to consider and incorporate 
the Council's recommendations as it continues planning and 
design activities, particularly the NRC's recommendation to 
strengthen partnerships and collaborations with other Federal 
agencies. The Committee believes such collaborations are 
critical to maximize the use of existing observatory networks 
in order to avoid redundancy of Federal research dollars and 
reduce the overall cost of the NEON project.
    From within the Engineering, Mathematical and Physical 
Sciences, and Computer and Information Science and Engineering 
Directorates and the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the 
Committee remains concerned that researchers are reaching the 
physical limits of current complementary metal oxide 
semiconductor process technology and that this will have 
significant implications for continued productivity growth in 
the information economy. The Committee commends NSF's 
examination of the International Technology Roadmap for 
Semiconductors and its initiation of the Silicon 
Nanoelectronics and Beyond program and encourages NSF to 
consider increasing research support, where feasible, through 
this program.
    The Committee directs NSF to issue guidance to all 
directorates, not later than December 15, 2004, that research 
support grant applications from all Smithsonian Institution 
scientists are fully eligible to compete for NSF funding and 
are to be given fair consideration in the merit review process.
    The Committee encourages the Foundation to continue to work 
to expand the participation of minority students attending 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and 
minority serving institutions in NSF research opportunities. 
The NSF is also encouraged to provide additional support for 
minority students and faculty by allowing Research Experiences 
for Undergraduates (REU) supplements for students to be added 
to existing research grant awards for faculty from small 
schools.

          MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $208,200,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       154,980,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       213,270,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........       +53,220,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............        -5,070,000


    This account provides funding for the construction of major 
research facilities that provide unique capabilities at the 
cutting edge of science and engineering.
    The Committee recommends a total of $208,200,000 for the 
major research construction and equipment account for fiscal 
year 2004, an increase of $53,220,000 over the fiscal 2003 
funding level and $5,070,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2005
               Project                  2005 request     recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atacama Large Millimeter Array             $49,670,000       $49,700,000
 (ALMA).............................
EarthScope..........................        47,350,000        47,300,000
IceCube Neutrino Detector                   33,400,000        51,200,000
 Observatory........................
National Ecological Observatory             12,000,000                 0
 Network (NEON).....................
Integrated Ocean Drilling Program           40,850,000        30,000,000
 (IODP).............................
Rare Symmetry Violating Processes           30,000,000        30,000,000
 (RSVP).............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends $51,200,000 for the IceCube 
Neutrino Detector Observatory, an increase of $9,450,000 above 
fiscal year 2004 level and $17,800,000 above the request. The 
Committee has accelerated the funding profile to enable certain 
economies to be achieved that will reduce the overall total 
project cost.
    The Committee does not recommend funding for the National 
Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) project within this 
account but instead has included funding for continued planning 
and design within the Research and Related Activities account. 
The recommendation is based on the NRC's recent review of the 
project that concluded that a refined focus and a more detailed 
implementation plan are required.

                     Education and Human Resources





Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................  \1\ $842,985,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................   \1\ 938,977,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................  \1\,\2\ 771,360,
                                                                     000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........   \1\ -95,992,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............  \1\,\2\ +71,625,
                                                                     000


\1\ The recommendation reflects the transfer of $5,500,000 in
  administrative costs to the Salaries and Expenses account that were
  funded in fiscal year 2004 in the Education and Human Resources
  account. The budget did not propose this transfer.
\2\ The recommendation continues funding for the Math and Science
  Partnerships program in this account as provided for in fiscal year
  2004. The budget requested $80,000,000 for this program in Related
  Activities account.

    The Foundation's Education and Human Resources activities 
are designed to encourage the entrance of talented students 
into science and technology careers, to improve the 
undergraduate science and engineering education environment, to 
assist in providing all pre-college students with a level of 
education in mathematics, science, and technology that reflects 
the needs of the nation and is the highest quality attained 
anywhere in the world, and to extend greater research 
opportunities to underrepresented segments of the scientific 
and engineering communities.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee proposes $842,985,000 
for this account. Funding for the Math and Science Partnerships 
program is continued in this account as provided for in fiscal 
year 2004 instead of within the Research and Related Activities 
account as proposed in the budget. The recommendation also 
reflects the transfer of $5,500,000 in administrative costs 
that were funded in this account in fiscal year 2004 to the 
Salaries and Expenses account. The budget did not propose this 
transfer. After accounting for these changes, the 
recommendation is $90,492,000 below the comparable fiscal year 
2004 level and $2,875,000 below the comparable budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
program levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2005
               Program                  2005 Request     recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Math and Science Partnerships.......       $80,000,000       $82,500,000
EPSCoR..............................        84,000,000        94,440,000
Elementary, Secondary and Informal         172,750,000       175,457,000
 Education..........................
Undergraduate Education.............       158,850,000       160,301,000
Graduate Education..................       173,880,000       155,950,000
Human Resource Development..........       107,940,000       115,343,000
Research, Evaluation and                    62,370,000        53,155,000
 Communication......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends $82,500,000 for the Math and 
Science Partnerships (MSP), a $2,500,000 increase over the 
request and $56,670,000 below the fiscal year 2004 level. This 
amount funds continuations of existing awards and evaluation 
and dissemination activities. The Committee notes that a 
$120,000,000 increase has been proposed in the budget and 
approved by the Committee in the Department of Education's K-12 
math and science education programs in fiscal year 2005. In 
addition, NSF will award approximately $91 million in new MSP 
grants in fiscal year 2004. The recommendation includes 
$2,500,000 above the request to be used by the Foundation to 
review mechanisms to better integrate and maximize the math and 
science education efforts of the Foundation and the Department 
of Education. Given the overall funding constraints and the 
substantial resources being devoted to math and science 
education, the Committee has deferred any new starts in this 
program pending completion of this review.
    The Committee recommends $94,440,000 for the Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program, an 
increase of $10,440,000 over the budget request and equal to 
the 2004 funding level.
    Within the amounts provided for the Elementary, Secondary 
and Informal Education activity, the Informal Science Education 
(ISE) program is funded at the fiscal year 2004 level of 
$62,130,000, an increase of $12,130,000 over the budget 
request. The Committee recognizes the value of engaging the 
general public in informal science and technology education at 
all ages. The demand for technical literacy in our nation 
increases daily. The Committee is concerned about the lack of 
geographic diversity in the institutions that participate in 
the ISE program and directs that the NSF provide a report to 
the Committee no later than 90 days of enactment of this Act on 
its plans to geographically broaden participation of 
institutions in the program.
    Within the amounts provided for the Undergraduate Education 
activity, the STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP) is funded at 
the fiscal year 2004 level of $24,850,000, $9,850,000 above the 
request; the Robert Noyce Scholarship program is restored to 
the 2004 level of $7,950,000, $3,950 above the request; and the 
Advanced Technological Education program (ATE) is funded at the 
fiscal year 2004 level of $45,230,000, $7,070,000 above the 
request. No funds have been provided for the Workforce for the 
21st Century program.
    Within the amounts provided for Human Resource Development 
activity, the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation 
(LSAMP) program is funded at the fiscal year 2004 level of 
$34,300,000; the Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
Undergraduate Program (HBCUUP) is restored to the 2004 level of 
$23,860,000, $3,880,000 above the request; the Alliances for 
Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) is funded at 
the fiscal year 2004 level of $14,910,000; the Centers for 
Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST) is 
restored to the 2004 level of $14,910,000; and the Model 
Institutions for Excellence (MIE) program is funded at the 2004 
level of $2,510,000.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................  \1\ $249,970,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................   \1\ 218,702,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................   \1\ 294,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........   \1\ +31,268,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............   \1\ -44,030,000


\1\ The recommendation reflects the transfer of $31,451,000 in
  administrative costs to the Salaries and Expenses account that were
  funded in fiscal year 2004 in the Research and Related Activities
  ($25,954,000) and Education and Human Resources ($5,500,000) accounts.
  The budget did not propose this transfer.

    The Salaries and Expenses activity provides for the 
operation, support and management, and direction of all 
Foundation programs and activities and includes necessary funds 
that develop, manage, and coordinate Foundation programs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $249,970,000 
for salaries and expenses. Despite the Committee's explicit 
direction included in the fiscal year 2004 conference report, 
the Foundation did not consolidate funding for all costs 
associated with NSF employees, including temporary employees 
within this account. Therefore, the Committee has consolidated 
funding for the compensation, travel, training, supplies, 
equipment, and printing into this account and reduced the 
Research and Related Activities and Education and Human 
Resources accounts accordingly. After accounting for this 
change, the recommendation is $186,000 below the comparable 
fiscal year 2004 level and $75,484,000 below the comparable 
budget request. The Committee directs NSF to include all costs 
associated with NSF employees, including temporary employees, 
in the Salaries and Expenses account in all future proposed 
operating plans, reprogrammings and budget submissions.

                         National Science Board





Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................        $3,950,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................         3,877,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................         3,950,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........           +73,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............                 0


    The National Science Board, established in 1950, 
establishes policies and assesses the quality, relevance and 
performance of the National Science Foundation's awards and 
capital investments. In addition, the Board provides advice to 
the President and the Congress on matters of science and 
engineering policy.
    The Committee recommends $3,950,000 for the operations of 
the National Science Board, an increase of $73,000 over last 
year's appropriated level and equal to the budget request. A 
representation allowance of $9,000 has been provided for the 
Board.
    Among the most fundamental and important characteristics of 
the NSF partnership with the extramural science community is 
that federal financial support flows through a core system of 
merit-based peer review administered by Foundation staff who 
have expertise in their scientific disciplines. This system is 
intended to ensure both that the highest quality projects are 
selected for funding and that the extramural community believes 
that funding decisions are fair. The Committee is strongly 
supportive of this system which it believes has served the 
Foundation and the nation well over its half century of 
existence. Notwithstanding this support, the Committee believes 
that a structured evaluation of the NSF system of merit review 
by the National Science Board is appropriate at regular 
intervals. The Committee requests that the Board conduct such a 
review during fiscal year 2005 and report its findings to the 
Committee as early in the year as possible. This review should 
include but not be limited to the quantitative methodologies 
used to distinguish relative quality among projects, the 
discretion permitted and exercised by Foundation staff in 
choosing peer review panels and in selecting specific projects 
for funding, the scientific, geographic and institutional 
composition of peer review panels, and the ability of the 
existing process to identify the most innovative proposals.

                      Office of Inspector General





Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $10,110,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................         9,941,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        10,110,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          +169,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request..............                 0


    This account provides National Science Foundation audit and 
investigation functions to identify and correct management and 
administrative deficiencies that could lead to fraud, waste, or 
abuse.
    For fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends $10,110,000 
for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $169,000 
above last year's funding level and equal to the request.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................      $115,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................       114,322,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................       115,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          +678,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, established by 
title VI of Public Law 95-557 in October 1978, is committed to 
promoting reinvestment in older neighborhoods by local 
financial institutions working cooperatively with the community 
and local government. This is primarily accomplished by 
assisting community-based partnerships (NeighborWorks 
organizations) in a range of local revitalization efforts. 
Increase in homeownership among lower-income families is a key 
revitalization tool. Neighborhood Housing Services of America 
(NHSA) supports lending activities of the NeighborWorks 
organizations through a national secondary market that 
leverages its capital with private sector investment.
    The Committee recommends a funding level of $115,000,000 
for fiscal year 2005, the same amount as the budget request and 
an increase of $678,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation.

                        Selective Service System


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................       $26,300,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................        26,153,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................        26,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........          +147,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The Selective Service System was established by the 
Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System 
is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces 
adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a 
time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have 
relied on volunteers to fill military manpower requirements, 
but selective service registration was reinstituted in July, 
1980.
    For fiscal year 2005, the bill includes the budget request 
of $26,300,000 for the Selective Service System, $147,000 above 
the fiscal year 2004 funding level.

      White House Commission on the National Moment Of Remembrance


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2005 recommendation.......................          $250,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation........................           249,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request.......................           250,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation........            +1,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 budget request.......                 0


    The White House Commission on the National Moment of 
Remembrance, established by Public Law 106-579, was created to 
(1) sustain the American spirit through acts of remembrance, 
not only on Memorial Day, but throughout the year; (2) 
institutionalize the National Moment of Remembrance; and (3) to 
enhance the commemoration and understanding of Memorial Day. 
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000, an 
increase of $1,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and 
the same as the level requested by the President.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends inclusion of 20 general 
provisions. With the exception of technical modifications, the 
first 19 provisions were carried in the fiscal year 2004 
Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-199). General provision 420 
provides for expansion of the NASA Enhanced Use Lease 
demonstration program.

              House of Representatives Report Requirements

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the rules of the House of Representatives.

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states: ``Each report of a committee on bill or 
joint resolution of a public character, shall include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 
resolution.''
    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America, which 
states: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * * ''
    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations.

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statements are made 
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill.
    The Committee has included language transferring not to 
exceed $20,703,000 from compensation and pensions to general 
operating expenses and medical services. These funds are for 
the administrative costs of implementing cost-savings proposals 
required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992. Language is also included 
permitting necessary sums to be transferred to the medical 
facilities revolving fund to augment funding of medical centers 
for nursing home care provided to pensioners as authorized by 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992.
    The Committee recommends transferring the following amounts 
to the VA's general operating expenses appropriation pursuant 
to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990: the veterans housing 
benefit program fund program account ($154,075,000), the 
vocational rehabilitation loans program account ($311,000) and 
the Native American veteran housing loan program account 
($571,000). In addition, the bill provides up to $750,000 in 
general operating expenses and medical services for 
administration of the guaranteed transitional housing loans for 
homeless veterans program account.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Veterans Affairs which would allow the transfer of up to 
$400,000,000 from the medical services account to construction, 
major projects for implementing CARES and up to $75,000,000 
from the medical services account to the general operating 
expenses account for disability claims processing.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Veterans Affairs which would transfer no less than $15,000,000 
for the DoD/VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund as authorized 
under section 721 of Public Law 107-317.
    The Committee recommends providing authority for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs for any funds appropriated in 
2005 for compensation and pensions, readjustment benefits, and 
veterans insurance and indemnities to be transferred between 
those three accounts. This will provide the Department of 
Veterans Affairs flexibility in administering its entitlement 
programs.
    The Committee has included language permitting the funds 
from three life insurance funds to be transferred to general 
operating expenses for the costs of administering such 
programs.
    The Committee recommends language permitting up to 
$32,377,000 to be transferred to general operating expenses 
from any funds appropriated in 2005 to reimburse the Office of 
Resolution Management and the Office of Employment 
Discrimination Complaint Adjudication for services provided.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Veterans Affairs which would transfer outstanding balances 
remaining from the veterans extended care revolving fund, 
special therapeutic and rehabilitation fund, nursing home 
revolving fund, veterans health services improvements fund and 
parking fund to the medical services account.
    The Committee has included language which would transfer 
certain funds from the medical care collections fund to the 
construction, major projects and construction, minor projects 
accounts.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Veterans Affairs which would transfer funds from the medical 
care collections fund to medical services.
    The Committee recommends providing authority for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to transfer amounts between the 
medical services, medical administration and medical facilities 
accounts to the extent necessary to implement the restructuring 
of these accounts subject to certain notification requirements.
    The Committee recommends language under the Department of 
Veterans Affairs which would allow the transfer of funds from 
the general operating expenses account to the veterans housing 
benefit program fund program account for certain purposes.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring all uncommitted 
prior balances of excess rental charges as of fiscal year 2004 
and all collections made during fiscal year 2005 to the 
flexible subsidy fund.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring the following 
amounts to the salaries and expenses account for administrative 
expenses: FHA mutual mortgage insurance and general and special 
risk insurance program accounts ($560,672,000); GNMA guarantees 
ofmortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account 
($10,695,000); community development loan guarantees program account 
($1,000,000); Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account 
($250,000); native Hawaiian housing loan guarantee fund ($35,000); and 
Native American housing block grants account ($150,000).
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring up to $13,000,000 
from the manufactured housing fees trust fund to the 
manufactured housing standards program.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring no less than the 
following amounts to the working capital fund under the 
salaries and expenses account for development and management of 
information technology systems: tenant-based rental assistance 
($2,940,000); project-based rental assistance ($1,960,000); 
public housing capital fund ($10,150,000); native American 
housing block grants ($2,600,000); community development fund 
($4,700,000); home investment partnership program account 
($2,000,000); homeless assistance grants account ($2,500,000); 
housing for the elderly account ($450,000); housing for persons 
with disabilities account ($450,000); FHA mutual mortgage 
insurance program account ($15,000,000); FHA general and 
special risk insurance program account ($9,600,000); and Office 
of Inspector General ($300,000).
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring $23,858,000 from the 
various funds of the Federal Housing Administration to the 
Office of Inspector General.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring $59,209,000 from the 
federal housing enterprise oversight fund to the office of 
federal housing enterprise oversight account.
    The Committee has included language under the Corporation 
for National and Community Service which would transfer not 
less than $144,000,000 to the Nation Service Trust for 
education awards.
    The Committee has included language under the Environmental 
Protection Agency transferring funds from the hazardous 
substance superfund trust fund to the Office of Inspector 
General in the amount of $13,00,000. In addition, $36,097,000 
is transferred from the hazardous substance superfund trust 
fund to the science and technology account.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation transferring up to $30,125,000 
from the Bank Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance 
Fund, and the FSLIC Resolution Fund to the Office of Inspector 
General.
    The Committee has included general transfer language under 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, science, 
aeronautics and exploration account and the exploration 
capabilities account. This language will allow for the transfer 
of funds between these two accounts, as necessary, to reflect 
full cost accounting recently scheduled for implementation.
    The Committee has included general transfer language under 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration allowing the 
transfer of unexpired prior year balances in the old accounts 
to the appropriate accounts in the new budget structure.

                  Rescissions Recommended in the Bill

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing 
    Certificate Fund.................................... -$1,557,000,000
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Drug 
    Elimination Grants for Low Income Housing...........      -5,000,000
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Native 
    American Housing Block Grants.......................     -21,000,000
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Indian 
    Housing Loan Guarantee Program Account..............     -33,000,000
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Rental 
    Housing Assistance..................................    -675,000,000
Department of Housing and Urban Development, General and 
    Special Risk Program Account........................     -30,000,000

          Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004


   DIVISION G--DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN 
     DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004


 AN ACT Making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs 
and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, 
  boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
           ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            Housing Programs

                        HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

  For capital advances, including amendments to capital advance 
contracts, for housing for the elderly, as authorized by 
section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as amended, and for 
project rental assistance for the elderly under section 
202(c)(2) of such Act, including amendments to contracts for 
such assistance and renewal of expiring contracts for such 
assistance for up to a 1-year term, and for supportive services 
associated with the housing, $778,320,000, plus recaptures and 
cancelled commitments, to remain available until September 30, 
2006, of which amount $30,000,000 shall be for service 
coordinators and the continuation of existing congregate 
service grants for residents of assisted housing projects, and 
of which amount up to $25,000,000 shall be for grants under 
section 202b of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q-2) for 
conversion of eligible projects under such section to assisted 
living or related use and for emergency capital repairs as 
determined by the Secretary: Provided, That of the amount made 
available under this heading, $20,000,000 shall be available to 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development only for making 
competitive grants to private nonprofit organizations and 
consumer cooperatives for covering costs of architectural and 
engineering work, site control, and other planning relating to 
the development of supportive housing for the elderly that is 
eligible for assistance under section 202 of the Housing Act of 
1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q): Provided further, That no less than 
$470,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund for 
the development of and modifications to information technology 
systems which serve programs or activities under ``Housing 
programs'' or ``Federal Housing Administration'': Provided 
further, That the Secretary may waive the provisions of section 
202 governing the terms and conditions of project rental 
assistance, except that the initial contract term for such 
assistance shall not exceed 5 years in duration[: Provided 
further, That all balances outstanding, as of September 30, 
2003, for capital advances, including amendments to capital 
advances, for housing for the elderly, as authorized by section 
202, for project rental assistance for housing for the elderly, 
as authorized under section 202(c)(2) of such Act, including 
amendments to contracts shall be transferred to and merged with 
the amounts for those purposes under this heading].

                 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

  For capital advance contracts, including amendments to 
capital advance contracts, for supportive housing for persons 
with disabilities, as authorized by section 811 of the 
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, for project 
rental assistance for supportive housing for persons with 
disabilities under section 811(d)(2) of such Act, including 
amendments to contracts for such assistance and renewal of 
expiring contracts for such assistance for up to a 1-year term, 
and for supportive services associated with the housing for 
persons with disabilities as authorized by section 811(b)(1) of 
such Act, and for tenant-based rental assistance contracts 
entered into pursuant to section 811 of such Act, $250,570,000, 
plus recaptures and cancelled commitments to remain available 
until September 30, 2006: Provided, That no less than $470,000 
shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the 
development of and modifications to information technology 
systems which serve programs or activities under ``Housing 
programs'' or ``Federal Housing Administration'': Provided 
further, That of the amount provided under this heading, other 
than amounts for renewal of expiring project-based or tenant-
based rental assistance contracts, the Secretary may designate 
up to 25 percent for tenant-based rental assistance, as 
authorized by section 811 of such Act, (which assistance is 5 
years in duration): Provided further, That the Secretary may 
waive the provisions of section 811 governing the terms and 
conditions of project rental assistance and tenant-based 
assistance, except that the initial contract term for such 
assistance shall not exceed 5 years in duration[: Provided 
further, That all balances outstanding, as of September 30, 
2003, for capital advances, including amendments to capital 
advances, for supportive housing for persons with disabilities, 
as authorized by section 811, for project rental assistance for 
supportive housing for persons with disabilities, as authorized 
under section 811(d)(2), including amendments to contracts for 
such assistance and renewal of expiring contracts for such 
assistance, and for supportive services associated with the 
housing for persons with disabilities as authorized by section 
811(b)(1), shall be transferred to and merged with the amounts 
for these purposes under this heading]: Provided further, That 
all section 811 balances outstanding, as of September 30, 2003 
shall be transferred to the appropriation under this heading: 
Provided further, That of the amount provided under this 
heading, $14,610,000 shall be for amendments to existing 
tenant-based assistance contracts entered into prior to fiscal 
year 2004 (only one amendment authorized for any such 
contract).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


       NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1958



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               FULL COST APPROPRIATIONS ACCOUNT STRUCTURE

  Sec. 313. (a) Appropriations for the Administration for 
fiscal year 2004 and thereafter shall be made in three 
accounts, ``[Space flight capabilities] Exploration 
capabilities'', ``Science, aeronautics and exploration'', and 
an account for amounts appropriated for the necessary expenses 
of the Office of Inspector General. Appropriations shall remain 
available for 2 fiscal years. Each account shall include the 
planned full costs of the Administration's related activities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           ENHANCED-USE LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY DEMONSTRATION

  Sec. 315. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the Administrator may enter into a lease 
under this section with any person or entity (including another 
department or agency of the Federal Government or an entity of 
a State or local government) with regard to any real property 
under the jurisdiction of the Administrator at no more than 
[two (2)] 4 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA) centers.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    The Committee submits the following statements in 
compliance with clause 3, rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, describing the effects of provisions proposed 
in the accompanying bill which may be considered, under certain 
circumstances, to change the application of existing law, 
either directly or indirectly.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing activities and programs where authorizations 
have not been enacted to date.
    In some cases, the Committee has recommended appropriations 
which are less than the maximum amounts authorized for the 
various programs funded in the bill. Whether these actions 
constitute a change in the application of existing law is 
subject to interpretation, but the Committee felt that this 
should be mentioned.
    The Committee has included limitations for official 
reception and representation expenses for selected agencies in 
the bill.
    Sections 401 through 419 of title IV of the bill, all of 
which, with some technical modifications, were carried in the 
fiscal year 2004 Appropriations Act, are general provisions 
which place limitations or restrictions on the use of funds in 
the bill and which might, under certain circumstances, be 
construed as changing the application of existing law.
    The bill includes, in certain instances, limitations on the 
obligation of funds for particular functions or programs. These 
limitations include restrictions on the obligation of funds for 
administrative expenses, the use of consultants, and 
programmatic areas within the overall jurisdiction of a 
particular agency.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, general operating expenses, providing for the 
reimbursement to the Department of Defense for the costs of 
overseas employee mail. This language has been carried 
previously and permits free mailing privileges for VA personnel 
stationed in the Philippines.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, construction, major projects, establishing time 
limitations and reporting requirements concerning the 
obligation of major construction funds, limiting the use of 
funds, and allowing the use of funds for program costs.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, construction, minor projects, providing that 
unobligated balances of previous appropriations may be used for 
any project with an estimated cost of less than $4,000,000, 
allowing the use of funds for program costs, and making funds 
available for damage caused by natural disasters.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions, permitting transfers 
between mandatory and discretionary accounts, limiting and 
providing for the use of certain funds, funding administrative 
expenses associated with VA life insurance programs from excess 
program revenues, extending authority to operate the Franchise 
Fund, allowing reimbursement from enhanced-use leases, allowing 
for reimbursement for certain services, requiring notification 
of new lease agreements, requiring disclosure of insurance and 
income information, designating funds for enterprise 
architecture activities, prohibiting funds for implementation 
of two sections of Public Law 107-287, allowing the Secretary 
to establish a priority system for medical services, allowing a 
recovery audit collection program, and allowing medical 
services funds for recreational and funeral expenses. Twenty 
provisions have been carried in previous Appropriations Acts. 
Two new provisions have been added.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions transferring balances in 
excess of a specified amount in the Medical Care Collections 
Fund to the medical services for priority 7 and 8 veterans 
account.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, which designates funds for various programs, 
activities, and purposes, and specifies the uses of such funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, tenant-based rental assistance, which specifies 
the allocation of funds and limits the use of certain funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, project-based rental assistance, which specifies 
the allocation of funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, public housing capital fund, which limits the 
delegation of certain waiver authorities and prohibits funds 
from being used for certain activities.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, public housing operating fund, which designates 
certain funds to be distributed by the Attorney General through 
a reimbursable agreement; prohibits funds from being used for 
certain activities; and prohibits funds from being used to pay 
for prior year operations.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, revitalization of severely distressed public 
housing (HOPE VI), which prohibits the use of funds for awards 
to settle litigation or pay judgments; and specifies the 
allocation of certain funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, housing opportunities for persons with AIDS which 
sets forth certain requirements for the allocation of funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, community development fund, which specifies the 
allocation of certain funds; limits the use of certain funds; 
and makes technical changes to the uses of certain funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, home investment partnerships program, which 
specifies the allocation of certain funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, homeless assistance grants, which establishes 
certain minimum funding and matching requirements; and requires 
grantees to integrate homeless programs with other social 
service providers.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, housing for the elderly, which specifies the 
allocation of certain funds; designates certain funds to be 
used only for certain grants; and allows the Secretary to waive 
certain provisions governing contract terms.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, housing for persons with disabilities, which 
specifies the allocation of certain funds; allows funds to be 
used to renew certain contracts; and allows the Secretary to 
waive certain provisions governing contract terms.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, flexible subsidy fund, which permits the use of 
excess rental charges.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, manufactured housing fees trust fund, which 
permits fees to be modified and permits temporary borrowing 
authority from the General Fund of the Treasury.
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, policy development and research, which 
specifies the use of certain funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, fair housing and equal opportunity, which places 
restrictions on the use of funds for lobbying activities.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, management and administration, which specifies the 
allocation of funds; sets forth certain authorities of, and 
requirements on, the office of the Chief Financial Officer.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, 
which permits temporary borrowing authority from the General 
Fund of the Treasury.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, administrative provisions, which maintains and 
reduces annual adjustment factors; prohibits funds to 
investigate or prosecute certain lawful activities; revises 
allocations for housing opportunities for persons with AIDS 
grant recipients; waives certain section 8 rental payment 
limits for a demonstration program; relates to the expenditures 
for certain corporations and agencies; relates to allocations 
of funds in excess of budget estimates; requires submission of 
a spending plan for certain activities; requires certain 
reporting requirements regarding departmental funds; requires 
maintenance of certain rental assistance contract; allowing the 
use of certain funds for maintenance and disposition of certain 
properties; sets forth requirements for submission of budget 
justifications; and sets for allocation of certain assistance.
    Language is included under Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board, salaries and expenses, which limits 
certain personnel employed by the Board and designates the 
Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency as the 
Inspector General for the board.
    Language is included under Department of the Treasury, 
Community Development Financial Institutions, community 
development financial institution program account, which sets 
aside funds for various purposes.
    Language is included under Corporation for National and 
Community Service, national and community service programs 
operating expenses, allowing funds to be used for education 
award-only grants under subtitle C and prohibiting funds for 
national service programs in other Federal agencies.
    Language is included under Corporation for National and 
Community Service, administrative provisions allowing certain 
loans to be considered a qualified student loan and allowing 
certain grantees to be eligible for grants targeted to 
individuals with disabilities.
    Language is included under the Court of Appeals for 
Veterans Claims, salaries and expenses, permitting the use of 
funds for a pro bono program.
    Language is included under Department of Health and Human 
Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 
toxic substances and environmental public health, limiting 
availability of funds for toxicological profiles.
    Language is included under Environmental Protection Agency, 
Environmental Programs and Management, which extends 
availability of funds of Public Law 108-199 to carry out 
paragraph (c)(12) of section 118 of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act, as amended, shall remain available until September 
30, 2007.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants, which permits Clean 
School Bus grants.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants, which specifies the 
allocation of certain funds, limits the use of certain funds, 
and makes technical changes to the uses of certain funds.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, administrative provisions, which permits the 
Administrator to award cooperative agreements to Indian Tribes 
or Intertribal consortia under certain circumstances, receive 
funds contributed by non-Federal sponsors to carry out projects 
under paragraph (c)(12) of section 118 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act.
    Language is included under the Council on Environmental 
Quality, which limits the size of the Council.
    Language is included under the General Services 
Administration, Federal Citizen Information Center, limiting 
certain fund and administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, administrative provision, extending the 
availability of construction of facility funds, permitting 
funds for contracts for various services in the next year, and 
transferring of prior year appropriations to the appropriate 
new appropriations accounts.
    Language is included under the National Credit Union 
Administration, central liquidity facility, limiting loans from 
borrowed funds and administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
research and related activities, providing for the use of 
receipts from other research facilities, and use of funds.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
agencies in the accompanying bill which contain appropriations 
that are not authorized by law:

                                                                 APPROPRIATION THIS BILL
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Appropriation in
                          Agency/program                               Last year of      Authorization level      last year of        Appropriation in
                                                                      authorization                               authorization           this bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TITLE II: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rental Assistance:
    Section 8 contract renewals and administrative expenses......                 1994           $8,446,173            $5,458,106           $19,895,980
    Section 441 contracts........................................                 1994              109,410               150,000                20,000
    Section 8 preservation, protection, and family unification...                 1994              759,259               541,000               163,000
    Contract Administrators......................................  ...................  ....................  ....................              101,900
    Public Housing Capital Fund..................................                 2003            3,000,000             2,712,255             2,580,000
    Public Housing Operating Fund................................                 2003            2,900,000             3,576,600             3,425,000
Native American Housing Block Grant..............................                 2001                 (\1\)              636,000               622,000
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS......................                 1994              156,300               156,000               282,000
Rural Housing and Economics Development..........................                  N/A  ....................  ....................               24,000
Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities.........................                  N/A  ....................  ....................               14,250
Community Development Fund:
    Community Development Block Grants...........................                 1994            4,168,000             4,380,000             4,304,900
    Housing Assistance Council...................................                  N/A  ....................  ....................                3,200
    Native American Indian Housing Council.......................                  N/A  ....................  ....................                2,400
    National Housing Development Corporation.....................                  N/A  ....................  ....................                4,800
    National Council on La Raza HOPE Fund........................                  N/A  ....................  ....................                4,800
    Self-Help Housing Opportunity Program........................                 2000                 (\1\)               20,000                26,000
    Capacity Building............................................                 1994               25,000                20,000                33,500
    2006 Special Olympics........................................                  N/A  ....................  ....................                2,000
    Economic Development Initiatives.............................                  N/A  ....................  ....................              136,500
    Neighborhood Initiatives.....................................                  N/A  ....................  ....................               21,735
    YouthBuild...................................................                 1994               41,680                28,000                62,000
Brownfields......................................................  ...................  ....................  ....................               24,000
HOME Investment Partnerships.....................................                 1994            2,173,612             1,275,000             1,920,100
Homeless Assistance Grants.......................................                 1994              465,774               599,000             1,206,000
Housing for the Elderly..........................................                 2003                 (\1\)              783,286               741,000
Housing for Persons with Disabilities............................                 2003                 (\1\)              250,515               238,000
FHA General and Special Risk Program Account:
    Limitation on guaranteed loans...............................                 1995                 (\1\)          (20,885,072)          (35,000,000)
    Limitation on direct loans...................................                 1995                 (\1\)             (220,000)              (50,000)
    Credit Subsidy...............................................                 1995                 (\1\)              188,395                10,000
    Administrative Expenses......................................                 1995  ....................              197,470                86,000
GNMA Mortgage-Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account:
    Limitation on guaranteed loans...............................                 1996         (110,000,000)         (110,000,000)         (200,000,000)
    Administrative Expenses......................................                 1996                 (\1\)                9,101                10,695
Policy Development and Research..................................                 1994               36,470                35,000                45,000
Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Initiatives Program........                 1994               26,000                20,481                19,500
Lead Hazards Reduction Program...................................                 1994              276,000               185,000               167,000
Salaries and Expenses............................................                 1994            1,029,496               916,963             1,116,575

                 TITLE III: INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund................                 1998              111,000                80,000                60,640
Consumer Product Safety Commission...............................                 1992               45,000                40,200                62,650
Environmental Protection Agency:
    Categorical Grants:
        Clean Air Act............................................              FY 1997                 (\1\)              167,230               225,000
        Radon Abatement Act......................................              FY 1991               10,000                 9,000                 8,000
        Clean Water Act (FWPCA)..................................              FY 1990  ....................  ....................              496,370
        Safe Drinking Water Act..................................              FY 2003              115,000   ....................              116,330
        Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA)..........................              FY 1988               70,000                71,391               104,300
        Toxic Substances Control Act.............................              FY 1983                1,500                 5,100                 5,047
        Pollution Prevention Act.................................              FY 1993                8,000                 6,800                 6,000
        Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act......              FY 1998                 (\1\)               38,585                62,000
        Clean Water SRF..........................................              FY 1992            1,800,000             1,948,500               850,000
        Drinking Water SRF.......................................              FY 2003            1,000,000               844,475               845,000
        Alaska Native Village....................................              FY 1979                2,000   ....................               20,000
        Hazardous Substance Superfund............................              FY 1994            5,100,000             1,480,853             1,258,000
        LUST Trust Fund..........................................              FY 1988               10,000                14,400                74,000
Federal Citizen Information Center Fund: Federal Information                   FY 1980                7,000                 4,492                14,907
 Center..........................................................
Interagency Council on Homelessness..............................              FY 1994                1,563                     0                 1,500
National Aeronautics and Space Administration....................              FY 2002           14,625,400            14,901,700            15,149,369
National Credit Union Administration, Loan Fund..................                 1979                    0                     0                 1,000
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation............................                 1994               30,714                32,000              115,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Such sums.

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93y09344) requires 
that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget 
authority contain a statement detailing how the authority 
compares with the reports submitted under section 302(b) of the 
Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution of 
then budget for the fiscal year. This information follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     302(b) allocation--                   This bill--
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Budget                            Budget
                                                 authority         Outlays         authority         Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...............................          $92,930          $92,930     \1\ $101,732         $101,319
Mandatory...................................           38,445           35,107           38,069          34,688
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
(Public Law 93y09344), as amended, the following information 
was provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

Outlays:                                                        Millions
    2005.....................................................\1\ $87,050
    2006......................................................    24,090
    2007......................................................     8,467
    2008......................................................     3,968
    2009......................................................     3,458
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
(Public Law 93y09344), as amended, the Congressional Budget 
office has provided the following estimate of new budget 
authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for 
financial assistance to state and local governments:

                                                                Millions
Budget Authority in bill......................................   $23,188
Fiscal year outlays resulting therefrom.......................     5,957

           Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

    During fiscal year 2005 for purposes of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), 
the following information provides the definition of the term 
``program, project, and activity'' for departments and agencies 
carried in the accompanying bill. The term ``program, project, 
and activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the 2005 Departments of Veterans Affairs 
and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act, the accompanying House and Senate reports, 
the conference report of the joint explanatory statement of the 
managers of the committee of conference.
    In applying any sequestration reductions, departments and 
agencies shall apply the percentage of reduction required for 
fiscal year 2005 pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 99-
177 to each program, project, activity, and subactivity 
contained in the budget justification documents submitted to 
the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in 
support of the fiscal year 2003 budget estimates, as amended, 
for such departments and agencies, as subsequently altered, 
modified, or changed by Congressional action identified by the 
aforementioned Act, resolutions and reports. Further, it is 
intended that in implementing any Presidential sequestration 
order, (1) no program, project, or activity should be 
eliminated, (2) no reordering of funds or priorities occur, and 
(3) no unfunded program execution, it is not intended that 
normal reprogramming between programs, projects, and activities 
be precluded after reductions required under the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act are implemented.

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:
                             ROLLCALL NO. 1

    Date: July 22, 2004.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2005.
    Motion by: Mr. Edwards.
    Description of motion: To provide funds for VA medical 
services offset by a reduction to tax cuts for certain income 
groups.

    Results: Rejected--yeas 28; nays 35.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay

Mr. Berry                             Mr. Aderholt     
Mr. Bishop                            Mr. Bonilla       
Mr. Boyd                              Mr. Crenshaw      
Mr. Clyburn                           Mr. Culberson    
Mr. Cramer                            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. Kirk  
Mr. Kennedy                           Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Kilpatrick                        Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Mollohan                          Mr. LaHood         
Mr. Moran                             Mr. Latham        
Mr. Murtha                            Mr. Lewis
Mr. Obey                              Mrs. Northup
Mr. Olver                             Mr. Peterson
Mr. Pastor                            Mr. Regula           
Mr. Price                             Mr. Rogers                   
Mr. Rothman                           Mr. Sherwood
Ms. Roybal-Allard                     Mr. Simpson        
Mr. Sabo                              Mr. Sweeney     
Mr. Serrano                           Mr. Taylor    
Mr. Visclosky                         Mr. Tiahrt            
                                      Mr. Vitter
                                      Mr. Walsh
                                      Mr. Wamp
                                      Dr. Weldon  
                                      Mr. Wicker      
                                      Mr. Wolf       
                                      Mr. Young    

 

      MINORITY VIEWS OF HON. DAVID OBEY AND HON. ALAN B. MOLLOHAN

    The bill reported by the Committee for the Departments of 
Veterans, Housing and Urban Development and Independent 
Agencies fails the American people in a broad range of critical 
program areas. It epitomizes the problems created by the 
Majority Budget Resolution that favors super-sized tax cuts for 
our most well-off citizens at the expense of assistance to 
American communities and needy individuals. Although the bill 
reflects a sincere effort by a thoughtful and fair Chairman, 
the Subcommittee allocation is simply adequate to fund the 
vital programs under its jurisdiction--from veterans to the 
scientific community to the protection of our environment and 
the provision of adequate housing for low-income people. The 
pain in this bill is broad and deep and its substantial cuts 
are going to cause real harm.
     Veterans programs are funded $1.3 billion below 
the levels recommended by the bipartisan leadership of the 
Veterans Affairs Committee.
     Funding for the section 8 housing voucher program 
is inadequate to maintain current program levels. This will 
mean fewer people can be housed and existing tenants may not 
have their leases renewed.
     Except for the section 8 program, most of the 
other programs in HUD have been cut by 4.3 percent.
     EPA is funded $613 million below last year and 
funding for repairing our nations clean water infrastructure is 
cut by $492 million. The bill cuts funding for wastewater 
construction by 40 percent.
     NASA is funded more than $1 billion below the 
level requested by the President and almost $300 million below 
last year. At this level of funding, NASA cannot move forward 
on the proposed new Moon-Mars initiative nor can most of the 
cuts made in the President's budget to important programs be 
restored.
     Finally, at a time when Congress has endorsed 
substantial increases in basic science funding at the National 
Science Foundation, this bill cuts funding by $277 million 
below the President's request and $110 million below the 
current year funding level.
Veterans
    Unlike other agencies in this bill, the VA actually 
received an increase of $1.2 billion for veterans health care 
above the President's request. The bipartisan leadership of the 
Veterans Affairs Committee as well as the veterans service 
organizations, however, have made it clear that a $2.5 billion 
increase over the President's budget--$1.3 billion more than 
the Committee-reported bill--is required to maintain existing 
service levels within the VA health care system.
    This health care network for needy veterans, the largest in 
the United States, is overburdened by a large retiree 
population, principally of WWII and Korean War veterans, as 
well as a growing burden of new veterans returning from Iraq 
and Afghanistan. In 1995, the VA treated 2.6 million veterans. 
In fiscal year 2004, the Department expects to treat 4.6 
million veterans. The overall medical care inflation rate for 
2003 was more than double the general inflation rate. Hospital 
care and related services requirements for veterans are growing 
at a rate of 7.3 percent annually. Facility improvements 
recommended by the VA's CARES Commission are expected to cost 
$1 billion per year for at least the next five to 10 years. 
Thousands of veterans are currently waiting for an appointment 
at a VA facility. Mental health services to current veterans 
and to those soldiers returning home today are inadequate. 
Medical and prosthetic research is cut by $20 million in this 
bill at a time when research could have a direct impact on post 
deployment quality of life for our veterans. The bill reported 
by the Committee fails to adequately address any of these 
needs.
Housing
    The Committee-reported bill includes an increase of $1.5 
billion for section 8 vouchers. Unfortunately, this amount is 
inadequate to maintain even current levels of housing 
assistance for this needy population. We believe that the HUD 
section 8 housing vouchers program is at least $100 million 
short. This funding level could reduce the number of families 
receiving assistance by between 5,000 and 10,000 families.
    The Committee-reported bill makes several changes to the 
section 8 program. Some of the changes made include directing 
HUD to strip Public Housing Authorities of all but one week of 
their one-month program reserves. More than a week of reserves 
is needed to maintain financial stability and uninterrupted 
services to low-income families. The bill also cuts the 
administrative fees that housing agencies use to staff and 
operate the voucher program by $48 million below last year's 
level, making it difficult to engage in important activities, 
such as attempting to reduce year-long waiting lists and 
promptly inspecting units.
    All other HUD programs, except section 8, are cut by more 
than four percent below the FY 2004 level. The Community 
Development Block Grant program (CDBG), public housing funds, 
homeless assistance grants, and the elderly and disabled 
programs all are reduced. Further, for the second year in a 
row, the HOPE VI program has been drastically reduced. In 
fiscal year 2003, HOPE VI was funded at $570 million. In fiscal 
year 2005, the proposed funding level for HOPE VI is a mere 
$143 million.
Corporation for National and Community Service
    The bill also provides $572 million for the Corporation on 
National and Community Service, a cut of $70 million below the 
President's request of $642 million. This cut means that the 
Corporation will fund 70,000 volunteers instead of 75,000 
volunteers in fiscal year 2005.
Environmental Protection
    The Committee recommendation reduces overall funding for 
the EPA by $613 million compared to last year. In practical 
terms, this means less money to help communities improve the 
quality of their air and the safety of their water and less 
money for cleaning up toxic wastes. It means less money to help 
the 474 so-called ``non attainment'' counties that EPA informed 
in April did not meet minimum public health standards under the 
Clean Air Act. It means the President's $259 million in 
increases for Superfund (+$124 million), brownfields clean-ups 
(+$40 million), school bus diesel engines upgrades (+$60 
million), and an expanded Great Lakes initiative (+$35 million) 
cannot be approved.
    The largest cut by far, however, is the $492 million 
reduction below last year in funding for the Clean Water Fund. 
In June, the EPA estimated the shortfall to upgrade the 
nation's aging water and sewer system over the next 20 years to 
be at least $388 billion for our local towns and cities.
    Given the remaining challenges to clean up our air and 
water and the enormous financial pressures on local 
communities, the overall eight percent reduction in funding for 
the EPA included in the Committee bill represents a serious 
retreat from our responsibilities.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

    NASA is funded at $1.1 billion below the level requested by 
the President and almost $300 million below last year. At this 
level of funding, NASA cannot move forward the Moon-Mars 
exploration program, nor can most of the cuts made in the 
President's budget to important existing programs be restored.
    Many of the projects cancelled or deferred in the 
Administration's budget request were ill-conceived. 
Notwithstanding bi-partisan agreement on the Committee on this 
evaluation, cuts to NASA approved in the bill include: the 
delay of the Lunar Exploration mission; a cut in funding to the 
Crew Exploration Vehicle of more than half the requested 
amount; delay on the Jupiter Icy Moons orbiter (JIMO) missions 
and Project Prometheus; delay of the Living with a Star 
mission; a cut to research in bioastronautics of more than one-
third below the President's request; a cut to the International 
Space Station of $190 million, and funding cuts to numerous 
other programs.
    We are pleased with the NASA Administrator's recent 
statement concerning the Hubble Space Telescope. As part of the 
President's fiscal year 2005 budget submission, NASA announced 
the termination of the Hubble telescope and the cancellation of 
its' fourth servicing mission. In August, NASA reversed that 
decision and the Administrator stated that a robotics servicing 
mission to the space telescope would, in fact, go forward. The 
Minority is disappointed, however, that the Administrator did 
not wait for the results of a study being conducted by the 
National Academy of Sciences on the best method of servicing 
Hubble as promised by the Administrator in a Senate hearing. A 
preliminary report has been released from the Academy urging 
NASA not to take actions that would preclude the possibility of 
a shuttle servicing mission; however, NASA has chosen to 
proceed without consideration of the NAS's preliminary 
suggestions.
    We support the Chairman's view that both this Committee and 
the Congress need more specific information on the President's 
Moon-Mars proposal to make informed and thoughtful funding 
decisions on critical programs. We hope that the Administration 
and NASA will continue to provide necessary information to 
Congress and to pursue a vigorous authorization process that is 
befitting such a substantial policy proposal.
    Finally, we fully agree with the Chairman's commitment to 
the safe return to flight of the space shuttle fleet and the 
completion of the International Space station. We believe that 
is important for the United States to meet our commitments to 
our international partners with regard to the space station. We 
are concerned, however, about the escalating costs of the 
repairs to the shuttle fleet. Recently, the NASA Administrator 
stated on the record that the cost of fixing all the problems 
with the fleet could be at least $2.2 billion. This cost is 
double the estimate provided to Congress one year ago and it is 
unclear that $2.2 billion is the final number. Given the fiscal 
austerity of this bill--including the $1.1 billion cut to 
NASA--it is difficult to imagine where funds could be found.

National Science Foundation

    At a time when Congress has endorsed substantial increases 
in basic science funding at the National Science Foundation, 
this bill cuts funding by $277 million below the President and 
$110 million below the current year. Science is a long-term 
investment in the future by both the scientists and the 
academic community. Promising young students and faculty make 
career choices and universities invest in buildings and 
equipment based on the potential of financial support of their 
research. They are willing to compete with their peers based on 
the quality of their ideas but they ask that the federal 
government be a predictable partner in terms of overall 
support.
    This Committee has tried in the past to be both a good 
partner and aggressive advocate for the National Science 
Foundation. Today, despite recent rhetoric in support of NSF 
funding and passage of a doubling authorization in 2002, the 
short-term message is stark for the community that depends on 
NSF support. This bill provides $194 million less for 
investigator-initiated research than the President requested. 
That means that approximately 1,400 research projects which 
otherwise would have been funded next year will be rejected. It 
means the six new Science and Technology Centers which are 
expected to be selected by the NSF later this year will go 
unfunded. And it means that the Committee does not have enough 
money to reject the budget proposal to phase out NSF's Math and 
Science Partnerships program.

Conclusion

    Given this wide range of concerns, the Minority believes 
the Committee-reported bill is simply inadequate. We believe 
that significant additional resources will need to be added to 
the bill to address the critical needs of our veterans, public 
housing recipients, housing, science and the environment. 
Without these added resources, the bill fails the American 
people.

                                   Dave Obey.
                                   Alan B. Mollohan.

                                  
