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